Just Accidental?

[ArtieE]

Look at all the many ingredients! All that it takes for life to exist is present for life to exist. I call that a miracle. A miracle requires GOD.

Look at all the galaxies and stars and planets in the universe. It would be a miracle if not a single planet could by chance support life. It would prove that a god must have deliberately made sure that no planet could support life.

 

[savagewind]

Look at all the galaxies and stars and planets in the universe. It would be a miracle if not a single planet could by chance support life. It would prove that a god must have deliberately made sure that no planet could support life.

I understand what, "It would be a miracle if not a single planet could by chance support life" means.

What does this mean? "It would prove that a god must have deliberately made sure that no planet could support life."

We aren't debating "life". We are debating the many, many, many, many, many,............................................................................................................................ ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................species of life.

 

[Deeje]

So again: How can you possibly accuse abiogenesists and evolutionists of believing that a bunch of chemicals magically arranged themselves when you are the one believing in magic and the supernatural and not them?

Scientists do not know how life began....period. They have been trying for decades to reproduce what they believe were the conditions in which the elements that came together "somehow" caused that spark of life to ignite. What science doesn't realize is that no matter how much experimentation they do, only the Creator can make something live.
Science cannot even make a blade of grass.

It can transfer life, but it will never create it.

You have this funny notion that God and "magic" are somehow synonymous, but the Bible says that they are actually opposed.

The term "supernatural" simply means "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." So, just because science can't explain it, understand it, or duplicate it, doesn't mean that it must be dismissed.

The supernatural exists and there is much evidence for supernatural forces, but science denies them because they can't understand them. There is much that science does not understand, yet it assumes this superior position as if it knows everything about everything.

It can dismiss a Creator because it can't prove his existence, yet it can readily promote another view that it also cannot prove. Do you see how unintelligent and illogical that position is?

You believe in more miracles than I do if you think everything just somehow made itself. You are as indoctrinated as you believe we are.

Science explains what it wants others to believe, but it can furnish only suggestions as to what it thinks might have happened according to their own pre-supposition. When that is exposed, it makes science look a little silly.....like the banana and fruit fly suggestion. The T Rex and the chicken saga is not doing a great things for science either.
I believe that this theory will self destruct in due time...

It hasn't been around that long if you really think about it.

 

[McBell]

Scientists do not know how life began....period.

Neither do theists.

At least science is honest about it...

 

[Deeje]

Deeje (or whomever), where to you get your emoticons [or whatever they're called] from, and how do you get them to display here? I obviously access the ones available here at RF, but it appears that you're getting yours from some other source.

I have had quite a few people ask about the emoji's.

Here is the link...

http://www.pic4ever.com/images/budo.gif

There are 15 pages of them, but they are not grouped, so you have to write down the page number if you want to use your favorites.

There are two ways to use them. In the task bar up the top when you reply to a post, you will see the "image" icon next to the smiley icon.
When you have chosen your smiley, right click on the image and choose "copy image location", then when you want to insert your emoji just select the image icon from the task bar and it will prompt you to paste it in, then "insert" it and there you go....easy as that.

The other way is to right click on the emoji and then select "copy image" and simply "paste" it into your post.

I think they add so much more to a conversation that just boring old text. The smileys here are just not enough to express the wide range of emotions that arise in these topics IMO.

Have fun.....

There are hundreds of them! No emotion is left out......

 

[Deeje]

Neither do theists.

But we do Mestemia. If one has a personal relationship with the Creator, one is left in no doubt about his existence or his power.
It is also the logical conclusion to reach based on man's own experience. Nothing comes from nothing.
The great "Something" has told us how he did it, just not in the language of the scientists.
The Bible was not written for scientists....thankfully.

At least science is honest about it...

Oh, if only that were true....we wouldn't still be posting on this thread because there would be nothing to debate.

The dishonesty of science is what this thread is all about.

 

[Olinda]

Anyone can prove that gravity is true just by dropping something. You can't be serious.

Sorry, no. The verifiable fact that things fall could have many explanations. It is consistent with the Theory of Gravity, true. So it's evidence, but not proof. I thought you might not understand the difference.

Accept evolution if you like....what have you got to lose.....?

