Just Accidental?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Or science is just better at marketing a really silly idea, whilst using the threat of humiliation to silence its critics?

Science apparently has the more appealing product. It markets nothing, and still has a larger market share than creationism. Nobody is out there promoting belief in gravity or electricity, and evolution is no different. The scientists don't care if you believe it, and neither do the teachers. Teachers expect you to learn it and pass tests on the material, but no teacher ever asked me if I believed it.

Christianity, on the other hand, has been selling its product since its inception. Jesus went door-to-door so to speak, and missionaries and evangelists have existed since. Most street corners feature a franchise where the product is marketed every Sunday morning. In the past this was done at the point of a sword (Constantine, the Crusades, the Spanish conquistadores) or under threat of torture (inquisitions and witch hunts). Children were terrorized with hell theology and tempted with visions of pie-in-the-sky. That's what I call marketing.

And the church has long tried to silence its critics, but not using humiliation. The just demonize and marginalize their critics. The call them immoral, in league with demons, and hateful of a loving god. This got you killed at one time. Until recently, it caused you to be a societal outcast, unfit to teach, coach, adopt, serve on juries or hold elected office. Science has no such history.

Where would creationism be without its sales force? Haven't you indicated to us how your church would treat you if you challenged creationism? That's the social pressure. It's not in science. Scientists don't care if you believe in intelligent design.

They do, however, require that your work be scientific to get it published in their journals. If you want to publish religious editorials - there is no actual science coming from the intelligent design, just opinion pieces - it will have to be done in publications created for that purpose.

What gets people like Michael Behe ostracized from the scientific community is not their religious ideas per se, but their values, ethics, and methods, which are dishonest and unscientific. Behe was part of a deception trying to get creationism back into the schools. To do so, he distorted science. That's what makes him a pariah. His multiple failed claims of irreducible complexity in various biological systems has earned his ridicule, as has his bizarre definition of a scientific theory, a definition that makes astrology a scientific theory.

Even so, nobody has silenced him. Silencing is what they did to Bruno, when they burned him at the stake for heresy, or what they did to Galilieo when they confined him to his home and forbade the publishing of his book.

 

[shunyadragon]

Behe, the Discovery Institute, and the associated scientists? have failed to provide a theory nor hypothesis that falsifies Creationist beliefs involving Intelligent Design. Nothing has been published since the Institute was founded and their goals defined in 1990.

Things came to head in the Dover trial and the decision reflected the lack of science behind the Creationist Intelligent Design, and the fact that Intelligent Design was religiously motivated. and cannot be taught in schools.

From: Discovery Institute - Wikipedia

"The Discovery Institute (DI) is a non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscientific principle[4][5][6] of intelligent design (ID). Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to permit teaching of anti-evolution, intelligent-design beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.[14]

This federal court—along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science—say that the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis"[15] through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[16][17][18] The court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions,"[15][17][19] and the Institute's manifesto, the Wedge Document,[20]describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[21][22] It was the court's opinion that intelligent design was merely a redressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition."

 

[SkepticThinker]

Or science is just better at marketing a really silly idea, whilst using the threat of humiliation to silence its critics?

What science can demonstrate in real terms, and what it can suggest about what it can't prove, are two vastly different things. The power of suggestion is stronger than most people realize....the commercial world thrives on it.

No. Science is a tool, not a person.

Please address what I said instead of repeating the same claim again and diverting to conspiracy theory (which was the very thing my post was about). Like I pointed out before, this isn't the first time I've brought this up to you in this thread, nor is it the first time you have avoided responding directly to the point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science apparently has the more appealing product. It markets nothing, and still has a larger market share than creationism. Nobody is out there promoting belief in gravity or electricity, and evolution is no different. The scientists don't care if you believe it, and neither do the teachers. Teachers expect you to learn it and pass tests on the material, but no teacher ever asked me if I believed it.

