Jose Fly
Fisker of men
The most recent polling puts it at around 62%.
Might as well add statistical sampling to the list of sciences you deny. After all, what's one more?He's got a point.Who really believes polls?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Just Accidental?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
- Status
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
You're lying again. You've been presented many, many examples of populations evolving new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and even new species.
Of course it was adaptive change in my individual animals....I was illustrating that this ability is present in all living things. We, as humans acclimatised as well. Moving into a new environment triggers these adaptations. They are an inbuilt, programmed design mechanism. The Peppered Moth is a clear example of this ability. The cosmetic change in colour to facilitate camouflage ensured the survival of the species. But the moth remained a moth and always will.
Since when did a small gene mutation for lactose tolerance become evidence for macro-evolution? Seems to me that it was an adaptive response to diet change. It didn't turn the humans into any other species. Just like Darwin's observations on the Galápagos Islands, he saw adaptive changes in the creatures due to a different habitat and food supply. Yet all remained true to their species and of the same 'family' that existed on the mainland. There were 14 different species of finches on the Galapagos....but they were all still finches. Darwin did not see them morphing into some other kind of bird species.
Evolutionists *claim* that this is what happened......but they cannot provide proof beyond proposing what "might have" or "could have" taken place because they have no real proof that their theory isn't as 'fanciful' as ID......now that is hardly a scientifically supported position, is it?
Science takes what *can* be observed and pushes it beyond testable limits and then claims its supposition must be true because they say so. It's all smoke and mirrors as far as I can see. Then you have the bullying tactics used to reinforce what you cannot prove.
You have no more actual evidence for the validity of your theory than I have for my Creator. If you did, you would have produced it by now, but all I see are more of the same empty suppositional arguments. The "you don't understand how evolution works" thing is getting old. I understand what the scientists are claiming but they have no proof so I don't believe them. They are blinded by their own prejudiced view, seeing things that are not there, just as they would say the same about us ID supporters. We both can't be right. I guess it's a wait and see situation eh?
I think Deeje's arguments should be taken as is.
Which is something that can't stand on its own two legs(this might be an apt place for a joke.) I don't think they need rebuttal anymore, since she's just repeating claims that have already been debunked.
I don't think they need anyone replying to them anymore. She's so off the charts only people with a similar mindset can take it seriously. Her arguments are non-threatening so to speak.
/E: A miracle happens, for no reason i am now entirely convinced by Deeje. All the sudden, just like that. Poof.
Which is something that can't stand on its own two legs(this might be an apt place for a joke.) I don't think they need rebuttal anymore, since she's just repeating claims that have already been debunked.
I don't think they need anyone replying to them anymore. She's so off the charts only people with a similar mindset can take it seriously. Her arguments are non-threatening so to speak.
/E: A miracle happens, for no reason i am now entirely convinced by Deeje. All the sudden, just like that. Poof.
Last edited:
Personal attacks are just bullying. It seems to be a favourite with evolutionists when they have run out of argument.
I have been presented with nothing that resembles proof. The examples you speak of are nothing close to real evidence. Biased interpretation of what scientists have as "evidence" is worth nothing. I can interpret the same "evidence" in accord with my own bias....what does it prove? Is science so full of itself that it can't see past what it wants to believe? Isn't that what it accuses 'believers' of doing?
It seems that science likes to take a small amount of truth and somehow turn it into an overwhelming mountain of evidence. The "mountain" is an underwhelming delusion IMO. It's all based on supposition. The "new species" were of the same family. None of them morphed into a different taxonomic group, did they? "New traits" and "abilities" were observed in the same species. That is adaptation. If we are all formed from the same genetic material by the same Creator, then genetic similarities are inevitable.
Either provide the real proof or stop pretending you have "facts", when you clearly do not have anything but a belief system....just like we have.
Last edited:
No what I am asking for is a photo about every million years or so.....that is asking too much apparently. You guys skip over many millions of years like they were minutes. For the number of remains, for what must be billions of creatures that have ever lived, you don't really have much, do you? 20,000,000 years can go by and you claim a new link in your chain.....but there is nothing in between......just a blank 20,000,000 year space. It looks like nothing on your charts, but in reality, the emptiness is very telling.
So one fossil for each species every million years or so is unreasonable? You say we don't need links in a chain to have a chain? Any sequence of events has to be tied into the one before otherwise you fill in the blanks with wishful thinking. This is what I see. It is no substitute for real evidence. What you present is supposition with no real evidence apart from an illustration on a chart that "might have" or "could have" happened, but science has no proof that it did.
