Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

So, will you stop throwing insults around, such as you do with scientists and other religions/denominations? If not, then at least don't whine.

My "whine" was not about the tone of the comments, as I have come to expect this kind of defensive rhetoric from those who lack a substantiated argument....but it was the base level of the content, used as an excuse not to address the issues, that was so immature....and coming from those who are supposed to be highly educated......

I posted a list of legitimate questions and what did I get? A barrage of person comments about how my beliefs interfere with my judgment about all this. I feel the same way about you evolutionists, especially the ones who just accept without question. You are all as indoctrinated in your belief system as you think I am in mine. It was embarrassingly obvious that your responses were designed to detract from the fact that you guys have no answers to those questions. This is not about JW's or their beliefs...this is about evolution verses creation, so lets put the personal distractions aside and address the issues.

If you want to say that these are all just a series of amazing coincidental happenings....then say so. But step back and ask yourself how plausible that position is when you see all those things listed together, then call belief in an Intelligent Designer, a myth or fantasy. How much credulity does it take to believe that these are all just an endless series lucky chance occurrences?

My premise is based on facts.....and the facts are...that there are NO FACTS. Do you see where that has to lead anyone with even an ounce of intelligence? It means that you have to choose your position based on what you "believe" to be true....not on any substantiated evidence for either side in this issue.

These are BOTH "belief systems", whether you want to acknowledge that or not. Evolutionists have no more actual substantive evidence for their theory than I have for my God. Has that point escaped your collective notice? Or do you still want to argue that evolution is a fact, when all the evolutionists here admit that there are NO FACTS.

"Believe" whatever you like, based on why you want to believe it....but don't pretend that there is concrete proof for macro-evolution when we know that no such proof exists. That is the only FACT in evidence here.

 

[Deeje]

If you are anti-evolution, you are indeed anti-science.

How can I be anti-science when I believe the Creator to be the greatest scientist in existence? I don't believe that theoretical science can be offered as fact when it can never be substantiated......and you know it can't.

Your threats do nothing to advance your arguments.

Ummm...do you know the difference between a threat and a warning? If I knocked at your door and told you that a natural disaster like Hurricane Irma was bearing down on your region, and you needed to take action ASAP, would you consider my warning a threat?

 

[Deeje]

If you're honestly going to argue that your faith plays no role in this, you're more delusional than I thought.

My "faith" in my Creator plays just as much of a role in my "beliefs" as your faith in science does in yours.

 

[Deeje]

You can't have it both ways. You stated: "Is the mixture of gases here in our atmosphere just a fluke? If there was a bit more oxygen in the mix, then every spark would cause an explosion. We could never light a fire to keep warm or cook our food. Every thunderstorm would be life threatening." in ignorance of the fact that this was once essentially the case and with the clear implication that the gas ratios we see now have been constant over time and the clear implication that this constant ratio is demonstrated by our use of fire.

You have not been paying attention. I am not a YEC and never have been.

Genesis can be reconciled with observable science without any difficulty. The earth in its initial stages was "formless and waste"according to Genesis.....meaning that it had none of the attributes that came with its preparation for habitation...including the mixture of gases in its atmosphere or the contribution of vegetation to the balanced level of oxygen and Co2.

The creative "days" were of undetermined length, meaning that they could well have been thousands if not millions of years long. These epochs merely had a beginning and an end. To a timeless being, what does it matter? Genesis is a virtual progress report as each stage accomplished what the Creator wanted to achieve within that timeframe.

Now your struggling to backpedal without admitting your error, just as you did with respect to the reason mollusc shells are strong. You are not anti-science, per se, to be anti-science you would have to know some science. You are proudly ignorant of the science that debunks and falsifies your beliefs and the best argument that you can muster is that science offers no absolute proof.

When have I ever backpedaled? I have stated my position all along.

I am proudly not ignorant of the way science uses the power of suggestion as a substitute for real demonstrable facts. I see through the suggestions and supposition to an empty argument supported by nothing but a desire to make God go away. I'm sorry but He's not leaving.

 

[Deeje]

Yes, life, as we know it, is a consequence of these and many more co-occurring incidents.

Lets see.....

Co-incident? No. That's natural selection at work.

Scientist's substitute for "God did it".

Fluke? No. That's known as coevolution.

Another name for an unplanned fluke.

At one time the oceans were fresh, the salt currently in them is a product of time and erosion. There is a reason that your blood is hypotonic compared to seawater, you are a walking bag of ancient ocean.

Which is the very reason why saline works better than a blood transfusion. They used sea water as a blood substitute during WW2...did you know that?

