Just Accidental?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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?

No. In order to pass exams, a student has to show that he has learned about evolution. He doesn't have to lie about his beliefs. If he believes in creationism, he is free to say so whether he can pass the test on evolution or not.

What does that tell you? Sounds a lot like dictatorship to me.

It sounds like education to me.

I thought a democracy guaranteed freedom of thought and freedom of religion

That's not strictly correct, but we can overlook how and why it's not. Students being taught evolution retain all of their rights, including the right to fail to learn the science and to fail the test on it.

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. .

You failed to address the refutation of your claim that science is marketed. Science is not marketed, but Christianity is. There is no need to repeat the supporting argument. It still stands unchallenged.

Incidentally, what you just described sounds a lot more like dictatorship than what you claimed sounded like dictatorship. Science doesn't require obedience or adherence to any belief. You are, however required to obey scientific laws, but because nature says so, not science.

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)

And here you are ignoring the refutation to your claim that science tries to silence its critics. Christianity but not science has a long history of attempting to silence its critics. Once again, it is not necessary to repeat an argument that has been ignored. The refutation stands unchallenged. Can we assume that you choose to deflect because you have no counterargument?

What is classified as "scientific" then? Whatever conforms to what science believes to be true?

No. Scientific refers to a method for ascertaining useful ideas about the physical world based on a few principles such as rational skepticism, empiricism, falsifiability and repeatability.

How is the criteria different to what ID'ers promote?

ID is pseudoscience, that is, something that does not adhere to those methods and principles, but purports to pass as scientific. ID is religion. It's methods are faith and indoctrination. Like astrology, which is also faith based and unscientific, ID has produced no useful ideas.

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.

Behe discredited himself. He did so in the manner I described. This is not just my opinion. He is a pariah in the scientific community, and his employer, Lehigh University, has distanced themselves from him as well.

You are again talking about "the church"....the most unchristian institution in existence.

I'd say the exact opposite. The church is the most Christian institution in existence.

 

[gnostic]

You failed to address the refutation of your claim that science is marketed. Science is not marketed, but Christianity is. There is no need to repeat the supporting argument. It still stands unchallenged.

Yes, it is. And Jehovah's Witnesses even more so, being an evangelical church.

As with any evangelical church, they set out marketing their church. And JW is no different.

And here you are ignoring the refutation to your claim that science tries to silence its critics. Christianity but not science has a long history of attempting to silence its critics. Once again, it is not necessary to repeat an argument that has been ignored. The refutation stands unchallenged. Can we assume that you choose to deflect because you have no counterargument?

I'd say the exact opposite. The church is the most Christian institution in existence.

The Jehovah's Witnesses has not learned much from 2000-year of church history, where churches that gain too much power, they would abuse their power, and that often lead to oppression and corruption.

JW has fallen into the same trap that Roman Catholic Church.

JW seemed to operate like a company or corporation, with president and governing body, which is very much like board of directors. It has become institutionalised.

They control what JW believers should believe, what they can or cannot do.

I think Deeje is a typical example of being JW indoctrinated. They are not encouraged "free thought" or "independent thought".

For instance, they must follow strict line when reading the bible, accepting no other interpretations but theirs ("theirs" as in the president, governing body of JW, and the teachings of the Watch Tower). Independent interpretations of the bible are treated as hersey towards Jehovah's Witnesses.

Biblical scholarship can only follow that of the scholarship of previous JW's works. So they don't want their followers to be free-thinkers.

Jehovah's Witnesses have become increasingly ultra-conservative since the mid-70s. It is dictatorship in the communist-style.

The thing is Deeje cannot think freely, because what mandate and indoctrination that Jehovah's Witnesses have imposed on all their followers. Had she done she so, she would be punished for hersey, and possibly face excommunication, alienation and ostracism from her community. She would be seen as an apostate, and in aligned with the devil.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

Oh, lots of people have presented you evidence of all sorts; I've done it myself a few times. But as you told Valjean "I assure you that you will never impose your view on me", and as you told AndromedaRXJ "No one will ever convince me", or like how you told me that you will "never compromise".

