Just Accidental?

[Hockeycowboy]

Why do the scientist from REAL areas of study all agree that evolution scientists use the exact same method they do and that evolution is a valid science?

"All"?!! They don't, not with Common Descent....there are quite a few scientists, including many biologists, who dissent.

 

[QuestioningMind]

"All"?!! They don't, not with Common Descent....there are quite a few scientists, including many biologists, who dissent.

You're correct. 99.9% is not ALL. I should have wrote VIRTUALLY all. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[metis]

I have as much "objective evidence" as you do metis. Science does not present objective evidence any more than ID'ers do.

Your belief system tells you there is no Creator and mine states that there is just one. We choose what we want to believe.

Absolutely false on both counts. Science simply does not work on the same basis as religious belief, which should be obvious, plus you have put forth something in my "mouth" that I have explained to you many times is not true, as I have over and over again explained to you that I do not know what caused this universe, whether it be a god, gods, or none of the above. It is truly pathetic that and utterly dishonest for you to misrepresent what I have told you on so many occasions.

And if there was any doubt where I was coming from, it has been on display for many months how in my signature statement at the bottom of my posts.

 

[metis]

I have explained my position several times......you are free to disagree with it. "Yohm" can be used for an unspecified period of time. The creative days could not have been 24 hours long.....the creative process was lengthy and the earth itself is old. The Bible does not disagree with that.....some Christians do themselves no favors by hanging onto false beliefs.



Metis, there is no declaration of a conclusion to the 7th day because it has not ended.

The apostle Paul wrote concerning the example of ancient Israel......(Hebrews 3:16-4:11)

"For who heard and yet provoked him to bitter anger? Was it not, in fact, all those who went out of Egypt under Moses? 17 Moreover, with whom did God become disgusted for 40 years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose dead bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did he swear that they would not enter into his rest? Was it not to those who acted disobediently? 19 So we see that they could not enter in because of lack of faith.
4 Therefore, since a promise of entering into his rest remains, let us be on guard for fear someone among you seems to fall short of it. 2 For we have also had the good news declared to us, just as they had; but the word that they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. 3 For we who have exercised faith do enter into the rest, just as he has said: “So I swore in my anger, ‘They will not enter into my rest,’” although his works were finished from the founding of the world. 4 For in one place he has said of the seventh day as follows: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,” 5 and here again he says: “They will not enter into my rest.”
6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter into it, and those to whom the good news was first declared did not enter in because of disobedience, 7 he again marks off a certain day by saying long afterward in David’s psalm, “Today”; just as it has been said above, “Today if you listen to his voice, do not harden your hearts.” 8 For if Joshua had led them into a place of rest, God would not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 So there remains a sabbath-rest for the people of God. 10 For the man who has entered into God’s rest has also rested from his own works, just as God did from his own.
11 Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest, so that no one may fall into the same pattern of disobedience."

We who are followers of Christ have the prospect of 'entering into God's rest'...a period that was assigned for free will to be tested and for humanity to prove their worthiness for everlasting life in the "new earth" to come. (2 Peter 3:13).

Illogical, and no serious Bible student would take your position because it is untenable. To make it "work", one either has to accept "yom" as meaning "day", which any Hebrew scholar will tell you that this is the only real translation of the word, or one has to go in the direction of the creation accounts being allegorical in nature. Your position is a lot like saying that someone is "partially pregnant". Your position doesn't work because of the words that are in context with the creation verses clearly point to a "day" interpretation because they logically cannot fit if put into an "era" or "epoch" context.

But what you keep on refusing to do is supply even one piece of objectively-derived evidence that God made all. You haven't done it, and you well know you can't do it, but you won't admit it. We can and have supplied ample evidence for evolution, which you incorrectly dismiss as "belief".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yep, the ducks designed themselves just to impress their women.

Take a close look at them and tell me that again.....



They do not assume that something is true unless they have actual proof, not just unverifiable assumption. There is no hard evidence for macro-evolution. There is evidence for adaptation but scientists who support macro-evolution want to take that beyond observable boundaries.That is fantasy, not fact....it is based on belief and faith in your teachers, not evidence-based science. You criticize us for that.



This con is eagerly believed by those who who have a problem with brainless religionists (as do I) who insist on the literal 7 day creation and who want religion to 'go take a hike and get real'.....the problem is, the scientists went past "real" themselves and on into a world of their own fantasy. They threw the baby out with the bathwater and went right down the path that eliminated any supernatural cause of life because they can't prove he exists. Just because religion got it wrong and misrepresented what the Bible says, doesn't make the Creator go away. It doesn't make all life on this planet "just accidental". And you guys appear to demand less "proof" than we do.