Christianity, on the other hand, has been selling its product since its inception. Jesus went door-to-door so to speak, and missionaries and evangelists have existed since. Most street corners feature a franchise where the product is marketed every Sunday morning. In the past this was done at the point of a sword (Constantine, the Crusades, the Spanish conquistadores) or under threat of torture (inquisitions and witch hunts). Children were terrorized with hell theology and tempted with visions of pie-in-the-sky. That's what I call marketing.

And the church has long tried to silence its critics, but not using humiliation. The just demonize and marginalize their critics. The call them immoral, in league with demons, and hateful of a loving god. This got you killed at one time. Until recently, it caused you to be a societal outcast, unfit to teach, coach, adopt, serve on juries or hold elected office. Science has no such history.

Where would creationism be without its sales force? Haven't you indicated to us how your church would treat you if you challenged creationism? That's the social pressure. It's not in science. Scientists don't care if you believe in intelligent design.

They do, however, require that your work be scientific to get it published in their journals. If you want to publish religious editorials - there is no actual science coming from the intelligent design, just opinion pieces - it will have to be done in publications created for that purpose.

What gets people like Michael Behe ostracized from the scientific community is not their religious ideas per se, but their values, ethics, and methods, which are dishonest and unscientific. Behe was part of a deception trying to get creationism back into the schools. To do so, he distorted science. That's what makes him a pariah. His multiple failed claims of irreducible complexity in various biological systems has earned his ridicule, as has his bizarre definition of a scientific theory, a definition that makes astrology a scientific theory.

Even so, nobody has silenced him. Silencing is what they did to Bruno, when they burned him at the stake for heresy, or what they did to Galilieo when they confined him to his home and forbade the publishing of his book.

Thank you for making this point. I now realize that Deeje is projecting this mindset onto the scientific community. Not sure why I didn't see it before.

 

[Jose Fly]

From what I have observed on this thread and others...neither do evolutionists. Suggestions and inference by the truckload....but no facts to back up any of it.

I wouldn't know about that as I do not subscribe to their definition of creationism any more than I subscribe to your version of evolution.

I stand somewhere in the middle which means that I do not have to compromise on either the Bible or actual science.

I see adaptation very clearly within many species, creating lots of variety, but I do not see it carried over into macro-evolution for all the reasons I have already posted. It is assumed by science that the enormous gaps (we are talking millions of years,) are all still empty with no intermediate fossils to fill them......so much is suggested.....but none of it is provable.

I see purposeful design in nature that I cannot attribute to the blind forces of chance "beneficial" mutations and "natural selection".....none of which actually explains anything I see in the real world. Beneficial mutations are extremely rare and for the number required to explain all the varieties of life on this planet, I believe we would run out of zeros in the stats.

FYI, I went back and read through much of this thread and one of the things that really stood out to me was just how mindlessly repetitive you've been. Not only do you repeat the exact same opinions over and over, you repeat them using pretty much the same language and phrasing.

I urge others to look back through this thread too and see for themselves, and maybe they'll realize just how pointless this is.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I urge others to look back through this thread too and see for themselves, and maybe they'll realize just how pointless this is.

I don't consider this activity pointless. I have long since been disabused of the notion that I could make an impact on the faith based thinker. I have nothing to offer such a person but reason and evidence, and those were not the means by which they came to their present postion, nor are they able to budge them from it. We have to have other purposes or we will surely find our time and effort wasted.

I have several other purposes. I like to learn from other rational skeptics and share what I have learned elsewhere with them. I benefit from these prolonged discussions with various believers that could never happen in meat space. If teaching and learning are the lecture session of skeptic school, tapping the glass on the aquarium is the lab section.

Then there's the entertainment value, the practice crafting reasoned arguments, and the practice at writing.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't consider this activity pointless. I have long since been disabused of the notion that I could make an impact on the faith based thinker. I have nothing to offer such a person but reason and evidence, and those were not the means by which they came to their present postion, nor are they able to budge them from it. We have to have other purposes or we will surely find our time and effort wasted.