I guess I have to give you credit for one thing Deeje, you've made it very clear from the start that you will not budge one inch on this subject, no matter what. The only thing I can't figure out is why you then keep asking for evidence. I mean.....why keep asking for evidence after you've already declared no amount of evidence will ever persuade you?

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.

Well now you're back to not telling the truth. Let's recap yet again....

When I posted links to published scientific papers that described the observed and documented evolution of new species, you complained that the jargon was beyond your understanding, and then accused the authors of using that technical language to conceal a lack of data. When I asked you to substantiate that accusation, you left.

When I posted links to descriptions of observed evolution of new traits, abilities, and genetic sequences you said they were "adaptation not evolution". But when I asked you to explain the difference between adaptation and evolution, you cited a source (Encyclopedia Britannica) that said they are the same thing. Then you left.

When I posted a link to a description of the complete fossil record of foraminifera, and how it shows Darwinian evolution over long periods of time, you went to a Wiki page for foraminifera and highlighted it using the word "likely". When I asked you to explain how that is any sort of sensible rebuttal, you left.

See the pattern? We present you with the evidence you keep asking for, you make some bizarre excuse to wave it away, and when we ask you to explain yourself, you leave. Then you go into another thread or discussion and ask to see evidence all over again, as if nothing had ever happened before.

And how did you respond to that? You left the discussion and started demanding evidence and explanations from others.​

The fact that you have to resort to this level of delusion or dishonesty to maintain your position is a good indication that your position is itself inherently delusional/dishonest.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

"I'm sorry teacher, but I believe 2 + 2 = 5, so you cannot mark my answer wrong, lest you infringe on my freedom of thought and religion."

And note the irony here of a Jehovah's Witness--one who's told us she cannot ever compromise on evolution, otherwise her church would ruin her life--complaining about an institution "requiring obedience".

The delusion is strong with this one.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

You cannot see what you have no knowledge of through self-imposed ignorance.

Self-reflection is in order concerning the content of your post.

 

[Deeje]

That definition is inadequate.

You mean you have to redefine the word to fit your worldview?....like you do with the word "theory"?

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

Exactly...selection is a conscious process.... selection is made by reason, with a specific purpose...either by the individual concerned or by installing a program in something without the ability to reason.
Its a choice......choices are not blind.

Genetic variation and natural selection account for the variations.

That is what science says but I see it only in practice with adaptation......there is no proof that it can go beyond that boundary.

All those varieties in my previous post were still ducks.....weren't they?

Like bears......lots of variety but all still bears.

The red panda could be a bit of an enigma since he is supposed to be related to giant pandas as well as raccoons....? Go figure...

What about cats?

All felines...all different and all within their taxonomic classification. They will never be anything else. They were created to be cats with the ability to adapt. I am moved to give thanks to their designer......what magnificent animals!

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.

Oh yes...the 'not-so'simple cell".

There are so many components within its structure that make it one of the most complicated things in nature. Yet it is something that according to science just popped into existence one day for no apparent reason, with the ability to replicate itself and go on to develop into every single lifeform that has ever existed......no designer necessary.

You can believe that if you wish....but it is beyond my wildest imaginings that this is a random accident.

For those who want to see for themselves what a simple cell does.....read the following.
Is Any Form of Life Really Simple? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”* Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (quoted from his book “Billions and Billions of Demons”)

Sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.” (Scientific American, “Scientists and Religion in America,” by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham)

If you are going to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. Do you for one moment think that is possible after reading the replies from evolutionists on this thread?

You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite more than a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new.

You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over eons of time.

Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths? As I have indicated before many times.....belief in evolution is an act of “faith.”

Mutation experiments repeatedly found that the number of new mutants steadily declined, while the same type of mutants regularly appeared. In addition, less than 1 percent of plant mutations were chosen for further research, and less than 1 percent of this group were found suitable for commercial use. However, not one entirely new species was ever created. The results of mutation breeding in animals were even worse than in plants, and the method was abandoned entirely.

Are science students ever told this?

 

[Polymath257]

Like bears......lots of variety but all still bears.