Aren't we all expected to fall for the old "trust me, I'm an expert" assertion? Who says science must be right? Has it achieved the status of religious belief when no proof is required....only belief that what the science 'gods' say is true? You don't see that science has achieved the position of a substitute 'religion'?
Last edited:
You forget, you're arguing with a person who redefines "proof" and "evidence" on a whim. Your verifiable claims aren't evidence, her sensory perceptions are.
But by using the scientific method, i don't think she could provide evidence for anything existing. She couldn't prove it logically even.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
I've posted a description of the virtually complete fossil record of foraminifera, with millions of years of evolutionary change, including lots of new species, long-term gradual (Darwinian) change, extinctions, etc.
But let's be honest here.....the data doesn't matter to you, does it? It's not like anything any "evolutionist" posts here will ever cause you to change your mind, right? You have your Jehovah's Witness beliefs and you cannot ever change or even compromise on them, correct?
So if you were to be genuinely truthful with us, you would state up front that no matter what anyone here posts to you, you will find some reason to reject it.....you have to. If you were to respond "Oh, that's really good data and is a clear illustration of evolutionary change over time", that would require you to compromise (your word) your religious faith, which carries a whole host of personal and social consequences. And that's just not an option, is it?
Why can't you be honest and just state that up front?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Yup.
The closest I've ever come to an "honest creationist" was when a guy said something like "I'll be honest with you....it doesn't matter what science says, what scientists discover, or what the data shows. I believe God's Word, and that's it. So no matter what you show me, if it goes against God's Word, I will always reject it."
While IMO that's an odd way to go through life, at least he was honest about it, unlike Deeje who simultaneously trashes scientists and the entire scientific enterprise (she called it a "fraud factory") while demanding scientific evidence from us. Ya gotta wonder.....if scientists and science are so untrustworthy, why does she keep asking us for scientific proof of things?
Science has given us many things of value. Religion not so much.
"You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits.
"This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server.
"This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of man made hogwash."- anon.
What's your complaint? You believe on faith, not evidence.
I have to agree with you there, but then I am not one bit interested in "religion" for its own sake. I see no "religion" in the creation account, nor was there a long list of "do's" and "don't's".....it was intended to be a relatively peaceful and happy co-existence of man with the task of caretaker in this world, but without a knowledge of evil. I love the simplicity of that....it is humans who made things complex. It is they who invented religion and made gods for themselves who strangely had the same flaws as they did and justified doing "inhuman" things to please them.
And you don't seem to see the irony in what you just quoted.....
Here we are as sentient creatures with intelligence (for the most part) that surpasses every other species on this planet. We have inside our cranium, a compact super-computer with circuitry and receptors and electrical connections and memory, the likes of which science can only imperfectly replicate. This small command center controls every function of the body without us even having to think about it....Yet you attribute all that computer technology to the genius of "science" but claim that the human brain is just a fortunate accident of nature......go figure.
I have to ask....how can intelligent humans be so blind? Unless you have an intelligent mind to design and create the computer, placing all the individually designed and created components in the correct sequence, it will not function. And even if you have a perfectly assembled computer....without a power source (designed and created by intelligent minds) it will still not function. And if you have no internet connection (also designed and made by other intelligent minds) you will remain isolated from the WWW.
It isn't "science" per se that is at issue in this topic....it is the assumptions masquerading as facts that create the contentions. People will "believe" what they want to believe.......even scientists are not immune to this human flaw. It has nothing to do with a person's level of intelligence...it has to do with the condition of their figurative heart.
My complaint is (and thanks for asking) that science claims the high ground on this issue when it has no right to do so without the hard evidence to back up what they claim. Can science not admit that they have an unprovable belief system?
Why are the evolution supporters so hostile when their evidence is questioned? Its like committing scientific blasphemy!
That is when the "bullyboy" tactics are used to try and force people to submit to their belief system. They start the brainwashing process in schools by eliminating all thoughts of a Creator from the minds of children. How is this any different to the religions of the world who do the same thing?"You are an unintelligent moron if you don't believe it" seems to be the scientist's best defense when real evidence fails. You can't see this?
What are we talking about here?
From Wiki.....for us 'laypersons'.