I have several other purposes. I like to learn from other rational skeptics and share what I have learned elsewhere with them. I benefit from these prolonged discussions with various believers that could never happen in meat space. If teaching and learning are the lecture session of skeptic school, tapping the glass on the aquarium is the lab section.

Then there's the entertainment value, the practice crafting reasoned arguments, and the practice at writing.

So your primary purposes for engaging people like Deeje are 1) it's a means of learning things about the biological sciences that you might not learn otherwise, and 2) the entertainment that comes from debate.

That makes sense. I guess I've just been doing this so long that I've lost a bit of my patience and willingness to endure the repetitiveness of it all.

 

[Deeje]

Entertainment value aside......

How is it accidental if it is selected? Accident doesn't adequately describe the process. It is blind and has a random component, but also a non-random selection element. If I had a million dice and rolled them, I'd get about 166,000 sixes. If I selected these and sent the other 834,000 dice back to the random toss generator, a sixth of those would turn up heads. If we repeat this process over multiple generations of rolls, we will end up with mostly sixes. This is the type of process that you are calling an accident, and arguing that a god must be involved because of non-random nature of the result.

What is involved in "selection"? The dictionary says it is to "carefully choose as being the best or most suitable." Can you tell me how creatures "select" the best and most suitable when all they have is a visual? Did the colors just accidentally mutate one day and a female said to herself..."I just love that blue bill you accidentally mutated....or that splash of blue under the wing....or the iridescent green stripe....can you give me babies with that color?"

What on earth could make these differences in presentation when they are all varieties of the same basic taxonomic family? All live on water, can fly and exist on land. These multi-talented creatures you think just happened by random chance and ability to select the best mate? Seriously?

Since these are all ducks......how do you account for all these variations if they all evolved from a common ancestor? If I saw a row of exquisite sculptures with different ways to capture a theme in color or design, then I could do no better that to present these living sculptures and rest my case. They all had the same artist who created them....for us. And these are just one species.....there are millions more.

I present these pretty pictures because I subscribe to the belief that a picture is worth a thousand words.

It's harder to deny something that is staring you in the face.

Apparently.

"Apparently"? To whom? Certainly not to those who can admire someone's creativity and give credit where it is due.

If you want to give credit to some mindless process of endless beneficial accidents, then that is up to you.

It appears to me that my Creator has been around a lot longer than your theory....and that beneficial mutations almost never happen.

 

[Jose Fly]

Can you tell me how creatures "select"

The answer to that Deeje is yes. In looking back through this thread I saw many people explain to you how selection works. The problem is, you refuse to listen.

Now, we all know why you refuse to listen (your religion), but when anyone attempts to address that factor you run away. That's how you end up with 191 pages of the same thing, over and over and over and over and over......

 

[Deeje]

I urge others to look back through this thread too and see for themselves, and maybe they'll realize just how pointless this is.

What a good idea .....perhaps they will notice how you evolutionists have been equally repetitive and dismally failed to offer any substantive evidence for the truth of your theory. Do you deny that there is only suggestion and inference in every article where evolution is promoted as fact? How many of you have said point blank that "evolution is a fact"?...when it never can be without proof? You have no proof and you never will. You have a belief based on the interpretation of your evidence.....so do we. Each of us has bias. Choose your belief system.

Science pretends it has the high ground here....I don't think it ever did, except in the minds of those who want accept it.
All it has is better marketing IMO. The power of suggestion can sell ice to Eskimos.

 

[Deeje]

The answer to that Deeje is yes. In looking back through this thread I saw many people explain to you how selection works. The problem is, you refuse to listen.

And looking back you will see that I did listen and even quoted your 'evidences' back to you, outlining their absurd conclusions based on nothing but suggestions. (yep, there it is again) I saw your explanations and dismissed them as nonsense....that isn't refusing to listen...it is refusing to accept something that makes no sense, with no evidence to back it up. Isn't that what you claim to do also?