Wrong, you could have easily looked it up, but you're too lazy, I guess. Had you checked, you'd have found that water is not the only substance having such property. Many elements (e.g., silicon, germanium, gallium, arsenic and bismuth) float in their own liquid forms as do many compounds.

Our oceans are not made of silicon, germanium, gallium, arsenic and bismuth, nor are these elements likely to be found floating around us are they?

An answer posted on a website about this question says it all really....

"Frozen water floats to insulate and protect deeper aquatic life in freezing point depressed salty solution. The world surface of 70% covered with salt water but 97% volume is sea water 2% saline is protected. The body with 70% of water and plasma of even has 70% water not pure but has 0.9% salt water is protected from freezing in a warm blooded animal. Life with hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen together account for 99% of biological structure where hydrogen and helium together account for 95% of all elements in universe as such few rare elemental solids floating in its own liquid may not pose a real threat for life."

Since water is the most precious resource on earth, if it froze and sank to the bottom, the oceans would eventually become a frozen mass with no way to defrost and marine life would be threatened with extinction. Would this not also alter the process of precipitation and lead to mass extinctions in both land and sea?
If the bloodstream in living creatures had no salt content, we too would freeze and die in cold temperatures. Just accidental?

Ice floats because its molecular shape means it is less dense than liquid water. The partially negative oxygen's will interact with the partially positive hydrogen's of neighboring water molecules, and if the number of hydrogen bonds is maximized the H2Os form tessellations of hexagons. These hexagons have a lot of space between them, which makes ice less dense than irregular water molecules, because the stability from the hydrogen bonds as a hexagon makes up for the lack of entropy in this ordered configuration. (thanks Trevor Zandi). Is this a "fluke?" In your terms, yes it is. Is this evidence of a divine plan? No, it is not ... you are (as per usual) putting the cart before the horse.

Cause and effect Sapiens.....it isn't "how" ice floats that is important......but "why" it does so and the consequences thereof....which are all beneficial. Just a fluke? Or you are putting the cart before the horse. You have no real proof that your version is superior.

No, that's evolution for you. Organic material creates a niche and organisms evolve to fill the niche. Nature abhors a vacuum.

Just like a city implements a recycling program because it finds itself drowning in its own refuse? Will that happen without intelligent planning?

No, there are no vital functions controlled by the moon but those that evolved in the presence of the perturbations the moon created. Isn't it odd to note that such functions are keyed not to the current moon's revolution but to that of long ago? Are you really trying to suggest that the moon is a divine night light? What about the new moon when it sheds no light? Do you have some Christian fairy tale akin to the Ouroboros?

No.....humans are very good at creating their own fantasies....even scientists. There is nothing quite like the appearance of the full moon....it has engendered feelings of great emotion for as long as humans have existed. Some even took to worshipping it. But its function is vital to life on earth.

We have not even begun to explore space and search for intelligent life. Seti was a huge failure because it not only had to search a huge volume of space but had to hone in on the very short period of time that a civilisation would have been using the inferior technology of analog rather than digital transmissions.

Are you telling me that science is actually ignorant in this sphere Sapiens? What other spheres might we see the same level of ignorance, I wonder?

Actually that a bogus statement. There is an immense quantity of interlocking and mutually supportive evidence for macro-evolution, but you are right that a science degree is not required to appreciate it, just an rational mind without massive presupposition.

I'm sorry, but now you are going to have to pick me up off the floor...

"just an rational mind without massive presupposition"...I love the way you say that without the slightest notion that you are describing blind belief in macro-evolution as if it requires more?

The questions have nothing to do with religion, and neither do the real answers. The next thing you will be claiming it that every time someone trips over something it is the intelligent direction or planning of the devil.

Nah.....life has its natural ups and downs.....but I don't believe that world events are a co-incidence. Things are happening just the way the Bible said they would in this "time of the end". You don't have to believe me....but one day you might be forced to.

I will leave your response for the readers to evaluate for themselves and to determine whether it has merit.

All I see is a vain attempt to disarm a very large bomb with a toothpick.

I think we understand that you believe its all just a massive series of fortunate co-incidences.......I don't see how that is even a rational explanation.

 

[Sapiens]

You have not been paying attention. I am not a YEC and never have been.

I never said that you were YEC, there are many other ways to still be wrong and you manage to hit most of them.

Genesis can be reconciled with observable science without any difficulty. The earth in its initial stages was "formless and waste"according to Genesis.....meaning that it had none of the attributes that came with its preparation for habitation...including the mixture of gases in its atmosphere or the contribution of vegetation to the balanced level of oxygen and Co2.

"Formless and waste" is just so much crap. The second you realize that there are no gods the more meaningless the terms become.

