Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

The problem: You seeing "style," "signature," "use of color" and "themes" in a bird is wholly subjective. It's an opinion, and yours isn't any more valid than mine or anyone else's. When i look at those birds, i don't see that any artist was involved. Do you really not acknowledge that people might see it differently to yourself? You literally seem to make fun of people who don't see your extremely hard-line way of thinking.

I understand completely that lots of people have many different opinions and views concerning what they see. One only has to hear eye witness testimony to see how many versions there can be of the same event. Its human nature to see things as we wish to see them a lot of the time.

I cannot look at those pictures and NOT see the signature of the Creator. If you don't see it, then perhaps you don't want to. Others will look at those amazing creatures and praise their designer.

But that is a subjective assessment. And only fools mistake subjective assessments for facts. Do i actually need to point out that you thinking that they're self-evident in itself is evidence only that they are self-evident to people with a similar mindset to yours?

If you say so.

In plain speech: When YOU look at those pictures, YOU feel a certain way about them. But OTHERS will feel differently. You are not acknowledging this at all, and holding your sense-perceptions not only as superior to everyone else, but also absolute. You mistake people not seeing whatever you see as blindness on their part.

I am just amazed that people cannot see what is so completely obvious to me....but then I only have to go back to the first century to understand why a majority can be blind to the truth.
You may accuse me of being indoctrinated...but I believe the label is equally wearable by those who have been persuaded to believe in macro-evolution. It can't be about the proof, because there is none.

You don't acknowledge other viewpoints as well as you expect others to acknowledge yours. I think it's dishonest, and the way you don't seem to understand it almost makes it seem like you're trolling.

Defending a position is not trolling. I want people to see what little actual evidence there is for macro-evolution. You don't seem to want to acknowledge the point of view of ID supporters as valid. I assure you and the readers here, that it is equally as valid as your own beliefs. I have as much "real evidence" as you do.

I feel this is an exercise in futility.

It is only futile if we are trying to win one another over.....its the readers here who will benefit from the interchange. Inquiring minds are making decisions about this issue. We are helping them.

You expect compelling evidence to discount your subjective assessment of internet pictures. Yet you don't demand the same standard from yourself. That i also find extremely dishonest.

Oh, the 'dishonesty' card....is that issued along with the 'liar' card as well? Most of what evolutionist present in connection with creation or ID, of necessity includes personal comments about believers' intellect or honesty....never mind that they are presenting assumption as fact for a theory that has no direct evidence. Now that is what I call dishonest.

I have a belief and so do you...I don't pretend that I can prove the existence of God scientifically.....but you have as much solid evidence for your belief as I do for my belief in a Creator, and yet I am not being honest by declaring it?

No true believer would show that kind of dishonesty on purpose unless your entire purpose was to bring suffering to mankind.

The emotional appeal again...seriously, what is it with this tactic. Stick to the facts...or don't you have any?

Do you know what is causing much of mankind's "suffering" today.....the misuse of science and religions using violence as an excuse to spread their agenda...both of which I oppose. I don't think you have any idea of the scope of responsibility that men of science must accept, along with tyranical religion, for the sad state of this planet. You will freely accept religion's role, but perhaps question the role of science in the big picture.

 

[Deeje]

No, amoebas didn't evolve into dinosaurs. The term 'amoeba' isn't a biological classification; it is a description of the ability to form pseudopods. So, some amoebas are fungal. Dinosaurs are not descended from fungi.

But, it is quite certain that dinosaurs *did* evolve, ultimately and over about a billion years, from single celled ancestors. But the process wasn't overnight and happened over many, many generations.

Welcome newbie.....I think you might be a little late on this thread.

Can you prove with solid evidence, devoid of supposition or mere belief, that what you just said is true?

 

[Deeje]

Of course you haven't....you can't. You're not allowed to find anything from evolutionary biology to be convincing, because if you did you would become an "evolutionist", which means you couldn't be a JW, which means you would be shunned by all your JW friends and family.

And then you're so lacking in self-awareness, you accuse about others being biased and cite their bias as sufficient reason to dismiss the material they post. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that, you probably should stop and think on it some more.