The evidence I present is what I see with my own eyes. I don't need a science degree to appreciate nature. I see design everywhere and common sense tells me there was a designer....not an accidental random combining of DNA. Not an accidental creation of the universe and all life on this planet.

Now, we all know why you refuse to listen (your religion), but when anyone attempts to address that factor you run away. That's how you end up with 191 pages of the same thing, over and over and over and over and over......

"Why" has been explained many times. I have never run away....sometimes you were just not worth answering. You presented nothing new. Its all been covered.

You have your 'religion' and I have mine. You have your sacred writings, written by your honored prophets and so do we.

You have your places of worship where the indoctrinated are continually fed the same rhetoric. You accuse us of the same thing. How are you any different to us really?

No matter how many pages are written on this thread....you will still be in no better position than those who believe in an Intelligent Designer. The length of this thread is proof that you evolutionists are worried about what I post.....that it is really the kind of evidence that moves people to evaluate things a little more than what appears on the surface.

If I have caused one person to pause and think more deeply about the actual evidence that science has, compared to what they claim to have, then I am satisfied with my efforts.

 

[shunyadragon]

Entertainment value aside......



What is involved in "selection"? The dictionary says it is to "carefully choose as being the best or most suitable."

You need the scientific definition not a generic dictionary definition. You also need to check the dictionary, any dictionary for the word 'accident.' Humans have accidents, Nature and Natural Laws are not accidental.

From: natural selection definition biology - Google Search

"natural selection definition. A process fundamental to evolution as described by Charles Darwin. By natural selection, any characteristic of an individual that allows it to survive to produce more offspring will eventually appear in every individual of the species, simply because those members will have more offspring."

Can you tell me how creatures "select" the best and most suitable when all they have is a visual? Did the colors just accidentally mutate one day and a female said to herself..."I just love that blue bill you accidentally mutated....or that splash of blue under the wing....or the iridescent green stripe....can you give me babies with that color?"

This natural selection in response to survival and creatures do not do the selection of the genetic attributes themselves. Again bad use of the English language, mutations are not accidents.

If you had feathers and you were a male bird, iridescent feathers with a green strip may be an advantage for you to have iridescent feathers.

What on earth could make these differences in presentation when they are all varieties of the same basic taxonomic family? All live on water, can fly and exist on land. These multi-talented creatures you think just happened by random chance and ability to select the best mate? Seriously?

Different species need their own colors to attract the female of the same species.

Since these are all ducks......how do you account for all these variations if they all evolved from a common ancestor? If I saw a row of exquisite sculptures with different ways to capture a theme in color or design, then I could do no better that to present these living sculptures and rest my case. They all had the same artist who created them....for us. And these are just one species.....there are millions more.

What you need is a basic science education in geology. paleontology, and genetics to be able to ask these questions and get satisfactory answers. Since you lack this education you are shooting in the dark from a theist fundamentalist agenda without even a basic knowledge in science, and proper definition of words in the English language.

 

[Deeje]

I am grateful that you raised these points.....

The scientists don't care if you believe it, and neither do the teachers. Teachers expect you to learn it and pass tests on the material, but no teacher ever asked me if I believed it.

Isn't that fascinating? So in order to pass exams, a student has to lie and state what they are taught rather than what they believe? What does that tell you? Sounds a lot like dictatorship to me. I thought a democracy guaranteed freedom of thought and freedom of religion.....obviously except where the state requires obedience.

Christianity, on the other hand, has been selling its product since its inception. Jesus went door-to-door so to speak, and missionaries and evangelists have existed since. Most street corners feature a franchise where the product is marketed every Sunday morning. In the past this was done at the point of a sword (Constantine, the Crusades, the Spanish conquistadores) or under threat of torture (inquisitions and witch hunts). Children were terrorized with hell theology and tempted with visions of pie-in-the-sky. That's what I call marketing.