The red panda could be a bit of an enigma since he is supposed to be related to giant pandas as well as raccoons....? Go figure...

What about cats?

All felines...all different and all within their taxonomic classification. They will never be anything else. They were created to be cats with the ability to adapt. I am moved to give thanks to their designer......what magnificent animals!

So, in your viewpoint, the change from a brown bear to a polar bear would be micro-evolution?

Would a change from a domestic cat to a lion be micro-evolution?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You mean you have to redefine the word [selection] to fit your worldview?....like you do with the word "theory"?

No, I mean that ypou have to understand what Darwin was saying.

selection is a conscious process

Not always. Try using an ATM machine with the wrong PIN. You will be selected against by an unconscious machine.

There are so many components within [a cell's] structure that make it one of the most complicated things in nature.

The god that you propose exists to account for it is infinitely more complex. The cell contains the instructions for building another cell. This god is said to contain all knowledge possible including the knowledge necessary to build cells and universes.

Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact?

Because it is a fact. It's been observed. That is not debated in scientific circles, and nobody but the scientists get a vote - not you, and not I. Lay opinions don't matter to scientists.

You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite more than a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new.

The science contradicts you.

You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over eons of time.

The fossil record indicates no such thing. It indicates the opposite.

 

[Deeje]

So, in your viewpoint, the change from a brown bear to a polar bear would be micro-evolution?

Size can be observed within a range and color obviously could be a product of adaptation or direct creation. There are arctic rabbits, foxes, snowy owls, baby harp seals, polar bears.....all beautifully camouflaged for life in the snow. Did they just will themselves to turn white to match their surroundings? Or was there some kind of programming that facilitated the ability to adapt to the color of their surroundings? I don't know....but then, neither do you.

Camouflage is an amazing phenomenon...... Look at these......

My favorite example of adaptation is the Peppered Moth

Awesome camouflage and brilliantly adapted itself when the environment changed and it darkened its color to blend in better because of a sooty pollution problem. Once the problem was rectified, the moth changed back to its original color. Fascinating...isn't it?

We have to ask....did tall those creatures just will themselves to blend in with their surroundings?
Doesn't look accidental to me.

Would a change from a domestic cat to a lion be micro-evolution?

Since, to my knowledge, no domestic cat ever adapted to become a lion.....then no.

Like horses.....cats come in all shapes and sizes. Most of the domestic ones bred by man. But all still felines.

Even a horse crossed with a donkey (forced breeding) will still produce an equine.....another variety....a mule....usually sterile.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Just thought I might address this one, given my teaching background.

If I'm teaching my students maths, they are taught that 1 and 1 are 2, assuming we're talking decimal numbers. And if they believe it's 3...well..bad luck.

If I'm teaching them about the basis of unionism in Australia and ask them to submit a piece explaining the role unionism has in modern Australia, then it's completely different.

So...as you well know, if you stop and reflect for a moment...it is at once true that students are given freedom of thought, and also need to state what they are taught, rather than what they believe. This has 2 fifths of bugger all to do with 'The State', although that does sound sufficiently ominous, so kudos for the dramatic effect.

Incidentally, our friendly liberal government in Oz went to a lot of trouble to promote a return to 'Judeo-Christian values' quite recently (whilst under the lead of Tony Abbott), whatever the heck THAT means. I even did a humble thread on it;
Putting the 'Judeo-Christian' back into Australian Schooling...

So you are right. Sometimes 'The State' does actually interfere where it has no business, seemingly for the purpose of social engineering.

 

[Deeje]

No, I mean that ypou have to understand what Darwin was saying.

Did Darwin understand what he was saying?

Not always. Try using an ATM machine with the wrong PIN. You will be selected against by an unconscious machine.

The unconscious machine was programmed by someone intelligent. It recognizes the wrong PIN because it was programmed to do so by someone who was also conscious....presumably.

The god that you propose exists to account for it is infinitely more complex. The cell contains the instructions for building another cell.

Instructions have to come from someone with a working knowledge of the complexity......when is that not the case?

