Just Accidental?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Deeje is female. Either you call both sexes by the male pronoun or you have proved you aren't paying complete attention to some things.

It's not for debate. I just think it is funny and I need some posts.

I don't actually care about the gender of my interlocutors. I'm male, most of the professionals I use in my life (my doctor, my dentist, my boss) are female. I like them because of their professionalism and intelligence, not their gender. Fifty years ago, I had a gay, male doctor, and guess what -- I like my current ladies better.

But not, I have not (until now) paid attention to the gender of Deeje (or you or anybody else, for that matter). It seems pretty unimportant to me if we're talking scientific, religious and philosophical ideas. I always assume that girls can be just as smart (or dumb) and right (or wrong) as boys.

 

[savagewind]

I don't actually care about the gender of my interlocutors. I'm male, most of the professionals I use in my life (my doctor, my dentist, my boss) are female. I like them because of their professionalism and intelligence, not their gender. Fifty years ago, I had a gay, male doctor, and guess what -- I like my current ladies better.

But not, I have not (until now) paid attention to the gender of Deeje (or you or anybody else, for that matter). It seems pretty unimportant to me if we're talking scientific, religious and philosophical ideas. I always assume that girls can be just as smart (or dumb) and right (or wrong) as boys.

I agree it is unimportant but that is a good post.

 

[ArtieE]

You provide no backup for anything you say and whilst accusing me of refusing to answer questions when I already have

1. Where in the Bible does it say that "kinds" can't evolve into different "kinds"? Where do you get that from? Where's your backup?

2. Suppose you as an ID believer were in charge of thousands of scientists and a lot of research laboratories and you were responsible for telling them what kind of research they are supposed to do. What would you tell them? I mean, suppose all the biologists who are evolutionists became ID believers overnight. How would that impact on the way they do their research?

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly, if you are going to try to argue science with somebody who knows as much about it as I know about the events prior to the Big Bang -- and is willing to pretend to omniscience about what he is actually totally ignorant of -- what kind of positive result can you expect? None, sadly.

I agree. I've never gone into these debates thinking that I was going to convince any creationist of anything. As Deeje made it abundantly clear, because of her religious beliefs, recognizing evolution as real just isn't an option for her. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

To be honest, my interest in these is two-fold. First, it rubs me the wrong way to see people who are almost completely ignorant of the biological sciences go into places like this and trash biologists and their work. So in a way, I'm kinda sticking up for my colleagues. But the main thing I get out of this is entertainment. For whatever reason, I find the delusional behaviors of creationists to be fascinating. I've never seen another group of people that collectively consistently are so delusional and dishonest. From a human behavior standpoint, it's just something to behold.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly This last post of yours is nothing more than the same conversation ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

So you're going to dodge another set of questions. Typical creationist.

You provide no backup for anything you say

Now this is just plain bizarre. Whether you agree with me or not, to claim that I've not provided any sort of backup at all is delusional to the nth degree.

whilst accusing me of refusing to answer questions when I already have,

And now you're simply not telling the truth. I find it fascinating that the person claiming to argue on the side of God and religion is also the one who consistently says things that just aren't true.

but there were some nice dodges in that one from you as well.

Of course you won't name a single one.

Nothing reproduces outside of its "kind". One "kind" never morphs into a different "kind". That is what nature teaches all of us and we can see it with our own eyes without the need for science degrees to "interpret" evidence for us. People devoid of spirituality don't get ID....we understand that.

All you're doing is repeating the same memorized talking points you've been regurgitating from the start. And you keep making claims about "kinds", yet you can't even say what a "kind" is. But in your delusion, you don't see that as a problem.

Such is the nature of creationism.

If you can't tell something designed from something that isn't ....

I guess this is your way of admitting that you have no method from differentiating "designed" things from "undesigned". All you have is "you can just tell". Very scientific!

How many of these accidents are beneficial?

How many of the accidents that occur in nature are beneficial?

As I noted earlier, we see beneficial mutations arise in populations all the time. We're actively fighting against that process right now.

Please provide examples of beneficial accidents of nature that produced changes from one "kind" to another.

Impossible since you refuse to say what a "kind" is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Emotional blackmail now.....

Seriously.....?

The "theological implications" pale into insignificance when compared to the "interpretation" of evidence given by evolutionists for the story told by the fossil record. This is circumstantial evidence run amok. All science has is "inference" interpreted to match their own expectations. Way short on facts I have to say.