"Foraminifera
Taxonomy
The taxonomic position of the Foraminifera has varied since their recognition as protozoa (protists) by Schultze in 1854,[9] there referred to as an order, Foraminiferida. Loeblich and Tappan (1992) reranked Foraminifera as a class[10] as it is now commonly regarded.
The Foraminifera have typically been included in the Protozoa,[11][12][13] or in the similar Protoctista or Protist kingdom.[14][15] Compelling evidence, based primarily on molecular phylogenetics, exists for their belonging to a major group within the Protozoa known as the Rhizaria.[11] Prior to the recognition of evolutionary relationships among the members of the Rhizaria, the Foraminifera were generally grouped with other amoeboids as phylum Rhizopodea (or Sarcodina) in the class Granuloreticulosa.
The Rhizaria are problematic, as they are often called a "supergroup", rather than using an established taxonomic rank such as phylum. Cavalier-Smith defines the Rhizaria as an infrakingdom within the kingdom Protozoa.[11]
Some taxonomies put the Foraminifera in a phylum of their own, putting them on par with the amoeboid Sarcodina in which they had been placed.
Although as yet unsupported by morphological correlates, molecular data strongly suggest the Foraminifera are closely related to the Cercozoa and Radiolaria, both of which also include amoeboids with complex shells; these three groups make up the Rhizaria.[12] However, the exact relationships of the forams to the other groups and to one another are still not entirely clear. Foraminifera are closely related to testate amoebae."
Foraminifera - Wikipedia
So, yes...lets be honest here.
I am not a complete moron even though you would like to paint me as one.....I have been insulted by better opponents than you.
None of them however had the goods.....only the published data which is full of the same language of supposition and guesswork, lacking any real proof that evolution ever happened except in the fertile minds of those who swallowed the concept, hook, line and sinker.Your "faith" is apparently as strong as mine.....we just worship different gods in different buildings. My beliefs as JW come from many years of study which included a very close scrutiny of evolutionary science. I used to believe in evolution, but after a thorough investigation, now I see it for what it really is......a monumental fraud backed up by nothing but diagrams and illustrations of a fantasy, nothing close to a reality.
I don't have to do anything against my will. Neither do you. So this statement assumes that science has something remotely convincing to show me......you have produced nothing to date that is even close to convincing in any way....just the opposite in fact.
I have been honest from the beginning, but you will not see past what you want to believe yourself....so the pot is calling the kettle 'black' again. I have not seen any "good data"....all I have seen is biased scientific interpretation of the fossil evidence, getting the fossils to say what scientists want to believe. You all lap it up and pat one another on the back.......but its empty unsubstantiated rhetoric. Its suggestion pretending to be fact.....you can believe it if you wish....its complete rubbish to me.
You are failing to distinguish between *genetic* adaptation and *developmental* adaptation. When your dogs adapted to the cold, that was NOT a genetic change. When the moths adapted to the soot, that *was* a genetic change. There is a HUGE difference between these cases!
It didn't. But it gives an example of a beneficial mutation, which is something many creationist claim do not exist.
A *genetic* change. Not a change of an individual like your dogs adapting to the cold.
They are *different* species. And Darwin was talking about the 'Origin of Species'. In fact, that was the name of his book!
gnostic
The Lost One
Sorry, but when have you ever provided proof?
I see you haven't presented any mathematical equation that prove your claim, or disprove other people.
You are still confusing proof with evidence. They are not the same thing for mathematicians and scientists.
Scientists work with most evidences, maths are useful to scientists, but they are not evidences.
Fact involved evidences, not mathematical statements (proofs).
And those photos that you have posted in your replies, showing different animals, are just photos without contexts. Anyone can post photos, but they are in no way show evidences that god is responsible for their existence.
For you to have evidences of creationism, you would need a picture or video of "God" actually "creating" those animals.
No God in your photos, means very little to us, because you are only showing pictures of birds, fishes, insects, etc.
When you have a very clear video of identifiable someone (killer) killing another identifiable person (victim), then you would evidence that the killer involved. And if forensic can match the prints or DNA of the killer and/or that of the victim on the murder weapon, or to any part of scene of killing, then you would have more evidences to collaborate with the video.
Your photos show no image of God, but you are making unsubstantiated claim that god is involved. That's just belief and opinion, not evidences.
This depends very strongly on how well the fossil record has preserved the species. For example, species on mountain tops tend not to be preserves as fossils. Those close to water sources are much more likely to be fossilized. Deserts are often good for fossilization but rain forests are not. It is also uncommon for one place to give good fossilization over several geological time periods.