This god is said to contain all knowledge possible including the knowledge necessary to build cells and universes.

Indeed.....wouldn't you like to meet him? Imagine if we could pick his brain......I think we would need a little more capacity to cope with that, come to think of it.

Because it is a fact. It's been observed. That is not debated in scientific circles, and nobody but the scientists get a vote - not you, and not I. Lay opinions don't matter to scientists.

Its not a fact and macro-evolution has never been observed by any scientist. It has been suggested and very often.

Evolutionary scientist's opinions don't matter to Bible believers either. We really don't care what is debated in scientific circles.....you have your own echo chamber....preaching to your own 'converted'.

The science contradicts you.

Oh, but it doesn't. You only believe it does because they told you that. Everything was an assertion.....you know it was.

The fossil record indicates no such thing. It indicates the opposite.

The fossil record by scientist's own admission is sadly lacking any real evidence for its empty claims.
They can make the fossils say whatever they like....what fossil is going to argue?

 

[Deeje]

If I'm teaching my students maths, they are taught that 1 and 1 are 2, assuming we're talking decimal numbers. And if they believe it's 3...well..bad luck.

I don't know that any of us would argue that 1+1=2. Its reliably provable that this is true.
Maths is about 'provables'....science not so much. Science is more about 'suggestables'.
Nobody minds learning things that are true. I don't believe science should be teaching suggestions as the truth.

If I'm teaching them about the basis of unionism in Australia and ask them to submit a piece explaining the role unionism has in modern Australia, then it's completely different.

Of course it is.....Stating facts that are reliably researchable is not really up for grabs....unless history has been ill reported....but that is a whole other issue.

So...as you well know, if you stop and reflect for a moment...it is at once true that students are given freedom of thought, and also need to state what they are taught, rather than what they believe. This has 2 fifths of bugger all to do with 'The State', although that does sound sufficiently ominous, so kudos for the dramatic effect.

Science is not about what is 'known' as much as what is 'assumed'. It "believes" that all life evolved on this planet from a single celled organism that popped into existence one day, accidentally replicated itself, and over a few billion years produced all life that has ever existed on this planet....
Yet all it has to back up its claims is biased interpretation of "evidence" and really good diagrams and graphics...not to mention those computer animations.....totally awesome....right?

Incidentally, our friendly liberal government in Oz went to a lot of trouble to promote a return to 'Judeo-Christian values' quite recently (whilst under the lead of Tony Abbott), whatever the heck THAT means. I even did a humble thread on it;
Putting the 'Judeo-Christian' back into Australian Schooling...

So you are right. Sometimes 'The State' does actually interfere where it has no business, seemingly for the purpose of social engineering.

I am all for the separation of church and state...it is a marriage made in........you know, that other place.

I am completely A-political, so I have no real interest in what the pollies are doing. Life goes on, no matter who is in the big house. It appears to be a circus either way. I just wish I had their pension plan.

I think our kids should be able to state why they don't accept evolution based on a complete lack of reliable, substantiated eviedence.....which is exactly what we are accused of..... .....and not be penalized for their opinion.

 

[Polymath257]

Size can be observed within a range and color obviously could be a product of adaptation or direct creation. There are arctic rabbits, foxes, snowy owls, baby harp seals, polar bears.....all beautifully camouflaged for life in the snow. Did they just will themselves to turn white to match their surroundings? Or was there some kind of programming that facilitated the ability to adapt to the color of their surroundings? I don't know....but then, neither do you.

So, are the differences between different bears the result of micro-evolution? Or are they different 'kinds'? Or are they the result of macro-evolution?

You didn't answer the question.

Also, what, precisely, do you mean when you talk about 'adaptation'? Do you mean the changes in an individual that happen over its lifetime? Or do you mean the genetic changes in a population that happen over generations?

 

[Polymath257]

Since, to my knowledge, no domestic cat ever adapted to become a lion.....then no.

Like horses.....cats come in all shapes and sizes. Most of the domestic ones bred by man. But all still felines.