In case you haven't noticed, peer acceptance is extremely important in the world of academia. When anyone questions the validity of the theory of evolution, what is the first thing they experience? Ridicule and character assassination. Egos can only survive when a widely promoted belief is upheld by all of the sciences. The evidence for macro-evolution is flimsy to say the least, but tell people its true long enough and present concocted explanations and diagrams and 'voila'....it must be true. Such is the power of suggestion and who is suggesting it.



Gladly. One of my favorite evolutionary fairly tales is whale evolution......

Now look carefully at the creatures that science has chosen to imply that each of these is a step in the evolution of a whale.
According to them, about 48 million years ago we see an extinct whale cousin......who said?

Then we have the whale ancestor who is apparently older than his cousin by a few million years. Now it gets interesting....ambulocetus is also supposed to be about 48 million years old. But when you google images of these creatures, you begin to realize how much of them is fact and how much is produced by an artist's imagination. Some evolutionists have even distanced themselves from ambulocetus because of the placement of the eyes, more like an alligator than the placement of a whale's eyes.

Now rodhocetus was originally depicted with a fluke tail and flippers like a whale....but they never did find a fossil with a fluked tail and they now admit that the fluke and flippers were an assumption. The structure of its arms were not consistent with them ever being flippers.

One of my favorite evolution sites is The evolution of whales

Let me quote the opening sentence on the evolution of whales.....along with this graphic.....

"The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know."

The article goes on to point out one of the main reasons why Pakicetus is thought to be the ancestor of a whale.....

"These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."

So what is it that links pakicetus to a whale?......an ear bone that "strongly resembles those of living whales". That is supposed to be "critical evidence" for their claim?

I think that sets the tone for the entire evolutionary argument.

The truth be told.....evolutionary science is a con of mammoth proportions. It is not based on real evidence but on what scientists assume "might have" happened in the dim dark past when there was not a soul around to verify any of it. They have woven their own fairytale around the fossil evidence and led themselves down a path that makes them look very foolish to those of us who are believers in an Intelligent Designer.



You're welcome.......I hope it will expose this fraud for what it really is. You can be a genius and still be deluded. Its not about your intellect...its about what is in your heart and how much real evidence you need to convince you that something is true. It is nothing more than the power of suggestion. If you market anything the right way, the world will beat a path to your door.

Very well put.

I was one of those staunch believers in evolution, who had been shown so many artistic impressions 'based on' fossils, I always just assumed there was a vast array of compelling fossil evidence behind these somewhere, and the drawings were just to make it easier for me to 'understand'

I began to dig deeper originally to provide evidence to a skeptical friend of mine, who was a very well educated surgeon, and I could not believe he could be so ignorant of evolution. I was genuinely shocked to realize how scant, speculative and often outright contradictory the 'evidence' was at every turn. I could never find what I was looking for.

Another factor that allows a huge amount of wiggle room, even before creative dabbling, is the distortion of the bone shapes during fossilization- it can be used to account for all kinds of discrepancies, or ignored entirely if the shape is closer to the desired one.

 

[metis]

Why is it that some theists here refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence for the simple fact that life on Earth has evolved over billions of years, and yet they blindly believe in a deity or deities that we cannot find any objective evidence for whatsoever?

However, I'm not saying that such deities could not exist.

 

[savagewind]

Why is it that some theists here refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence for the simple fact that life on Earth has evolved over billions of years, and yet they blindly believe in a deity or deities that we cannot find any objective evidence for whatsoever?

However, I'm not saying that such deities could not exist.

YOU cannot find any objective evidence.

I find some every day. Belief in God is not an opinion on my part. I believe because I am observing the evidence. I understand that what I call evidence, you might call happenstance. That is ok, imo.

I admit that life is "evolving". I am experiencing my own mind evolving.

I think I can see other minds not able to evolve, which I think is aberrant and unfortunate.

I agree with @Deeje that there is very little real objective evidence which might prove
life has no design.

I don't agree with her that evolution is false. Evolution should be viewed as a tool, imo.
If it doesn't exist, it can not be worked.

 

[metis]

YOU cannot find any objective evidence.

I disagree with you because without objective evidence there is no science, and without any science we couldn't have produced much of anything that actually works. The fact that we can produce highly complex machinery and send people to the moon is proof that they must have relied and used objective evidence.