The "evidence" can fit the model of ID just as well....if not better, since our own common sense tells us that what is designed requires a designer. Who can argue that a city requires a planner and designer? A simple cell has all the working components of a walled city and yet you claim it required no designer at all. If everything is made out of the same basic molecular material, then assembly and correct sequencing of the cells is required....again according to science no one directed this complex operation...it all just happened by chance.

Is Any Form of Life Really Simple? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Biomimetics copies the amazing designs in nature but denies that the originals required a designer. Its nonsense dressed up in scientific jargon so that no one will notice how flimsy the interpretation of the "evidence" really is. Brainwashing happens in science too you know.



The biology that I have read about is so amazingly complex that none of it could have arisen by chance random mutations. How many "mutations" in nature do you know of that are beneficial to any organism? How many beneficial mutations were required to produce all the known lifeforms on this planet? How far will your imagination stretch? Further than mine I think.
Your fantasy actually requires more faith than mine....IMO.


Appeal to emotion again....a sure sign that you are running out of argument.

What is truly sad is that some men of science come across as unreasonable people who cannot argue their case without

It's OK to disagree. That is what debate is for.



One set of data but not only one interpretation. We see that data in an entirely different way....the fossils are speaking our language, not yours.



Our science requires a Master Scientist who not only brought all life into existence on this planet, but made sure that it replicated itself without any direction further from him. Everything is perfectly programmed....again it is logical that if there are programs that drive organisms to replicate and to survive in many different environments, then they require someone to program those organisms to do what they do. How amazing are stem cells? Who tells these cells what to become? There is a Higher Power and science attempts to eliminate him from an equation that he himself formulated......isn't that a bit like leaving Darwin out of evolution?

Science and the Genesis Account — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY



Best guesses are not facts. If evolution was taught as a theory, instead of fact, no one would have grounds for complaint....but to eliminate creation from a school classroom as unscientific fantasy, and then replace it with something equally based on unscientific fantasy is ridiculous. Offer both and allow students to decide for themselves who has more solid evidence for the origin and proliferation of life on this planet. ID is not without scientific evidence to support it.



Scared?

You think I have I presented myself as someone who is scared of a shadow? That is all evolution is...it has no substance. It is a belief system, pure and simple with evidence that it has manufactured to convince itself.



Produce an example Jose.....one that does not contain inference or conjecture or suggestion. Let's see real evidence that does not require a scientific "interpretation" skewed by bias.



Dishonesty? Pot meet kettle.....

The trouble is, it isn't an intentional dishonesty on the part of scientists such as yourself, who are taught by men who are also embedded in the theory. Its more like what you accuse Bible believers of being......it's the power of suggestion to a willing crowd. It works both ways....and gradualism is always a good companion when trying to promote anything new. Suggest it often enough....make the argument convincing.... get credible people to endorse it and voila!...the masses accept it without question. Even intelligent people can be swept along by the speech and actions of other intelligent people. Its all about being convinced. You are convinced....but so am I.

I have answered the question....but my conclusions do not match yours. We see the same "evidence" but we do not interpret it in the same way as you do. If humans were created by an Intelligent Designer who was using the same DNA materials to construct all living things, then that would also explain what you interpret as evolution. Many four limbed creatures share a similar anatomical structure. It doesn't mean that they evolved. The evidence fits separate acts of creation, more than it fits the suggestions of evolution IMO. There are no transitional species in between those fossil specimens, separated by many millions of years. Evolution can't explain that, but creation can. There are no transitional species, because they never existed. Its really that simple.



I have answered your questions. You just can't accept the answers because they don't fit science's interpretation of the evidence.
That's fine. You are entitled to believe whatever you like.

And so am I.

It's a fact and a theory. That evolution occurs is a fact. The scientific theory of evolution is the explanation for that observed fact.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, it's just the facts. You directly stated that you could never acknowledge evolution as reality because of the theological consequences that would follow.


So are you now backpedaling? Are you saying that if the evidence for evolution really was there, you would abandon your religious faith?


What exactly is the "ID model"?


Given what you've stated about never being able to acknowledge evolution as real, coupled with your fundamental ignorance of the subject, your conclusion is hardly surprising.


Several. We're actively fighting against it every day.


I don't know, in the same way I don't know how many grains are required to produce Mt. Everest. But that doesn't mean I therefore conclude Mt. Everest is made of jello.


No, as before it's simple fact. You claimed that evolution includes the notion that at some point in time "the ape became a man". But when pressed to show where any source says that, you were unable to produce one.

Those are the facts.


Can you provide a potential discovery or experimental result that would falsify this "Master Scientist" and its role?


Does that include the malaria parasite? The ebola virus? The smallpox virus?