Now we get to defining "Christianity".....since this is a religion that requires obedience to one God and one teacher, it also requires adherence to one set of beliefs and one set of laws...all laid out specifically in the Bible. Those who don't abide by those teachings and laws cannot call themselves Christians. But we have Jesus own prediction that fake Christianity would surface and that corruption would infiltrate it, just as it did in Judaism.

At the judgement, Jesus says to the the ones who claim him as their "Lord"....."I never knew you". (Matthew 7:21-23) Which mean that because of their conduct, even if they claimed to be Christians, they were such in name only. Their actions cancelled out their claims to be followers of Christ. This is what you are describing. The "Christianity" that has been conducting itself in this way through the centuries, was no such thing.

When bloodshed and immorality entered into the picture...Christ left the building.

And the church has long tried to silence its critics, but not using humiliation. The just demonize and marginalize their critics. The call them immoral, in league with demons, and hateful of a loving god. This got you killed at one time. Until recently, it caused you to be a societal outcast, unfit to teach, coach, adopt, serve on juries or hold elected office. Science has no such history.

Again, you are speaking about "the church", not Christianity. When Christ's teachings are disregarded and immoral or illegal activity overtakes a member of the congregation, then the strongest discipline against an unrepentant person was to excommunicate them.....not torture them, kill them or even prevent them from holding down a job. That 'shunning' was meant to give that person a prod, in the hope of them coming to their senses and wanting to come home. (example of prodigal son)

Where would creationism be without its sales force? Haven't you indicated to us how your church would treat you if you challenged creationism? That's the social pressure. It's not in science. Scientists don't care if you believe in intelligent design.

I would have to want to challenge it. And creationism is not my belief anyway. I have belief in an Intelligent Designer who took vast amounts of time to complete his creative works. I see the act of creating the universe, including our earth as taking place eons before the earth was prepared for habitation. Creationists can do as they wish...I am not part of that crowd. Our beliefs are very different.

They do, however, require that your work be scientific to get it published in their journals. If you want to publish religious editorials - there is no actual science coming from the intelligent design, just opinion pieces - it will have to be done in publications created for that purpose.

What is classified as "scientific" then? Whatever conforms to what science believes to be true? How is the criteria different to what ID'ers promote? What I believe, accommodates both creation and science. I cannot separate the Creator from his creation. He is the greatest scientist in existence IMO, but he does not penalize his intelligent human creation with language we cannot comprehend. Learning was supposed to be an ongoing process for humans....knowledge building on knowledge until humans could study creation and unveil its secrets endlessly. With our imperfection came certain abilities in some to advance to higher levels of understanding, but not others......what also came, was the propensity for some to elevate themselves above the "common" folk and begin to entertain the notion that they did not need any gods to teach them anything. They virtually became gods to themselves....belittling anyone who disagrees with them.

What gets people like Michael Behe ostracized from the scientific community is not their religious ideas per se, but their values, ethics, and methods, which are dishonest and unscientific. Behe was part of a deception trying to get creationism back into the schools. To do so, he distorted science. That's what makes him a pariah. His multiple failed claims of irreducible complexity in various biological systems has earned his ridicule, as has his bizarre definition of a scientific theory, a definition that makes astrology a scientific theory.

I have no working knowledge of Behe or anyone else who promotes creationism. Though I have heard some good arguments from them. The very fact that you have to add that his work was "dishonest and unscientific" carries the idea that you must discredit him at the very mention of his name. I have no desire to get creationism taught in schools because I don't believe in it either. What I would like to see is the ability to disagree in the testing process where students are penalized for answering an exam question based on what they believe, rather than what is required by the education system. What happens to freedom of religion and freedom of thought? Both are banished from the education system.

And since when could astrology ever be part of Christian or scientific teaching? (Deuteronomy 18:9-12)

Even so, nobody has silenced him. Silencing is what they did to Bruno, when they burned him at the stake for heresy, or what they did to Galilieo when they confined him to his home and forbade the publishing of his book.