I agree with @Deeje that there is very little real objective evidence which might prove
life has no design.

I never said nor implied that life has no design, and please note that I am not an atheist*. @Deeje keeps trying to put me into the atheistic camp after I have repeatedly told here what my position has been that you can read at the bottom of this post.


* a belief that there is/are no god/gods-- I'm more of what is called a "skeptic"

 

[savagewind]

I disagree with you because without objective evidence there is no science, and without any science we couldn't have produced much of anything that actually works. The fact that we can produce highly complex machinery and send people to the moon is proof that they must have relied and used objective evidence.

Cute! LOL. I meant you can't find any objective evidence of God. I can.

 

[savagewind]

I never said nor implied that life has no design, and please note that I am not an atheist*. @Deeje keeps trying to put me into the atheistic camp after I have repeatedly told here what my position has been that you can read at the bottom of this post.


* a belief that there is/are no god/gods-- I'm more of what is called a "skeptic"

OK. I knew that. I forgot. You said she has no objective evidence of God. Didn't you? That is what I was talking about.

 

[savagewind]

@Deeje thinking is contradictory. She trusts what the Bible says about God resting on the seventh day and that we are still in the seventh day, but she believes that God is still designing animals.
How is designing animals not work?.

 

[metis]

I meant you can't find any objective evidence of God. I can.

I would be interested in seeing that-- truly.

 

[savagewind]

I would be interested in seeing that-- truly.

My dad used to say, "open your good eye!".
I realize there is life in the spirit. There is something present that I can't see, but it affects my reality.
I do not think it is God, but because it is present without a physical body I am able to conclude that there is something greater than it. Just like in this world I am nobody and there are many, many people who are greater than I am, the spirit world is the same imo. Keep on going up, up and up, and you will see God there. I believe I am able to see The Spirit. It is good.

 

[metis]

My dad used to say, "open your good eye!".
I realize there is life in the spirit. There is something present that I can't see, but it affects my reality.
I do not think it is God, but because it is present without a physical body I am able to conclude that there is something greater than it. Just like in this world I am nobody and there are many, many people who are greater than I am, the spirit world is the same imo. Keep on going up, up and up, and you will see God there. I believe I am able to see The Spirit. It is good.

Just because there may be a "Spirit" doesn't mean there's a God-- although there could be, imo. As weird as this might sound, I'm skeptical about there being a God pr Gods but less skeptical about there being a "Spirit".

However, I'm far from being able to define "Spirit", but there are things that I have experienced that indicate there's "something out there", if you know what I mean.

BTW, are you at all familiar with "I am That" or "We are That"? or Baruch Spinoza's theology? [Einstein said that he believed in "Spinoza's God"] If so, then you're pretty much on target from where I'm coming from, although still at least somewhat skeptically-- hey, I'm a scientist, so cut me some slack!

 

[savagewind]

Just because there may be a "Spirit" doesn't mean there's a God--

Except that the spirits had to have originated from something.

although there could be, imo.

I think my motto is, anything is possible!

As weird as this might sound, I'm skeptical about there being a God pr Gods but less skeptical about there being a "Spirit".

I understand. A God or gods. Correct?

However, I'm far from being able to define "Spirit", but there are things that I have experienced that indicate there's "something out there", if you know what I mean.

Yes, I do!

BTW, are you at all familiar with "I am That" or "We are That"? or Baruch Spinoza's theology? [Einstein said that he believed in "Spinoza's God"]

No, and the thing is that my mind is not so much in this world most of the time, so when I actually have time out of being busy, I forget what I thought I might do as in look up "Spinoza's God".

If so, then you're pretty much on target from where I'm coming from, although still at least somewhat skeptically-- hey, I'm a scientist, so cut me some slack!

OK! I always do.

 

[Deeje]

Absolutely false on both counts. Science simply does not work on the same basis as religious belief, which should be obvious, plus you have put forth something in my "mouth" that I have explained to you many times is not true, as I have over and over again explained to you that I do not know what caused this universe, whether it be a god, gods, or none of the above. It is truly pathetic that and utterly dishonest for you to misrepresent what I have told you on so many occasions.

Metis, it is a plain and simple fact for someone with a background in theology and science as you do, to know that you can't have your cake and eat it too. I don't believe that there are fences to sit on with this issue.
God requires faith and those who accept God as Creator on his terms without reservation, are at least heading down the right track. There are those who choose "theistic evolution" because it fuses the two opposing belief systems, but this is not supporting what the Bible says. We have to make a choice. Either the Creator is all that he says he is....or he isn't.