Nothing, and nothing to gain either. Rejecting or accepting a theory out of self interest is not science, but it is ridiculous.

How about common sense....will that do?

Can you honestly tell me that scientists designing a nuclear reactor or an atomic weapon have not tested the power of the atom? Can they demonstrate that atoms exist? I think they can. Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki proof enough? What about Fukushima?

No I can honestly tell you that such scientists are aware of the latent energy in the atom and how to release it.
Now can you - honestly - tell me just how that proves the structure of the atom is exactly as your publications describe? After all, many structures can hold latent energy.

That would be because those who support the ToE are manufacturing evidence by misinterpreting what their fossils and DNA are telling them. It has no real evidence. It has supposition.....you do know the difference?

Entirely wrong and completely unsupported, I'm afraid. Such evidence cannot be manufactured and withstand the peer review process.

Except in High School where kids are NOT told that evolution is just a theory and can never be proven....they leave school with the indoctrination that it is an established fact with tons of evidence to back it up. I have posted links to that effect, so stop the nonsense. The "facts" are all manufactured speculation.

That would be because the ToE is not 'just a theory' but a theory that has been comprehensively tested and never falsified. The actual nonsense is trying to paint the ToE as just one unsupported speculation among others.

Don't you just love experts? X = zero, and a "spurt" is a drip under pressure. If an "expert" has fallen for the base flaws of the ToE, then he is just as deluded as he assumes we are....

x = zero, eh? The version I know is "x is a has-been". Are you aware that one of your publications actually identified Francis Hitching as an expert - of course he is nothing of the sort. (or 'kind'? )

There are plenty of evolutionists who state quite categorically that God does not exist....experts and all.

If they are biological experts, they are not speaking in their field of expertise, and their opinions are worth no more than Pete the Plumber's. I've already indicated my dislike of Richard Dawkin's more aggressive tirades.

I never said true and false science...I said science fact verses science fiction. I think the term is pseudo-science. The definition of which is...."a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." This is what describes evolution to a tee.

You referred to 'true science' many times, and I'm happy to prefer the term pseudo-science to 'false science'. Evolutionary biology is science, pure and simple.

That is what macro-evolution is to us. There is no scientific method to determine relationships between ancient fossils apart from similarities in the DNA.

There is, and you have been provided the links. If you choose to believe popular writings and avoid research that's fine, but be aware that argument by ridicule and cartoons is no substitute for logic.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I had to stop reading this thread and begin another one from a different point of view. Unfortunately, the more time I spent reading this one, the more I was losing the battle to keep my brain cells from committing suicide out of sheer despair.

 

[Deeje]

See, this is the problem right here. First you say that your religious beliefs don't distort your views on science, but you immediately follow that up by saying that you view all science through the lens of your religious beliefs.

If you don't see the contradiction there.....well, to be honest that's rather delusional.

We do not separate the creation from the Creator, though I see that scientists have no difficulty in doing that.
The originator of the stuff you study should not be left out of this conversation....should he? Just because you dismiss him, doesn't necessarily eliminate him. I believe he will demonstrate his existence to you in due course.

You are free to ignore him, for now.

It matters a lot. For example, evolutionary relationships between taxa are the means by which we figure out genetic functions. Figuring out how life adapts is how we develop vaccines and antibiotics.

Oh yes, vaccines and antibiotics....don't get me started.

My personal views on this would fill pages.

What would change for you if you became an "evolutionist"? Do you think you'd be forced to become an atheist? Could you still be a JW?

No, as a believer, I could never compromise my views on this subject. Evolution is used to make God either disappear or to make him out to be a liar....neither of which can be true according to my very strongly held beliefs.

Of course you do. You've wrapped yourself up in an emotionally safe circular logic bubble.

What "bubble" are you wrapped in?

how do you determine what science knows and what is assumed, if you don't read their papers or even understand their terminology?

I don't have to know how to perform brain surgery to know what a surgeon is doing. He will explain the procedure and what he expects the outcome to be in language understood by the patient and their family. Will understanding his medical terminology help me to understand any more than I need to? Why should science be any different?

So again we come across the question.....why do you feel compelled to try and argue against the science of evolutionary biology, when your position is 100% based on religion? Why not just say that you reject evolution because it contradicts what you believe to be the word of God and leave it at that?