You are confusing "can't" with "won't". I have investigated your claims very thoroughly and found them wanting, to say the least. I see things glossed over as a "given" in evolutionary science without any proof that what is assumed is even true.
I don't have the same blinkers on that you do. Bias makes people blind.....even scientists.

Yes they do, but you as you note above you are not allowed to recognize any of it as valid. That's why showing you more data and trying to explain the basics to you is a waste of time. You're not the slightest bit open to even the possibility that evolutionary theory might be accurate. Why? Because that's what JW doctrine demands.

As long as you're a JW, you literally have no choice.

This is your defense? I am not "allowed" to recognize something with very flimsy evidence as truth? I was "open" to all possibilities in my youth when I was searching for the truth myself. I explored the theory devoid of any attachment to religion....it was a load of garbage then...its still an unprovable theory to this day. Science gave fossils their voice....they can't speak on their own. Similarity does not equal relationship.

Contrary to popular belief...I do have a brain and I can evaluate for myself what rings true for me.
Just because you don't want to believe in the Creator, doesn't make him go away, nor does it negate his creation as a product of intelligent design. You can think whatever you like.

You are free to believe whatever you like.....but science is not on a pedestal for me.....it fell off a long time ago. I appreciate what good it has done, but I am not blind to the harm it has caused in the world either.

 

[Polymath257]

Welcome newbie.....I think you might be a little late on this thread.

Can you prove with solid evidence, devoid of supposition or mere belief, that what you just said is true?

How much detail do you need? it's easy enough to trace most dinosaurs to the early reptiles, back through the amphibians, teleost fish, to basic vertebrates. Comparative anatomy establishes back to animals like Volvox which are an easy step back to single cells.

If you require a generation by generation proof, then you are simply being silly. But if you allow for comparative anatomy, it isn't so difficult.

 

[Sapiens]

How much detail do you need? it's easy enough to trace most dinosaurs to the early reptiles, back through the amphibians, teleost fish, to basic vertebrates. Comparative anatomy establishes back to animals like Volvox which are an easy step back to single cells.

If you require a generation by generation proof, then you are simply being silly. But if you allow for comparative anatomy, it isn't so difficult.

Welcome. Generation by generation proof with birth certificates that feature embossed seals is what they want. It's known as "God of the Gaps."

 

[Deeje]

How much detail do you need? it's easy enough to trace most dinosaurs to the early reptiles, back through the amphibians, teleost fish, to basic vertebrates. Comparative anatomy establishes back to animals like Volvox which are an easy step back to single cells.

And you do realize that there is not a shred of solid evidence that comparative anatomy has anything to do with proving macro-evolution.....? I assume not.

Go through this very long thread and see that all this has been covered ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

If you require a generation by generation proof, then you are simply being silly. But if you allow for comparative anatomy, it isn't so difficult.

I require proof that evolution ever took place. I don't see any proof in the evolutionists explanations that are not based on unprovable assumptions. How easy is it for the big names in the science world to proffer their opinions about how life got to this point on earth? Who questions them when they present their findings based on the "evidence"? The theory is a pre-conceived idea, so when "evidence" is presented, it perfectly fits the theory...amazing!

There cannot be a 'chain' of evolution if there are no 'links'. The chain is as devoid of links as it always has been. They don't exist. The power of suggestion is used to assume that evolution took place but in the language of science, "might have" or "could have" or "this leads us to believe that".....is used to state that it "must have" taken place as they suggest. Who said? Was anyone there to document the process? Can any of it be duplicated in a lab? Please don't suggest that adaptation is proof of macro-evolution. We already know that this is nonsense. Adaptation takes place only within a species producing variety, not new kinds of creatures altogether. Darwin's finches were all still finches....the iguanas were still iguanas and the tortoises were still tortoises. They did not transform into another creature altogether. This theory was flawed from the get-go.

How do you state something as a fact when you have nothing but supposition and conjecture to base it on? Has evolutionary science become your faith based religion?

I believe you guys are as indoctrinated as you think we are.