The creative "days" were of undetermined length, meaning that they could well have been thousands if not millions of years long. These epochs merely had a beginning and an end. To a timeless being, what does it matter? Genesis is a virtual progress report as each stage accomplished what the Creator wanted to achieve within that timeframe.

The absence of the creator you keep failing to produce meaningful evidence for discounts that argument to zero.

When have I ever backpedaled? I have stated my position all along.

Constantly, you pretend to not see the actual issues and then try to switch the subject to whether or not you are a YEC.

I am proudly not ignorant of the way science uses the power of suggestion as a substitute for real demonstrable facts. I see through the suggestions and supposition to an empty argument supported by nothing but a desire to make God go away. I'm sorry but He's not leaving.

Please, demonstrate some real demonstrable facts. That is something you have, so far, failed to do.

 

[gnostic]

I never said that you were YEC, there are many other ways to still be wrong and you manage to hit most of them.

You could say that again.

Please, demonstrate some real demonstrable facts. That is something you have, so far, failed to do.

That's also true.

 

[Sapiens]

An answer posted on a website about this question says it all really....

"Frozen water floats to insulate and protect deeper aquatic life in freezing point depressed salty solution. The world surface of 70% covered with salt water but 97% volume is sea water 2% saline is protected. The body with 70% of water and plasma of even has 70% water not pure but has 0.9% salt water is protected from freezing in a warm blooded animal. Life with hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen together account for 99% of biological structure where hydrogen and helium together account for 95% of all elements in universe as such few rare elemental solids floating in its own liquid may not pose a real threat for life."

I do not know your source for this but it is clearly solid floating nonsense. Try again and look for complete sentences.

Since water is the most precious resource on earth, if it froze and sank to the bottom, the oceans would eventually become a frozen mass with no way to defrost and marine life would be threatened with extinction. Would this not also alter the process of precipitation and lead to mass extinctions in both land and sea?

If ice did not float life could never have evolved. So what? There would be no extinctions because there would be no life.

If the bloodstream in living creatures had no salt content, we too would freeze and die in cold temperatures. Just accidental?

Salt or no salt you will still freeze at about -2 degrees C. Salt is not in the blood to gain a two degree advantage. Fish in sea water of that temperature do no just add salt, they actually have non-saline antifreeze in their blood. Chalk up another of your famous misunderstandings of the basic science.

Cause and effect Sapiens.....it isn't "how" ice floats that is important......but "why" it does so and the consequences thereof....which are all beneficial. Just a fluke? Or you are putting the cart before the horse. You have no real proof that your version is superior.

Why? Because of the shape of that water molecule. There is proof of that. Chalk up another of your famous misunderstandings of the basic science.

Just like a city implements a recycling program because it finds itself drowning in its own refuse? Will that happen without intelligent planning?

It might require intelligent planning to put together trash truck routes, but it is not required for rot. Natural selection serves fine.

No.....humans are very good at creating their own fantasies

You should know better than most.

....even scientists. There is nothing quite like the appearance of the full moon....it has engendered feelings of great emotion for as long as humans have existed. Some even took to worshipping it. But its function is vital to life on earth.

Only because life evolved in its presence. You make good arguments for evolution and natural selection ... keep it up.

Are you telling me that science is actually ignorant in this sphere Sapiens? What other spheres might we see the same level of ignorance, I wonder?

No, science went with the best thinking at the time and has learned with the the advent of digital communications that it was wrong. Happy to admit mistakes when they are made. Happy to correct.

I'm sorry, but now you are going to have to pick me up off the floor...

"just an rational mind without massive presupposition"...I love the way you say that without the slightest notion that you are describing blind belief in macro-evolution as if it requires more?

You have been repeatedly enlightened as to the evidence for macro-evolution, and have failed to provide a mechanism for preventing micro to become macro over time. Are you sure your droping to the floor was not the result of some issue of organic origin? I'd seek medical help.

Nah.....life has its natural ups and downs.....but I don't believe that world events are a co-incidence. Things are happening just the way the Bible said they would in this "time of the end". You don't have to believe me....but one day you might be forced to.

Religionists have been making that claim for thousands or years (at least) and have never been right. Your track record sucks.

I will leave your response for the readers to evaluate for themselves and to determine whether it has merit.

All I see is a vain attempt to disarm a very large bomb with a toothpick.

If I recall there were some German bombs that were disarmed by placing a toothpick in a hole that thus inactivated the detonator. Perhaps you'd prefer a different analogy?

I think we understand that you believe its all just a massive series of fortunate coincidences.......I don't see how that is even a rational explanation.

No, I see them as descriptions of what was and is that to a degree defined the path for natural selection. Again, you've to the cart before the horse.

 

[Deeje]

You could say that again.


That's also true.