First of all...we don't see a separation between our beliefs about the Creator and what he accomplished. Can I stress that any more? Creation is the foundation of science.
And secondly, we do not see science's position to be backed up by anything more than what they imagine "might have" happened 500,000,000 years ago and continued to happen as they produce their fossil evidence and their DNA analysis, based on what they imagine "must have" taken place. Not a single thing is provable, yet they protest so loudly when you press them for the same proof they demand from us. Go figure.

So you can't cite a scientific paper that says "natural selection did it", even though you claimed scientists say that. I'm noticing a pattern with you....you're quite comfortable making claims and accusations against scientists, but as soon as someone asks you to substantiate them, you start shuffling around. Very telling.

No, but I can quote you lots of people who are educated in evolutionary science who say exactly that. Have they picked that up wrong?

Where do you suppose they got that idea?

The evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed and documented fact. Even most creationist organizations acknowledge that.

You are talking about adaptation......which science calls "micro-evolution"....that is not to be confused with "macro-evolution", where science uses micro-evolution to substantiate its position on how all life got to where it is today.....a position for which NO real evidence exists.

No, because creationists can't really say what a "kind" is.

Yes we can. Genesis said that all things would reproduce "according to their kind" so in nature we see what mates are chosen and we can see exactly what a "kind" is. Living things do not seek mates outside their "kind". When circumstances are produced that force animals to mate outside of their "kind" (such as when humans force interbreeding) we normally see hybrids produced within their "kind" and that is the end of that genetic line. Mules for example cannot produce other mules. Sterility is a genetic roadblock to taking an animal, bird, insect, fish or whatever, out of its "kind".

that populations evolve is an establish fact. We see it happen all the time, every single day. It's so trivially easy to see, it's a common lab experiment in introductory biology courses.

Adaptation is not the issue. The creatures will always remain within their "kind" no matter what circumstances forced them to adapt. If you artificially produce something that was never meant to be, it will inevitably be sterile. Science wants to push that envelope, but where will it take them? Anywhere good? We are thankful for the ethics that keeps science somewhat in check.

What subject is that?

Creation and the existence of a Creator who is more powerful than any force science can test.

Yep, like most creationists you embrace science and its conclusions....right up until they conflict with your religious beliefs. Then you reject them out of hand. Like you said, why do you even need to understand it?

I embrace what can be proven by scientific methods and which demonstrates the brilliance of the Creator in his design. What I reject is man's ideas when they take an excursion into fantasy and call it fact, eliminating the Creator and giving credit to creation for basically designing itself. You can do that if you like, but I will not.

Evolutionary theory has been the explanatory framework of the life sciences for over 100 years. Every scientific organization that's gone on record has unequivocally expressed their support of it. Every major university in the world teaches it. Every biotech firm utilizes it. It has led to entire new fields of research such as comparative genomics, which is how we figure out genetic functions.

"For over a 100 years"? Science is an infant....no, an embryo compared to the Creator.
The power of suggestion is a potent force in this world. The whole of the commercial world operates by this knowledge. Political rulers know that it works too. Science has placed itself on a pedestal and when it "suggests" something, people must believe or they will be ostracized.......how is that different from a religion? You just have substitute gods and and their 'holy' writings. All are required to fall at the feet of science.

Sorry, but I worship a real God with real abilities that have been proven to me with my own senses and logic. He has guided me all my life. I'm sorry that you have never been introduced.

Creationism OTOH has contributed nothing to our understanding of biology in at least 100 years. No scientific organization supports it. No major university teaches it or requires incoming students to be versed in it. No biotech firm uses it. Every scientific organization that's gone on record has unequivocally stated it to be religion, and not science.

To declare all that to be a "stalemate" is the height of delusion.

Its only "the height of delusion" if you accept a different delusion. People who are deluded do not know that they are, otherwise it would not be a delusion

So who of us is genuinely deluded, only time will tell.....so we shall let it shall we?

After all, you have nothing to lose compared to me. So am I suffering greatly because of my delusion? Is it costing me my health? my mental well-being? my family life? my ability to reason with people like you? I will let others be the judge of that.