 

[Deeje]

Welcome. Generation by generation proof with birth certificates that feature embossed seals is what they want. It's known as "God of the Gaps."

Or even "intermediates" that don't have millions of years between examples would be good.

The gaps are empty.

 

[Darkstorn]

I understand completely that lots of people have many different opinions and views concerning what they see. One only has to hear eye witness testimony to see how many versions there can be of the same event. Its human nature to see things as we wish to see them a lot of the time.

You say that now, yet: You called others blind for not seeing what you see.

I cannot look at those pictures and NOT see the signature of the Creator. If you don't see it, then perhaps you don't want to. Others will look at those amazing creatures and praise their designer.

Perhaps i don't want to? You just made a huge case that you understand other viewpoints and here you are essentially repeating your old claim: That what you see is true, and others just don't want to see it, or are blind.

I fully understand others will see what you see. But i'm making the claim that this is a wholly subjective endeavour: You are looking at pictures of birds. Which can only at best be evidence for the following: That you see something when you look at pictures. THAT doesn't mean what you see is the universal truth. What YOU see is a subjective opinion.

If you say so.

I say so. ""

I am just amazed that people cannot see what is so completely obvious to me....

Because it's not obvious to everyone else. And by definition, even your "obvious" observation still at best only counts as a subjective assessment. Like it's my subjective assessment that there is no designer visible in those pictures. At least i'm not adding something that the picture doesn't show in the first place: You haven't shown that the picture shows it. You have only shown that you think it does. There's a big distinction.

but then I only have to go back to the first century to understand why a majority can be blind to the truth.

There you go again, calling people blind for not seeing what you see as obvious. It's not because the thing is obvious. It's because it's obvious to you based on your personal experience. You are still completely discounting others while saying you aren't.

And i'm happy to know that you hold yourself to such high standards that YOU could see that people two thousand years ago were blind because they couldn't believe claims about your guy... They would have been fortunate to have you there educate them i'm sure.

You may accuse me of being indoctrinated...but I believe the label is equally wearable by those who have been persuaded to believe in macro-evolution. It can't be about the proof, because there is none.

I don't accuse you of being indoctrinated, nor am i talking about evolution overall. I'm only arguing the inconsistent claims of your so called arguments, your dishonesty and your methods. Stop trying to move the goalpost here.

Defending a position is not trolling. I want people to see what little actual evidence there is for macro-evolution. You don't seem to want to acknowledge the point of view of ID supporters as valid. I assure you and the readers here, that it is equally as valid as your own beliefs. I have as much "real evidence" as you do.

Firstly, your "defence" of a position seems to be attacking its opponents such as claiming that they are blind. Second, i'm not arguing any of those points so again: STOP TRYING TO MOVE THE GOALPOST.

I called YOU out on the content of your ridiculous claims regarding OTHER people and their blindness. I am not arguing evolution's case here as much as you think, bub. I'm also not an atheist.

I actually ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR VIEWPOINT. I'm here to make the claims that:

1. You can't call others blind because of their views if your own view is at best only equally well supported. And in this case it isn't.

2. Your actions do make you seem like a troll: You say two contradictory things in an argument, and fail to see it. You're either trolling OR possibly something else, and you can guess what.

3. YOU are not acknowledging other people's viewpoints and then you start crying that others don't care about yours when someone calls you out on it! You are too weak to defend yourself. I actually care about your viewpoint more than you do mine, apparently. I don't call you blind, ever noticed that? Even though in my eyes you are seeing something that's not there to be seen in the first place.

It is only futile if we are trying to win one another over.....its the readers here who will benefit from the interchange. Inquiring minds are making decisions about this issue. We are helping them.

Here's the thing: I'm not trying to argue whatever the hell contradictory points you are trying to make.

I already beat you on moral grounds alone: I make the claim that you are being dishonest, i show said dishonesty, and then you show said dishonesty in the very next post. That is my only point here, and i don't care about your claims regarding designers.

I am making the claim that you are dishonest by your methods: You call others blind for looking at a picture but don't expect them to have the equal right and understanding of the matter to make the claim that you might be blind instead.