OK, so domestic cats are a different 'kind' than lions? How about tigers and lions? And aren't all of them felines?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't know that any of us would argue that 1+1=2. Its reliably provable that this is true.

I think you are underestimating the effect that faith has on reason:

• “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

This man is telling you that if reason and that which he has faith in come into conflict, reason is sacrificed. You cannot penetrate his faith based confirmation bias with and evidence or argument if it doesn't conform with his faith based beliefs, which is another way of saying that his mind is closed.

This should resonate with you:

• “When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” – young Earth creationist Henry Morris, co-founder of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research.

That's another mind closed off to the possibility that it is wrong. Whatever errors he has believed by faith are forever cut off from being corrected.

Here's more of that from another prominent creationism apologist:

• "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." - young Earth creationist Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis. The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?' Scientist Bill Nye answered, "Evidence." Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian."

See a trend there yet?

Here's yet more from yet another prominent Christian apologist:

• "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

All of these people are telling us the same thing, and its a characteristic of all creationists: Their minds are closed to evidence. They are of the less common variety of creationist who admits that he has no interest in evidence.

More commonly, we see people that are fitted with the same mind closing, faith based confirmation bias giving lip service to an interest in evidence, but they reject evidence out of hand just as automatically as the ones like those quoted above who will tell you up front that they aren't interested in evidence and don't use it to reach conclusions.

You can see why a rational skeptic would dismiss the opinions of people that think like that. What value could they possibly have? Faith cannot be a path to truth. No epistemology that lets you believe any idea you like or its polar opposite with equal ease can possibly be a path to truth.

Science is not about what is 'known' as much as what is 'assumed'.

Science is the only method that generates useful knowledge about physical reality. Nothing is assumed. Unconfirmed speculations are identified as such. The fundamental principles underlying science are confirmed as valid by its stunning successes.

Assumption belongs to religion. It is in religion that we see wild guesses lacking external corroboration assumed to be true and believed without question. We've seen the fruits of this approach as well. That method is sterile.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think you are underestimating the effect that faith has on reason:

• “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

This man is telling you that if reason and that which he has faith in come into conflict, reason is sacrificed. You cannot penetrate his faith based confirmation bias with and evidence or argument if it doesn't conform with his faith based beliefs, which is another way of saying that his mind is closed.

This should resonate with you:

• “When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” – young Earth creationist Henry Morris, co-founder of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research.

That's another mind closed off to the possibility that it is wrong. Whatever errors he has believed by faith are forever cut off from being corrected.

Here's more of that from another prominent creationism apologist:

• "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." - young Earth creationist Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis. The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?' Scientist Bill Nye answered, "Evidence." Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian."

See a trend there yet?

Here's yet more from yet another prominent Christian apologist:

• "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

All of these people are telling us the same thing, and its a characteristic of all creationists: Their minds are closed to evidence. They are of the less common variety of creationist who admits that he has no interest in evidence.

More commonly, we see people that are fitted with the same mind closing, faith based confirmation bias giving lip service to an interest in evidence, but they reject evidence out of hand just as automatically as the ones like those quoted above who will tell you up front that they aren't interested in evidence and don't use it to reach conclusions.

You can see why a rational skeptic would dismiss the opinions of people that think like that. What value could they possibly have? Faith cannot be a path to truth. No epistemology that lets you believe any idea you like or its polar opposite with equal ease can possibly be a path to truth.



Science is the only method that generates useful knowledge about physical reality. Nothing is assumed. Unconfirmed speculations are identified as such. The fundamental principles underlying science are confirmed as valid by its stunning successes.

Assumption belongs to religion. It is in religion that we see wild guesses lacking external corroboration assumed to be true and believed without question. We've seen the fruits of this approach as well. That method is sterile.

This post is great and comprehensive!!!, but with blindly devoted fundamentalist, it is like planting your garden on a concrete interstate.

 

[Jose Fly]

Also, what, precisely, do you mean when you talk about 'adaptation'? Do you mean the changes in an individual that happen over its lifetime? Or do you mean the genetic changes in a population that happen over generations?

There was a whole thread on that: What's the difference between "evolution" and "adaptation"?