Again your fundamental ignorance of not just evolutionary biology, but of science in general is there for all to see.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It is a fact because we see populations evolve. The theory of evolution is the framework that describes how evolution occurs, as in the mechanisms that drive it and what pathways it has taken.

It's no different than gravity. It is a fact because we see its effects. The theory of gravity is the framework that describes how it occurs.

Just a hint.....if you want to avoid coming across as just another ignorant internet creationist, try and avoid the whole "it's just a theory" thing.


That's what I'm trying to do with you in this thread. But you are too scared to participate.


Yes, scared. That you absolutely refuse to describe what we would expect to see in the fossil record under human/primate common ancestry tells me you're afraid that once you commit to something, I'll provide an example.

I can tell you the sorts of things we would expect to find in the fossil record under creationism. I have no trouble doing that, even though I'm not a creationist. It's a fundamental aspect of science to be able to say "If X is true, then we should find A, B, and C", whether you believe in X or not. In fact, if you think X isn't true, then it's much easier.........unless you're too scared.


An example of what?


Now you're simply not telling the truth. Nowhere have you described what you think we should expect to find in the fossil record if humans shared a common ancestry with other primates.

This is where it gets interesting. You've now claimed that you did describe what you think we should expect to find in the fossil record if humans shared a common ancestry with other primates. I say you didn't. One of us isn't telling the truth.

Since yours is the positive claim, it falls on you to show where you described what you think we should expect to find in the fossil record if humans shared a common ancestry with other primates.


Again you're not telling the truth. Nowhere did you describe how you differentiate "designed" things from "undesigned".

And again we find ourselves in the same situation. You've claimed you did describe how you differentiate "designed" things from "undesigned". I say you didn't. One of us isn't telling the truth.

Since yours is the positive claim, it falls on you to show where you described how you differentiate "designed" things from "undesigned".

I've been asking the same thing for pages and pages now. I got a reply once that everything is designed and so no comparison can actually be made.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If someone is not convinced by evidence, then they won't be convinced by anything.
Some people apparently are not interested in discerning fact from fiction.

Yes, it's extremely unlikely that anyone can be reasoned OUT OF something they were never reasoned INTO.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, it's extremely unlikely that anyone can be reasoned OUT OF something they were never reasoned INTO.

Exactly.

 

[Jose Fly]

I've been asking the same thing for pages and pages now. I got a reply once that everything is designed and so no comparison can actually be made.

That still leads to the same basic question, i.e., by what method did they determine that everything is "designed"? And as we've seen, no creationist will answer.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You mean like kiwi wings?

Im surprised you didn't include the ostrich!

Are these wings of the kiwi providing function? Yes, they are.

This is really ignoring and side-stepping the issue of evolutionary transition, where the 'selfish gene' would gain information. These cases demonstrate it obviously didn't; it lost, as happens with mutations. But is it 'transitioning'?

Are there indications that these mutations are helping the kiwi to acquire an evolving body plan, diverging from the Aves class? Or even it's genus? No.

We do see lineages evolve and split.

Yes, in forming new species. Again, no evidence for Macroevolution.

We do see heritable modifications.

I'm evidence of one such. My mother had brown eyes, I have green. I'm still Homo sapiens.

 

[Deeje]

1. Where in the Bible does it say that "kinds" can't evolve into different "kinds"? Where do you get that from? Where's your backup?

How many times do I have to explain this.....is there a collective memory problem with the evolutionists on this thread?

I'm not doing it again. Go back and read the posts...there are several.

Genesis is my backup.......the one who taught the author of the creation account has a really good grasp of genetics, biology, botany, zoology, chemistry, electromagnetics, thermodynamics....or any other branch of science that you can name.

He is my teacher and he specializes in all branches of science because he invented science......who is your authority?

2. Suppose you as an ID believer were in charge of thousands of scientists and a lot of research laboratories and you were responsible for telling them what kind of research they are supposed to do. What would you tell them? I mean, suppose all the biologists who are evolutionists became ID believers overnight. How would that impact on the way they do their research?

What a wonderful thought!

They would simply eliminate slow organic evolution from their minds and apply the same principles to science that are proven....not the conjecture and supposition applied to their unprovable theory.

I see science and evolution as separate "branches" if you like, but not in the same league.....in much the same way as I would see denominations in Christendom......Christendom calls herself "Christian" and there are also many "branches" but what she teaches collectively, and how she acts, betrays a lack of obedience to the one she claims to follow. Scientists who teach evolution too, claim the high ground and spout off about a lot of so-called evidence, but when you really examine what they say about that evidence, and what they do with their science in this world.....you see a great distinction between what they claim, how beneficial science really is, and what they can actually prove to be true.