I don't care about your other arguments. At best i find them to be funny, at worst dangerously misinformed. And i do need to repeat this: I am not an atheist.

Oh, the 'dishonesty' card....is that issued along with the 'liar' card as well?

I haven't seen you mount a successful defence against such allegations: Here you tried to use a smiley to counter it. It's not successful either.

It's even less successful when you show your dishonesty in the very same post.

Most of what evolutionist present in connection with creation or ID, of necessity includes personal comments about believers' intellect or honesty....never mind that they are presenting assumption as fact for a theory that has no direct evidence. Now that is what I call dishonest.

Sure, but i'm not talking about those kind of people, or even taking their side. I'm talking about you and your methods in this thread trying to present your views and arguing others.

Just because some people are idiots doesn't mean you get to be one in every single instance you prefer.

YOU are ALSO presenting assumption as fact for a theory that has no direct evidence. You say you aren't, and you say others are. I say you are. And i say you haven't shown otherwise.

I have a belief and so do you...I don't pretend that I can prove the existence of God scientifically.....but you have as much solid evidence for your belief as I do for my belief in a Creator, and yet I am not being honest by declaring it?

I don't pretend i can disprove the existence of god scientifically either, that's the problem here. You are not giving me the benefit of the doubt here at all: You are just assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is an atheist Darwinist.

I haven't shown you my beliefs.

Nothing dishonest about declaring your belief in a creator. And you'll notice i never made such claims, you are putting words into my mouth, and moving the goalpost to try and distract people from the real issue: Your dishonesty in DEALING with others on a discussion forum. I don't care about your beliefs and there could be nothing dishonest about them.

The problem is the way you present things is dishonest as hell. I'm sure most people will agree. For one, you keep saying contradictory things. First that you understand other viewpoints with equal conviction to your own, yet in the next sentence you make the claim that they are blind and you have seen it through your superior understanding.

Also: I don't ever claim to have evidence for something. I can't even prove it to 100% certainty that YOU exist.

The emotional appeal again...seriously, what is it with this tactic. Stick to the facts...or don't you have any?

Again? Heh. That's the only time you get to call me out on that one. If you did have emotions or you cared about your fellow man, you WOULD show more tact in dealing with said fellow man. Here you are not behaving like a good Christian should at all, yes.

But i also make the claim that it's difficult to stick to facts in a thread about subjective assessments mistaken for facts! I would be fully aware that my "facts" would be opinion based regarding bird colors, the problem is that you aren't getting that yourself.

And there just happens to be lot of (scientific and otherwise) explanations for why the birds have those particular colors. Here's the thing: Why do you think your observations of internet pictures trump all of those?

I think that if you make an opposing claim to accepted, working, testable and observable models, then it's up to you to show the evidence for your claims. I mean, if you are specifically trying to use science, you have to use its methods properly. In this instance the scary "other side" already has a bunch of actual, verifiable evidence. So far, in this entire thread you have only at best shown a complete ignorance of their existence but that does not change reality around you: It's only not evidence to you because either you're not equipped with the faculties to understand said evidence, or you are simply ignoring facts due to fear of them eroding the points of your side of the argument. None of your actual "evidence" strengthens any of your points in actuality.

I think the problem is that your points and "evidences" are weak, yet you treat them as compelling. And i don't mean your beliefs overall, but your actual points, arguments, and rebuttals are weak. You could easily just accept verifiable science as workings of a deity if you'd prefer, but you choose arbitrary limitations...

Do you know what is causing much of mankind's "suffering" today.....

I'm going to guess lies and purposeful dishonesty are a big part of it.

the misuse of science and religions using violence as an excuse to spread their agenda...both of which I oppose.

But you are not above using strawmen, untruths, misquoted text, internet pictures and purposeful dishonesty towards your fellow man to spread your agenda?

Oh right, i keep forgetting: In your mind you haven't done any of those things. Even if the evidence for most of it is in this very POST, in your OWN WORDS. BEFORE I quote them.

I don't think you have any idea of the scope of responsibility that men of science must accept, along with tyranical religion, for the sad state of this planet.