And as far as Deeje goes, the end result was that according to her own source "adaptation" and "evolution" are the same thing (and note that she never responded to that post).

 

[Deeje]

OK, so domestic cats are a different 'kind' than lions? How about tigers and lions? And aren't all of them felines?

Let me offer this from Wiki for the sake of simplicity....since I see that you are trying to confuse the issue....

"In biological classification, taxonomic rank is the relative level of a group of organisms (a taxon) in a taxonomic hierarchy. Examples of taxonomic ranks are species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain, etc.

A given rank subsumes under it less general categories, that is, more specific descriptions of life forms. Above it, each rank is classified within more general categories of organisms and groups of organisms related to each other through inheritance of traits or features from common ancestors. The rank of any species and the description of its genus is basic; which means that to identify a particular organism, it is usually not necessary to specify ranks other than these first two.[2]

Consider a particular species, the red fox, Vulpes vulpes: its next rank, the genus Vulpes, comprises all the 'true foxes'. Their closest relatives are in the immediately higher rank, the family Canidae, which includes dogs, wolves, jackals, all foxes, and other caniforms such as bears, badgers and seals; the next higher rank, the order Carnivora, includes feliforms and caniforms (lions, tigers, hyenas, wolverines, and all those mentioned above), plus other carnivorous mammals. As one group of the class Mammalia, all of the above are classified among those with backbones in the Chordata phylum rank, and with them among all the animals in the Animalia kingdom rank. Finally, all of the above will find their earliest relatives somewhere in their domain rank Eukarya.

Here is the diagram that illustrates that statement.....

Taxonomic rank - Wikipedia

As we can see the red fox is used as an example of how taxonimic rank works.

The "Species" is a "Red Fox" and that it belongs to Genus "Vulpes". All foxes have similar characteristics and are fairly easy to identify as such, regardless of the variety. All foxes belong to this genus. Correct?

The next rank is "Canidae", which includes dogs, wolves, jackals, all foxes, and other caniforms such as bears, badgers and seals. Now this is where I believe the waters begin to be muddied.....it continues....

"The biological family Canidae /ˈkænᵻdiː/ [3] is a lineage of carnivorans that includes domestic dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals, dingoes, and many other extant and extinct dog-like mammals. A member of this family is called a canid (/ˈkænᵻd/, /ˈkeɪnᵻd/).[4]"

This "lineage" (mamalian carnivores) includes species that we would recognize as similar in appearance and behavior, but it is "assumed", not proven by any true scientific method that they are related by any continuing lines of decent.

In the description at the outset, you will notice that I highlighted the word "subsumes" (easily overlooked) which means to "include or absorb (something) in something else". The species that were "subsumed" are based on guesses, making one species appear to belong to a group, to which they are not related at all except by some structural similarities and behaviors. Their conclusions are not based on true substantiated evidence, but on purely circumstantial evidence, interpreted with strong bias. Science sees what it wants to see and pushes it views very strongly.....with almost religious passion.

"The cat-like feliforms and dog-like caniforms emerged within the Carnivoramorpha 43 million years before present.[5] The caniforms included the fox-like Leptocyon genus whose various species existed from 34 million years before present before branching 11.9 million YBP into Vulpini (foxes) and Canini (canines).[6]:174–5."

You see where science pulling a swifty here. How can anyone "know" what happened 43 million years ago? How do they know that "branching" even occurred? They assume that it did. Their "belief" has become a fact.
They lump cats and dogs in the same "Family" as if having similar characteristics means relationship....that is an assumption and completely unprovable. These species being "subsumed" into one taxonomic rank gives the appearance of relationship.....but it is only an appearance....smoke and mirrors.