This makes it *very* unlikely that you will get a representative for a line every million years, especially over,say, a 20 million years time span.
Yes, it is unreasonable to expect that for every species. Incredibly so. We *might* be able to get that level of resolution for a couple of lines over certain time periods. But to expect it every million years over a period of, say 20 million years for every species is quite unreasonable.
Now, we *do* have that level of resolution for a few lines for a several million years. The line for human ancestors going back to the Australopithecines is quite good. Because this is fairly recent, we often have resolution to a few hundred thousand years.
And yes, we often also have resolution at the level of say, 5 million years. That is not so uncommon and can still give a clear signal.
Another aspect is that populations tend to be fairly stable for long periods of time with a radiation of several new species happening in a fairly short time period. The good thing about this is that we can focus on the time where the radiation occurs. If this happens is a good environment, we can get a relatively complete picture of the different changes different lines undergo. This isn't too uncommon, but it us on a fairly short time period.
Yes, we get pictures corresponding to having one as a baby, one as a teenager, one as an adult, and one in old age. This is typical. But, even still, we can derive conclusions from that. We can say, for example, the there is a change of species over time. That *is* evolution. We can say that the Earth is billions and not thousands of years old.
On the contrary, we have the evidence, for example, of birds evolving from theropod dinosaurs. We have the evidence of mammals evolving from reptiles (along with the changes in the jaw and development of the bones in the inner ear). We have the evidence for the development of amphibians from certain fish.
"The evolution of the peppered moth is an evolutionary instance of directional colour change in the moth population as a consequence of air pollution during the Industrial Revolution. The frequency of dark-coloured moths increased at that time, an example of industrial melanism. Later, when pollution was reduced, the light-coloured form again predominated. Industrial melanism in the peppered moth was an early experimental test of Charles Darwin's natural selection in action, and remains as a classic example in the teaching of evolution.[1][2] Sewall Wright described it as "the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed."[3]"
Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia
The very fact that the moth reverted to its original color after air quality was improved, proves that it was adaptive change that created the color change in the first place....just as it was designed to do.
If my dogs had lived longer and bred many generations in that cold climate, then their offspring would have developed the same thicker coat and furry belly that their parents did. Dog breeders often select traits in their breeds that nature would never choose, resulting in faulty genetics being passed on.
So, if the Peppered Moth is "the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed."....then I seriously question the validity of all others.
I am not "many creationists"....in fact I reject the claims of "many creationists". I base my conclusions on what the Bible and true established testable science tells me.....I take little notice of things that are unsubstantiated......I reject science's belief system in favor of my own because its what nature tells me when I see purposeful design in everything. I cannot abandon common sense just because the science gods speak a different language to my God.
I see evidence for my Creator everywhere I look....
I see no evidence at all for your creator.......Mr Nobody and his wife "Mother Nature".
This "genetic" change did not morph the moth into some other kind of insect. It remains a moth to this day. No?
When you understand why scientists themselves get confused over definitions...is it any wonder that ordinary folk get confused as well? This article from the Smithsonian just made me laugh...
What Does it Mean to Be a Species? Genetics is Changing the Answer | Science | Smithsonian
When will the nit-picking end?
This is where you are wrong. The thicker hair was an acquired trait. Such are NOT passed on genetically. Clearly, they have the *ability* to develop thicker coats, and that ability is genetic. Bu tthe thicker coats themselves are not.
In the case of the moths, the change in color *was* genetic, and not just adaptive in a single individual.
When you understand why scientists themselves get confused over definitions...is it any wonder that ordinary folk get confused as well? This article from the Smithsonian just made me laugh...
What Does it Mean to Be a Species? Genetics is Changing the Answer | Science | Smithsonian
When will the nit-picking end?
Nit-pcking is often at the heart of understanding. There are *at least* 22 different concepts for species that are distinct, from biospecies (the most often used), to cladospecis, to morphospecies, to phenospecies.
Like I said, most people use the biospecies: interbreeding naturally occurring populations separated from other such.
Science thinks that the designs in nature are so clever that it has to copy them (for commercial application of course.) The science of biomimetics fascinates me......because it takes men with science degrees to copy what "nature" designed, but there was never a need for an intelligent mind to create the originals.....and so many of them! Go figure!
- Status