I don't think you have any idea about any of that either though. See how my view is equal to yours? But nice job making assumptions about your opponents while thinking yourself flawless.

Do you consider yourself without sin? That being said, you are welcome to try and GUESS what my beliefs are; Knowing that your current guess is wrong.

You will freely accept religion's role, but perhaps question the role of science in the big picture.

That sounds like an absolute statement, but i still think it's a statement from ignorance and high-horsed egotism about your supremacy towards your fellow man.

/E: I'll repeat here just so you don't get it wrong AGAIN: You are not treating your opponents with equal measure: Your claims are largely a subjective assessment, yet you dismiss other viewpoints easily without evidence. You make the claim that others need evidence to disprove your subjective assessments... Yet you treat yours as objective, self-evident and obvious facts. I do claim that is being dishonest.

 

[Deeje]

Feel better now? Im glad you got all that off your chest.

 

[Darkstorn]

Feel better now? Im glad you got all that off your chest.

So, not prepared to argue any of my claims? Good. I claimed you are being dishonest.

I also think your reply is another distraction.

 

[ArtieE]

Feel better now? Im glad you got all that off your chest.

"Are you actually trying to make us believe that a god on and off for a period of 4 billion years sat down and personally designed and then assembled the DNA of millions upon millions of organisms, most of which are extinct now? Or what exactly is it you want us to believe?" Just give us some details so we know what we're supposed to believe Deeje.

 

[stevevw]

My original post was: "So what you are saying is that a god personally sat down and designed this moth and assembled its DNA so that the moth would look exactly like his design? And this god did that for millions upon millions of species on and off over the course of four billion years?" If not, describe exactly the design and production process and what god designed and produced when...

No God does not have to create creates exactly how they are now. He can create a mechanism that can have the ability to make a great number of designs through the algorithms that are within the program itself. Just like a computer program has formulas that can calculate running totals and do other tasks that can change the outcomes. It's not static and is a living thing that can work with other living things and the environment. There have been tests done that show how dormant genes can be switched on or active genes can be switched off. This can activate features and abilities that are needed in certain environments to allow life to adapt.

 

[Polymath257]

And you do realize that there is not a shred of solid evidence that comparative anatomy has anything to do with proving macro-evolution.....? I assume not.

Go through this very long thread and see that all this has been covered ad infinitum, ad nauseum.



I require proof that evolution ever took place. I don't see any proof in the evolutionists explanations that are not based on unprovable assumptions. How easy is it for the big names in the science world to proffer their opinions about how life got to this point on earth? Who questions them when they present their findings based on the "evidence"? The theory is a pre-conceived idea, so when "evidence" is presented, it perfectly fits the theory...amazing!

There cannot be a 'chain' of evolution if there are no 'links'. The chain is as devoid of links as it always has been. They don't exist. The power of suggestion is used to assume that evolution took place but in the language of science, "might have" or "could have" or "this leads us to believe that".....is used to state that it "must have" taken place as they suggest. Who said? Was anyone there to document the process? Can any of it be duplicated in a lab? Please don't suggest that adaptation is proof of macro-evolution. We already know that this is nonsense. Adaptation takes place only within a species producing variety, not new kinds of creatures altogether. Darwin's finches were all still finches....the iguanas were still iguanas and the tortoises were still tortoises. They did not transform into another creature altogether. This theory was flawed from the get-go.

How do you state something as a fact when you have nothing but supposition and conjecture to base it on? Has evolutionary science become your faith based religion?

I believe you guys are as indoctrinated as you think we are.

First of all, let's agree to what the world 'evolution' means. It means that biological species change over geological time. To establish this, we need to show that the range of species at one time is different than the range of species at another time. That has been done.

Next, to show 'links', we do NOT need to show each and every generation. What we need to do is show that the species that exist at a later time are different, but similar (related) to species that exist at another time. We do not need to show this in each and every case and don't expect to be able to do so because of the difficulties in fossilization, etc. But if we can show such changes in some lines over time, that is quite sufficient to show the overall fact of descent with modification.

This, by the way, was already done long before Darwin came on the scene. It was known that species changed and that related species took the place of older species. That *is* evolution.