Continuing.......
"In the history of the carnivores, the family Canidae is represented by the two extinct subfamilies designated as Hesperocyoninae and Borophaginae, and the extant subfamily Caninae.[7] This subfamily includes all living canids and their most recent fossil relatives.[6] All living canids as a group form a dental monophyletic relationship with the extinct borophagines with both groups having a bicuspid (two points) on the lower carnassial talonid, which gives this tooth an additional ability in mastication. This together with the development of a distinct entoconid cusp and the broadening of the talonid of the first lower molar, and the corresponding enlargement of the talon of the upper first molar and reduction of its parastyle distinguish these late Cenozoic canids and are the essential differences that identify their clade.[6]"

Do you see what I see? What is the basis for 'assuming' that dogs and cats and indeed all carniviores evolved from a common ancestor? The 'assumption' is made by comparing similarities in dental structure. Since canids are carnivores, then they assume that all carnivores must be related......? Why? Because it fits their theory, not because they can prove any of it.

Just because felines, and indeed all carnivores, have many varieties, does not mean that they were not individually designed by the Creator to be exactly what you see today. According to the Bible, the earth is very ancient and the Creator had eons of time to experiment with many different lifeforms before choosing the ones who would share life with humans as their caretakers for all time to come. Having the view that the Creator must be some kind of 'great magician in the sky', poofing things into existence, only makes your theory seem more atrractive.....he is nothing like what you see portrayed by the churches.

I see the very same evidence as you do, but without the indoctrination of atheism, or swallowing popular opinion, I can't dismiss an Intelligent Designer, when all I see is intelligent design.....everywhere in nature. Incredible systems that are vital for life. They are all there, (in what's left of the natural world) working as they were designed to work, and because many of them are not biological, they could not have evolved.

You can believe in macro-evolution if you wish......no skin off my nose.....but please don't push it as fact, when it is no such thing.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let me offer this from Wiki for the sake of simplicity....since I see that you are trying to confuse the issue....

"In biological classification, taxonomic rank is the relative level of a group of organisms (a taxon) in a taxonomic hierarchy. Examples of taxonomic ranks are species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain, etc.

A given rank subsumes under it less general categories, that is, more specific descriptions of life forms. Above it, each rank is classified within more general categories of organisms and groups of organisms related to each other through inheritance of traits or features from common ancestors. The rank of any species and the description of its genus is basic; which means that to identify a particular organism, it is usually not necessary to specify ranks other than these first two.[2]

Consider a particular species, the red fox, Vulpes vulpes: its next rank, the genus Vulpes, comprises all the 'true foxes'. Their closest relatives are in the immediately higher rank, the family Canidae, which includes dogs, wolves, jackals, all foxes, and other caniforms such as bears, badgers and seals; the next higher rank, the order Carnivora, includes feliforms and caniforms (lions, tigers, hyenas, wolverines, and all those mentioned above), plus other carnivorous mammals. As one group of the class Mammalia, all of the above are classified among those with backbones in the Chordata phylum rank, and with them among all the animals in the Animalia kingdom rank. Finally, all of the above will find their earliest relatives somewhere in their domain rank Eukarya.

Here is the diagram that illustrates that statement.....

Taxonomic rank - Wikipedia

As we can see the red fox is used as an example of how taxonimic rank works.

The "Species" is a "Red Fox" and that it belongs to Genus "Vulpes". All foxes have similar characteristics and are fairly easy to identify as such, regardless of the variety. All foxes belong to this genus. Correct?

The next rank is "Canidae", which includes dogs, wolves, jackals, all foxes, and other caniforms such as bears, badgers and seals. Now this is where I believe the waters begin to be muddied.....it continues....

"The biological family Canidae /ˈkænᵻdiː/ [3] is a lineage of carnivorans that includes domestic dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals, dingoes, and many other extant and extinct dog-like mammals. A member of this family is called a canid (/ˈkænᵻd/, /ˈkeɪnᵻd/).[4]"

This "lineage" (mamalian carnivores) includes species that we would recognize as similar in appearance and behavior, but it is "assumed", not proven by any true scientific method that they are related by any continuing lines of decent.

In the description at the outset, you will notice that I highlighted the word "subsumes" (easily overlooked) which means to "include or absorb (something) in something else". The species that were "subsumed" are based on guesses, making one species appear to belong to a group, to which they are not related at all except by some structural similarities and behaviors. Their conclusions are not based on true substantiated evidence, but on purely circumstantial evidence, interpreted with strong bias. Science sees what it wants to see and pushes it views very strongly.....with almost religious passion.