You are again talking about "the church"....the most unchristian institution in existence. In the Bible it is pictured as a harlot, sleeping with God's enemies and reaping what God's deems to be her just desserts. We are told to remove ourselves from her. (Revelation 18:4-5)

We all have free will and we are all free to exercise it. It's our choice....and as with all choices, they lead to outcomes. If we choose the course...we choose the outcome. Isn't that fair?

 

[shunyadragon]

And looking back you will see that I did listen and even quoted your 'evidences' back to you, outlining their absurd conclusions based on nothing but suggestions. (yep, there it is again) I saw your explanations and dismissed them as nonsense....that isn't refusing to listen...it is refusing to accept something that makes no sense, with no evidence to back it up. Isn't that what you claim to do also?

The evidence I present is what I see with my own eyes. I don't need a science degree to appreciate nature. I see design everywhere and common sense tells me there was a designer....not an accidental random combining of DNA. Not an accidental creation of the universe and all life on this planet.



"Why" has been explained many times. I have never run away....sometimes you were just not worth answering. You presented nothing new. Its all been covered.

You have your 'religion' and I have mine. You have your sacred writings, written by your honored prophets and so do we.

You have your places of worship where the indoctrinated are continually fed the same rhetoric. You accuse us of the same thing. How are you any different to us really?

No matter how many pages are written on this thread....you will still be in no better position than those who believe in an Intelligent Designer. The length of this thread is proof that you evolutionists are worried about what I post.....that it is really the kind of evidence that moves people to evaluate things a little more than what appears on the surface.

If I have caused one person to pause and think more deeply about the actual evidence that science has, compared to what they claim to have, then I am satisfied with my efforts.

Unfortunately, with a self-imposed ignorance of basic science you claim to know things based on ignorance of science, and a lack of knowledge of basic High School English concerning science. All you can do is retreat too of the claim of sola scriptura which does not address the physical evidence verifiable of science, which is lacking in sola scriptura, just blind faith without objective verifiable evidence;

 

[Deeje]

This natural selection in response to survival and creatures do not do the selection of the genetic attributes themselves. Again bad use of the English language, mutations are not accidents.

If you had feathers and you were a male bird, iridescent feathers with a green strip may be an advantage for you to have iridescent feathers.

Can you read what you just wrote and see what we see?

If I were "a male bird, iridescent feathers with a green strip may be an advantage for you to have iridescent feathers." But there is no mention of where or how I may have acquired those iridescent feathers. Iridescence is a marvel of creation all by itself. How many creatures display iridescence in their physical presentation. How often is it seen in nature?

We are naturally drawn to the beauty of this phenomena. It is not an accident of nature but something designed to catch our eye. You can believe that this is a product of evolution if you wish..... but I cannot.

Different species need their own colors to attract the female of the same species.

How can you possibly think that all that design and color just popped up out of nowhere for no apparent reason? Did the opals evolve? Did bubbles? Rainbows? Did they need iridescence to attract a mate?

Someone convinced you that evolution is true...right? Well someone convinced me that life happening as a result of random chance is impossible and that what exhibits design has to have a designer. I don't have to personally meet or know the designer to have heard of him...or to appreciate his genius.

What you need is a basic science education in geology. paleontology, and genetics to be able to ask these questions and get satisfactory answers. Since you lack this education you are shooting in the dark from a theist fundamentalist agenda without an knowledge in science.

Spoken like a true devotee of any religion. Science has obviously captivated your imagination because what science asserts is not provable by any currently known scientific method. It is "inferred" and "suggested" as has been demonstrated more times than I care to count on this thread......you are free to believe it....I personally see that it has pathetic backup considering the certainty that is expressed by the people who promote it.

"A knowledge of science" is simply knowing the language used to infer something that can never be proven. It might sound convincing until you actually understand what is implied but never openly stated......it is guesswork based on interpretation of evidence that is always going to prop up an unprovable theory.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you read what you just wrote and see what we see?