Now, we can also look into the *mechanisms* of evolution. Since the discovery that species change over time, there have been a number of proposals for *how* that change occurs. By *far* the best description is that of natural selection acting on mutations. This was opposed to the Lamarckian scenario when changes *during* each generation were passed on rather than changes *between* generations: acquired rather than inherited traits. The nature of genetics shows that Lamarck's ideas are generally false (some possibilities in bacteria aside).

Then there are the question of the detailed lines of descent. While it is usually clear that the later species are related to older species, it isn't always clear which of several related species at one time (think lions, tigers, panthers) were the actual ancestors of a species at a later time, even though it *is* clear that there is relatedness and change. So, from the fossil record it is quite clear that 'macro' evolution happens and has happened continuously through the history of life on Earth.

We also know that these changes tend to happen over periods of millions, not thousands, of years. On shorter time scales, we have the adaptation that you agree happens. But we also know that this adaptation is NOT within the confines of a previously set range of variation: that new equilibria happen as species change, shifting the average properties of the species, even withing 'short' periods of hundreds of years. This is *exactly* what is required to explain the *observed* changes in the fossil record. So the two lines of evidence align: species change over time (evolution) and such changes happen because of adaptation to changing environments over such time periods.

 

[Polymath257]

No God does not have to create creates exactly how they are now. He can create a mechanism that can have the ability to make a great number of designs through the algorithms that are within the program itself. Just like a computer program has formulas that can calculate running totals and do other tasks that can change the outcomes. It's not static and is a living thing that can work with other living things and the environment. There have been tests done that show how dormant genes can be switched on or active genes can be switched off. This can activate features and abilities that are needed in certain environments to allow life to adapt.

Except that not all the changes are previously programmed. Instead, the program itself changes because of mutation and selection, leading to different characteristics in the organisms which were not in the program originally. Yes, there are cases when genes can be switched on or off, but there are also cases where new genes appear because of mutation. Both mechanisms happen.

 

[Polymath257]

Adaptation takes place only within a species producing variety, not new kinds of creatures altogether. Darwin's finches were all still finches....the iguanas were still iguanas and the tortoises were still tortoises. They did not transform into another creature altogether. This theory was flawed from the get-go.

And at each stage of evolution, the new generation is very similar to the old generation. But over longer periods of time, they change-differences between the different lines increase and we eventually get different species (such as the different species of finch or iguanas). So, descendants of the theropod dinosaurs were a different species of theropod dinosaur, only with feathers. Descendants of those theorpod dinosaurs with feather were also thropod dinosaurs with feathers and the ability to glide. Descendants of those theropod dinosaurs with feathers and the ability to glide were theropod dinosaurs with feathers and the ability to fly. At that point, we *could* still call them theropod dinosaurs, but instead we give them a new name: birds. Each stage is a small change, but those changes accumulate over the generations to give new abilities and characteristics.

And yes, comparative anatomy *does* provide evidence for how these changes happened in the past. it isn't always conclusive, but it *is* evidence. It can be supported by the evidence from the fossil record from evidence from DNA or protein studies, etc. And the point is that the different lines of evidence do, in fact, support each other. And that is what is required of a scientific theory.

 

[Jose Fly]

You are confusing "can't" with "won't".

This is fascinating. You keep jumping back and forth between admitting that you cannot compromise on evolution due to your religious beliefs, and denying that your religion plays any role in it.

So let's be clear here. Which one of these statements is not correct?

One cannot be an "evolutionist" and a Jehovah's Witness.

If you were to become an "evolutionist", you would have to leave the Jehovah's Witnesses.

If you were to no longer be a Jehovah's Witness, your friends and family who remained in the faith would shun you until you returned to the faith.​

I have investigated your claims very thoroughly and found them wanting, to say the least.

That's hilarious, since when I post scientific material you say you can't understand any of it, and then childishly accuse the authors of deliberately using jargon to hide a lack of evidence. And now you're saying you've investigated that material "thoroughly"?

How can you thoroughly investigate something you don't understand?