I will just continue to expose what I believe evolutionary science really is....a monumental fraud, based on no real evidence and lots of suggestion. You can continue to protest but at the end of the day....

this is what is happening.

 

[Deeje]

I had to stop reading this thread and begin another one from a different point of view. Unfortunately, the more time I spent reading this one, the more I was losing the battle to keep my brain cells from committing suicide out of sheer despair.

So sorry.....

But really that is very encouraging.

Mission accomplished!!

 

[McBell]

But we do Mestemia. If one has a personal relationship with the Creator, one is left in no doubt about his existence or his power.
It is also the logical conclusion to reach based on man's own experience. Nothing comes from nothing.
The great "Something" has told us how he did it, just not in the language of the scientists.
The Bible was not written for scientists....thankfully.

You have a claim.
One you cannot support with anything other than wishful thinking and logical fallacies.

Oh, if only that were true....we wouldn't still be posting on this thread because there would be nothing to debate.

Science is always debating.
For unlike religion, science does not set things in stone.

The dishonesty of science is what this thread is all about.

No it isn't.
It is about you attacking strawmen.
Don't get me wrong.
You give them there strawmen of yours a thorough *** kicking.
But you have not presented anything that indicates science is dishonest.

 

[savagewind]

It has been more than two hundred years that people have wondered about the evolution of Earth's species. Has one living thing been born out of it's kind to prove to us who cause "sheer despair" by our skepticism that it is the truth?

 

[savagewind]

I am being reminded of another problem with visionless evolution. A new species might be born, but where is its mate?

 

[McBell]

It has been more than two hundred years that people have wondered about the evolution of Earth's species. Has one living thing been born out of it's kind to prove to us who cause "sheer despair" by our skepticism that it is the truth?

No, there hasn't.
However, the word "kind" is worthless outside religious beliefs.

 

[savagewind]

No, there hasn't.
However, the word "kind" is worthless outside religious beliefs.

OK. Fair enough. Has a new species been born yet? What are they waiting for?

 

[savagewind]

Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists OH, BROTHER!

 

[savagewind]

Scientists have documented three species of wasps turning into three new species _______, an unusual close-up view of rapid evolution in action.

Scientists Observe Wasps Evolving Into New Species

The species of wasps turn into three new species OF WHAT?

I think that is what @Deeje is talking about. Why did the writer leave out WASP?

 

[McBell]

OK. Fair enough. Has a new species been born yet? What are they waiting for?

Peppered Moth
Itallian Wall Lizards
Cane Toads
Nestor notabilis
Blue Moon Butterfly
Hoatzin

 

[Deeje]

You have a claim.
One you cannot support with anything other than wishful thinking and logical fallacies.

Yes I do have a claim...as substantiated as the one science promotes.
We do not have dibs on "wishful thinking" as science has its own fair share of that. And as for "logical fallacies", the fallasy part is a matter of opinion, but at least ours are "logical" as opposed to the completely illogical claims made for evolution.
Are you related to a banana or a fruit fly Mestemia? Is T Rex a cousin to a chicken?

Science is always debating.
For unlike religion, science does not set things in stone.

We have nothing cast in stone either, apart from the basic foundations of our belief in the Creator. We are always reevaluating and adjusting our views on things. Its what I like about being a JW. If we make a mistake, we correct it.

No it isn't.
It is about you attacking strawmen.

That is again, a matter of opinion. Sometimes the actual strawmen look like the real McCoy.

They need a brain and their companions need a heart! Some of us just want to go home because we are sick of living in a world where science has created so many problems that it cannot solve.

Don't get me wrong.
You give them there strawmen of yours a thorough *** kicking.
But you have not presented anything that indicates science is dishonest.

I don't think the dishonesty is intentional, but more to the fact that "suggestion" has power, and when it is widely accepted because of who suggests it, it gains momentum and you have a great body of supporters on board and a lot of ego stroking that makes men feel like gods. There is power, accolades and money motivating science and I believe that it has gone to their heads.

But that is just my opinion.

 

[savagewind]

The problem with believers is they get hung up on the word kind.

On the other hand, the people for evolution use the word species, which I think, has less meaning than kind.

What's the right word to identify a new life that exists different than any other life and can reproduce with similar lives?