"The cat-like feliforms and dog-like caniforms emerged within the Carnivoramorpha 43 million years before present.[5] The caniforms included the fox-like Leptocyon genus whose various species existed from 34 million years before present before branching 11.9 million YBP into Vulpini (foxes) and Canini (canines).[6]:174–5."

OK, So what???? All this reveals is you can cut and past from a website.

You see where science pulling a swifty here. How can anyone "know" what happened 43 million years ago? How do they know that "branching" even occurred? They assume that it did. Their "belief" has become a fact.

No swifty here except for the phony Intelligent Design Creationist Science.

The problem remains, other than 'cut and paste citation,' you are clueless as to actual science behind the science of evolution. For that matter you remain clueless to the overwhelming evidence for an earth, solar system, and universe billions of years old.

 

[Deeje]

I think you are underestimating the effect that faith has on reason:

No .....you are underestimating the fact that not all who believe in creation are YEC proponents. I have no intention of allowing my faith to be blind....quite the contrary...I research everything and I read things very carefully, whether that be scripture or a scientific explanation for how life appeared on this planet.....oh sorry, you don't go there...right? So the 'magical poofing' is in your belief system too...? Duly noted.

This man is telling you that if reason and that which he has faith in come into conflict, reason is sacrificed. You cannot penetrate his faith based confirmation bias with and evidence or argument if it doesn't conform with his faith based beliefs, which is another way of saying that his mind is closed.

I do not subscribe to this man's (or any other man's) reasoning. I have my own reasoning abilities and my research has always allowed me to spot the frauds. Assumption carries weight when the big guys promote it...ask any advertizing agency. You think we have drunk the Kool-Aid? Look at yourselves.

See a trend there yet?

If you mean the trend in defending YECreationism when it is shown to be 'unscientific'...I agree, its mindless. But I do not subscribe to the view that science and the Bible are incompatible....and that you must choose one or the other. They merge beautifully for a very good reason.....they were created by the same person.

You can see why a rational skeptic would dismiss the opinions of people that think like that. What value could they possibly have? Faith cannot be a path to truth. No epistemology that lets you believe any idea you like or its polar opposite with equal ease can possibly be a path to truth.

Anyone who is looking for an excuse to ditch the Creator is free to do so. He will not interfere with our choices or the reasons for them. It will be entirely our decision and the natural consequence will follow as it does with any important decision we make. And this decision is one of the most important decisions we could make IMO, because of what it means for our future. If you have convinced yourself that there is no future, other than what is in the hands of man.....then what is left to say about that?

Science is the only method that generates useful knowledge about physical reality.

We agree!.....but there is a difference between "true" science (the provable kind) and theoretical science that is based on nothing but guesswork about what they "think" "might have" or "could have" taken place when no one was around to dispute their "findings"....except the Creator, of course....and he tells a vastly different story. I know which one makes sense to me...it is the position that embraces both camps (creation and science) without compromising either.

Nothing is assumed. Unconfirmed speculations are identified as such. The fundamental principles underlying science are confirmed as valid by its stunning successes.

Everything in evolutionary science pertaining to macro-evolution is assumed, not proven. To say otherwise is dishonest. All they have is proof of adaptation....which has never been disputed. It is an assumptuion that adaptation leads to macro-evolution. No one here has ever probved otherwise.

Assumption belongs to religion. It is in religion that we see wild guesses lacking external corroboration assumed to be true and believed without question. We've seen the fruits of this approach as well. That method is sterile.

I have shown you throughout this thread that assumption is just as much a part of evolution as it is for ID.
We have as much real proof for our assumptions as you do. Choose your belief system.

ID does not have nearly as many "wild guesses" as evolution does. Evolutionists also believe what they are taught "without question"...I never do. I question everything and through genuine research, I have have uncovered the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in the name of science. Its ramifications I believe, will be far reaching for every human on this planet.

We will then see whose method is sterile.....completely unable to keep itself alive.

So how's the entertainament value holding up for you?