This is your defense? I am not "allowed" to recognize something with very flimsy evidence as truth?

Nice try, but the fact remains that you directly told me that your religious beliefs prevent you from ever compromising on this issue.

Do you deny saying that?

Just because you don't want to believe in the Creator

What makes you think I'm an atheist?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

science is not on a pedestal for me.....it fell off a long time ago. I appreciate what good it has done, but I am not blind to the harm it has caused in the world either.

Science has never harmed the world, but religion has. Don't confuse science with business and politics.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And you do realize that there is not a shred of solid evidence that comparative anatomy has anything to do with proving macro-evolution.....? I assume not.

Go through this very long thread and see that all this has been covered ad infinitum, ad nauseum.



I require proof that evolution ever took place. I don't see any proof in the evolutionists explanations that are not based on unprovable assumptions. How easy is it for the big names in the science world to proffer their opinions about how life got to this point on earth? Who questions them when they present their findings based on the "evidence"? The theory is a pre-conceived idea, so when "evidence" is presented, it perfectly fits the theory...amazing!

There cannot be a 'chain' of evolution if there are no 'links'. The chain is as devoid of links as it always has been. They don't exist. The power of suggestion is used to assume that evolution took place but in the language of science, "might have" or "could have" or "this leads us to believe that".....is used to state that it "must have" taken place as they suggest. Who said? Was anyone there to document the process? Can any of it be duplicated in a lab? Please don't suggest that adaptation is proof of macro-evolution. We already know that this is nonsense. Adaptation takes place only within a species producing variety, not new kinds of creatures altogether. Darwin's finches were all still finches....the iguanas were still iguanas and the tortoises were still tortoises. They did not transform into another creature altogether. This theory was flawed from the get-go.

How do you state something as a fact when you have nothing but supposition and conjecture to base it on? Has evolutionary science become your faith based religion?

I believe you guys are as indoctrinated as you think we are.

The theory is correct in the main. All life on earth evolved from a single common ancestor. The religious community's input is not useful, nor given credence.

But don't feel picked on. Proper scientists don't care what any non-scientists think, nor scientists promoting a creationist agenda.

If you guys want to start you own science program, go for it. The Discovery Institute did. See what useful ideas you can generate. They have come up with nothing, vindicating the decision to disregard their pleas that legitimate research centers devote resources to investigating their faith based beliefs.

Bring something to the table, and you will be heard. At this point , all we have is your faith based incredulity arguments and constant calls for proof, which, like evidence, is not part of the method you use to arrive at beliefs anyway.

Did you think we thought you actually needed proof to believe despite your calls for for it? The mind of the faith based thinker is well understood. We know how you think. We know how you evaluate evidence. It's not our way.

Which way is better? Just look at the fruits of each.

Maybe you should try to recognize that there is no debate in science about the validity of the theory. The objections of the religious who are agitated by such scientific discovery aren't even heard.

 

[Pudding]

@Deeje, your thread title is "Just Accidental?".

(1) Please define "accidental".

(2) Please explain what do you mean by "just accidental".

These are a few different species of ducks....one can only marvel at their artistic designs and color schemes.

(3) Please define "designs".

(4) Do you mean those ducks' color pattern are design by christianity's God?

Who could possibly think that these just evolved and turned out like this through the process of gene mutations and adaptation?

The theory of evolution suggest that those ducks evolved and turned out like this through the process of gene mutations and adaptation.

What survival advantage is there in being this beautiful?

Had been answer by other people in page 1.

(5) Do you think the theory of evolution state that the color pattern on those ducks just happen accidentally?
(6) Please explain why if you do think so.

(7) Do you think the theory of evolution state that the color pattern on those ducks are not design by the christianity's God nor any other religion's God/god?
(8) Please explain why if you do think so.

 

[Deeje]

So, not prepared to argue any of my claims? Good. I claimed you are being dishonest.

And I claim that you are being optimistic for posting that many claims and expecting me to respond to them.

I also think your reply is another distraction.

LOL....a distraction from what? If you look through this very long thread, you will probably find all the answers you are looking for......can't be bothered looking through thousands of replies? Neither can I.