If I were "a male bird, iridescent feathers with a green strip may be an advantage for you to have iridescent feathers." But there is no mention of where or how I may have acquired those iridescent feathers. Iridescence is a marvel of creation all by itself. How many creatures display iridescence in their physical presentation. How often is it seen in nature?

We are naturally drawn to the beauty of this phenomena. It is not an accident of nature but something designed to catch our eye. You can believe that this is a product of evolution if you wish..... but I cannot.




How can you possibly think that all that design and color just popped up out of nowhere for no apparent reason? Did the opals evolve? Did bubbles? Rainbows? Did they need iridescence to attract a mate?

Someone convinced you that evolution is true...right? Well someone convinced me that life happening as a result of random chance is impossible and that what exhibits design has to have a designer. I don't have to personally meet or know the designer to have heard of him...or to appreciate his genius.



Spoken like a true devotee of any religion. Science has obviously captivated your imagination because what science asserts is not provable by any currently known scientific method. It is "inferred" and "suggested" as has been demonstrated more times than I care to count on this thread......you are free to believe it....I personally see that it has pathetic backup considering the certainty that is expressed by the people who promote it.

"A knowledge of science" is simply knowing the language used to infer something that can never be proven. It might sound convincing until you actually understand what is implied but never openly stated......it is guesswork based on interpretation of evidence that is always going to prop up an unprovable theory.

Unfortunately, with a self-imposed ignorance of basic science you claim to know things based on ignorance of science, and a lack of knowledge of basic High School English concerning science. All you can do is retreat too of the claim of sola scriptura which does not address the physical evidence verifiable of science, which is lacking in sola scriptura, just blind faith without objective verifiable evidence;

 

[Deeje]

just blind faith without objective verifiable evidence;

Yep...that is exactly what I see in macro-evolution...the rest is just empty bluster.

 

[gnostic]

If I were "a male bird, iridescent feathers with a green strip may be an advantage for you to have iridescent feathers." But there is no mention of where or how I may have acquired those iridescent feathers. Iridescence is a marvel of creation all by itself. How many creatures display iridescence in their physical presentation. How often is it seen in nature?

And you think the bible provides the explanation as to what, how and why a bird would choose to have "iridescent feathers with a green strip"?

The bible is not a biology book and it doesn't provide any details about the birds' physical attributes, mating habits, feeding habits, reproduction, genetics, etc.

Trying to mix bible with biology is not only you are doomed to fail, but it makes you look a dishonest, ignorant fool.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is involved in "selection"? The dictionary says it is to "carefully choose as being the best or most suitable."

That definition is inadequate. It only pertains to selection by a conscious agent. In the context of the theory of evolution, selection refers to a blind process.

What on earth could make these differences in presentation when they are all varieties of the same basic taxonomic family? Since these are all ducks......how do you account for all these variations if they all evolved from a common ancestor?

Genetic variation and natural selection account for the variations.

It appears to me that my Creator has been around a lot longer than your theory

The claim that a creator exists has been around longer than evolutionary theory.

That claim has no better support than what you provide here - pretty pictures and personal incredulity, or "I just can't see how it could happen without a god." Can you explain why you don't have the same incredulity for a god "happening"? What could possibly account for the existence of a god that couldn't more easily explain the existence of ducks without a god?

Until that problem is successfully addressed, the argument that a god must exist based on the complexity visible in the world is dead in the water. The argument that a living cell is too complex to exist undesigned and uncreated, and that therefore something infinitely more complex must exist undesigned and uncreated to account for it, is obviously very flawed.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science pretends it has the high ground here....I don't think it ever did, except in the minds of those who want accept it. All it has is better marketing IMO.

Science isn't marketed. Religion is.

Can you recommend a name for the phenomenon of somebody making a claim, having it refuted, failing to address the refutation, and then repeating the claim?

What do you think of that tactic? Is that good faith disputation or something less?