Illogical, and no serious Bible student would take your position because it is untenable.

Untenable to whom? Certainly not to Bible believers who can see that a "day" in the Bible doesn't have to be 24 hours long.
I personally find the macro-evolutionary scenario to be untenable. There is no real proof that it ever took place except in the fertile minds of those who want to interpret the evidence in favor of it.

To make it "work", one either has to accept "yom" as meaning "day", which any Hebrew scholar will tell you that this is the only real translation of the word, or one has to go in the direction of the creation accounts being allegorical in nature. Your position is a lot like saying that someone is "partially pregnant". Your position doesn't work because of the words that are in context with the creation verses clearly point to a "day" interpretation because they logically cannot fit if put into an "era" or "epoch" context.

I obviously disagree. Since Genesis 2:4 takes the whole history of creation and states that God made everything in one "day" it most certainly can mean a period of undetermined length.
Another instance is in Genesis 2:17 where God says that in the "day" that humans ate the forbidden fruit, they would die. It took them almost a thousand years to die, which ties in with the apostle Peter's words at 2 Peter 3:8 stating that a thousand years is like a "day" to God. No human has ever made it past one thousand years old. The oldest man recorded in the Bible was Methuselah, who died at 969 years of age.

Also at 2 Peter 3:18 he says....
"but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen."

Peter uses "hemera", which is the same word used in the Greek Septuagint OT in Genesis 1. How can one have a 24 hour "day of eternity"?

I believe that you are mistaken in your evaluation of this word.

But what you keep on refusing to do is supply even one piece of objectively-derived evidence that God made all. You haven't done it, and you well know you can't do it, but you won't admit it. We can and have supplied ample evidence for evolution, which you incorrectly dismiss as "belief".

Well, since you have accused me of putting words in your mouth, I will have to say the same to you. Never have I said we can scientifically prove God's existence to anyone. I have said all through this thread that we have no more proof for our Creator than science has for macro-evolution...which puts us on equal footing IMO. Neither 'camp' in this dispute has the upper hand as far as "belief" goes. You "believe" your teachers....we "believe" ours.

You have supplied "ample evidence" for "adaptation" which has never been disputed. What is missing from science's "evidence" is a single bit of proof that there ever was a slow progression of living things that morphed into all the species we see on earth, both past and present. All that science can do is imply that something "might have" or "could have" taken place....that is nowhere near being able to say that it "must have" been what happened, millions of years ago.

Why is it that some theists here refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence for the simple fact that life on Earth has evolved over billions of years, and yet they blindly believe in a deity or deities that we cannot find any objective evidence for whatsoever?

There is no "overwhelming evidence" metis....it is all manufactured in vivid imaginations. Species adapted for sure, but no change in their "kind" has ever been observed.

However, I'm not saying that such deities could not exist.

Perhaps you have never experienced God in your life personally......? because if you had, you could never make a statement like that. If you think back to the flood of Noah's day (regardless of whether you see it as allegory or fact) Jesus Christ used it to illustrate what was to take place again in the future. (Matthew 24:37-39) By the time men saw the actual evidence for what Noah had been telling them for decades, it was too late. Again we see people taking no notice of God's warning message. How many people survived the flood? Did they imagine for one moment that what Noah said was true?

At 2 Peter 2:5-6: the apostle says that God....."did not refrain from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a flood upon a world of ungodly people. 6 And by reducing the cities of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah to ashes, he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly people of things to come."

An 'ungodly' person isn't just a hopeless sinner.....he is one who denies the Creator and fails to acknowledge his sovereignty over his human creation. To my way of thinking, that leaves evolutionists on the wrong side of this issue. Would I be a good Christian if I failed to warn unbelievers about that? You guys don't have to believe me but I so wish you would. I have always found you to be an honest person and one who will defend what he believes without being derogatory. I admire your qualities as a person metis, even if I disagree with your reasoning.

I wish you peace.

 

[metis]

Except that the spirits had to have originated from something.

But if we use that paradigm, then God must also have originated from something.

OK! I always do.

Thank you.

 

[savagewind]

But if we use that paradigm, then God must also have originated from something.

But if we use that paradigm, then energy must also have originated from something. From what did energy come?

Thank you.

You're welcome.

 

[savagewind]

The spirits and humans have the strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity.

How?

 

[savagewind]

I'd like to know how God designed the modern life forms while "resting". Please @Deeje