 

[Deeje]

It's a fact and a theory.

Who said so? How can something be a theory AND a fact? Oxymoron perhaps?

That evolution occurs is a fact.

Who said so? Adaptation is a "fact".....evolution is a "suggestion" about how far scientist believe adaptation can actually go.

The scientific theory of evolution is the explanation for that observed fact.

Evolutionary science is a suggestion about what "might have" taken place.....that is hardly a description of a proven fact.

 

[Deeje]

Yes, it's extremely unlikely that anyone can be reasoned OUT OF something they were never reasoned INTO.

Exactly.

You can't even see how funny that actually is......

 

[savagewind]

All you're doing is repeating the same memorized talking points you've been regurgitating from the start. And you keep making claims about "kinds", yet you can't even say what a "kind" is. But in your delusion, you don't see that as a problem.

I think she did define kinds. A kind is something that reproduces naturally within its group of similar life forms.

 

[Deeje]

To be honest, my interest in these is two-fold. First, it rubs me the wrong way to see people who are almost completely ignorant of the biological sciences go into places like this and trash biologists and their work. So in a way, I'm kinda sticking up for my colleagues. But the main thing I get out of this is entertainment. For whatever reason, I find the delusional behaviors of creationists to be fascinating. I've never seen another group of people that collectively consistently are so delusional and dishonest. From a human behavior standpoint, it's just something to behold.

Let me just re-quote your words as if they came from me......

To be honest, my interest in these is two-fold. First, it rubs me the wrong way to see people who are almost completely ignorant of Biblical creation go into places like this and trash IDers and their well founded beliefs. So in a way, I'm kinda sticking up for my fellow believers. But the main thing I get out of this is promoting the truth. For whatever reason, I find the delusional behaviors of evolutionists to be fascinating. I've never seen another group of people that collectively consistently are so delusional and dishonest. From a human behavior standpoint, it's just something to behold.
It certainly is......

 

[Deeje]

That still leads to the same basic question, i.e., by what method did they determine that everything is "designed"? And as we've seen, no creationist will answer.

Please feel free to read the following information and post whatever you see to be in error....

From Contents — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking

Contents

Question

1 How Did Life Begin? [page 4]

2 Is Any Form of Life Really Simple? [page 8]

3 Where Did the Instructions Come From? [page 13]

4 Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? [page 22]

5 Is It Reasonable to Believe the Bible? [page 30]

Bibliography [page 31]

 

[Jose Fly]

Are these wings of the kiwi providing function? Yes, they are.

Ah, moving the goalposts eh? Remember, this is what I responded to: "If that were so, we'd observe some populations displaying appendages that are transitional and underdeveloped, with stunted functions".

But now that you've been given an example of exactly what you described, suddenly the goalposts are moved to the appendages being non-functional. Interesting.

This is really ignoring and side-stepping the issue of evolutionary transition, where the 'selfish gene' would gain information. These cases demonstrate it obviously didn't; it lost, as happens with mutations. But is it 'transitioning'?

What do you mean by "information" and how are you measuring it (which allows you to make quantitative determinations).

Are there indications that these mutations are helping the kiwi to acquire an evolving body plan, diverging from the Aves class? Or even it's genus? No.

Wait.....you were expecting an extant species to evolve a new body plan and into a new taxonomic class within a few years?

Yes, in forming new species. Again, no evidence for Macroevolution.

Again, "microevolution" is evolution below the species level, e.g., the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. "Macroevolution" is evolution above that level, including the evolution of new species. Both of these are observed, documented reality.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think she did define kinds. A kind is something that reproduces naturally within its group of similar life forms.

No. I specifically asked her if we have two populations (A and B), and each population can interbreed and produce viable offspring on their own, but A and B are physically unable to interbreed with each other, would they be separate "kinds".

She said no, they wouldn't.

 

[Jose Fly]

Let me just re-quote your words as if they came from me......

To be honest, my interest in these is two-fold. First, it rubs me the wrong way to see people who are almost completely ignorant of Biblical creation go into places like this and trash IDers and their well founded beliefs. So in a way, I'm kinda sticking up for my fellow believers. But the main thing I get out of this is promoting the truth. For whatever reason, I find the delusional behaviors of evolutionists to be fascinating. I've never seen another group of people that collectively consistently are so delusional and dishonest. From a human behavior standpoint, it's just something to behold.
It certainly is......

Thank you for demonstrating my point for me.