OOO look! A cheer squad!

 

[Deeje]

You have been repeatedly enlightened as to the evidence for macro-evolution, and have failed to provide a mechanism for preventing micro to become macro over time.

As I recall, it is science itself that has failed to produce the evidence that adaptation leads to anything other than small changes in a single family of organisms. That it leads to anything that eventually morphs one species into another, is a suggestion that science cannot prove ever took place....no matter how much time you throw at it. Mechanisms require a mechanic.

I do not know your source for this but it is clearly solid floating nonsense.

I think he sounds more convincing than you since you offered nothing to counter what he said. Perhaps you are the one clearly floating nonsense?

If ice did not float life could never have evolved. So what? There would be no extinctions because there would be no life.

Well look at that......no water, no life.
What is water Sapiens? How did it get here? Did it also just magically appear for no apparent reason?...like life itself? It is brilliantly recycled, ensuring that there is fresh water for land dwellers to drink. What happens when we drink salt water? Who designed the mechanism that turns salt water into fresh drinkable water? Just a fluke...right?

Salt or no salt you will still freeze at about -2 degrees C. Salt is not in the blood to gain a two degree advantage. Fish in sea water of that temperature do no just add salt, they actually have non-saline antifreeze in their blood. Chalk up another of your famous misunderstandings of the basic science.

On the subject of fish with 'anti-freeze' proteins in their blood, I thought this was interesting......note the explanation in support of how it "must have" happened.....two choices as to how evolution explains it all....

"Surprisingly, the Antarctic toothfish is not the only fish in the sea that produces these handy chemicals. At the Earth's opposite pole lives the Arctic cod, which has antifreeze glycoproteins nearly identical to those of the Antarctic toothfish.

There are two possible explanations for this observation. Either the species are closely related and both inherited their antifreeze genes from a common ancestor, or the antifreeze glycoproteins evolved independently in the two lineages. The answer is clear when you look at the evolutionary tree of the fish. The two species in question are distantly related and neither has close relatives with the unusual proteins; hence, this seems to be an example of convergent evolution, a form of evolution in which similar traits evolve in two separate lineages because both are faced with similar environmental challenges and experience a similar process of natural selection."

It goes on to say....

"This explanation is also supported by genetic evidence. Different genes are responsible for producing antifreeze in the two species. The Arctic cod's antifreeze gene has nothing to do with the genes that code for its pancreatic digestive juices. Its antifreeze gene must have evolved in some other way, along a separate path from that taken by the antifreeze gene of the Antarctic toothfish, but reaching the same endpoint. In these two lineages, at opposite ends of the globe, the process of natural selection has favored the evolution of remarkably similar proteins.."

No ice in their veins

Distantly related fish (how do they even determine this?) that live at opposite poles with no identified common ancestor....so "this seems to be" evolution that we just made up to explain what isn't obvious....."two possible explanations" but we can't really prove either of them......so because one fish has a different code to the other, "its antifreeze gene MUST HAVE evolved in some other way"..... Really? You see certainty in this speculation?

Why? Because of the shape of that water molecule. There is proof of that. Chalk up another of your famous misunderstandings of the basic science.

Who shaped the water molecule? Or was that just another convenient accident?

It might require intelligent planning to put together trash truck routes, but it is not required for rot. Natural selection serves fine.

It is a cleverly designed system Sapiens. It has been recycling dead matter for eons whilst keeping billions of organisms alive....these in turn keep other living things alive. Humans could take a leaf.....ya know.

Science has been responsible for much of the pollution on this planet but very tardy when it comes to finding solutions to cleaning up its own mess.

No, science went with the best thinking at the time and has learned with the the advent of digital communications that it was wrong. Happy to admit mistakes when they are made. Happy to correct.

Happy to correct when there is no other option....otherwise science sticks to its theories whether it can prove them or not. Happy to admit mistakes? Not really.

I see them as descriptions of what was and is that to a degree defined the path for natural selection. Again, you've to the cart before the horse.

You act as if science has it all sorted Sapiens.....but what will you do if its proven that science that has the cart before the horse?

 

[ArtieE]

On the subject of fish with 'anti-freeze' proteins in their blood, I thought this was interesting......note the explanation in support of how it "must have" happened.....two choices as to how evolution explains it all....

"Surprisingly, the Antarctic toothfish is not the only fish in the sea that produces these handy chemicals. At the Earth's opposite pole lives the Arctic cod, which has antifreeze glycoproteins nearly identical to those of the Antarctic toothfish.

There are two possible explanations for this observation. Either the species are closely related and both inherited their antifreeze genes from a common ancestor, or the antifreeze glycoproteins evolved independently in the two lineages.

What if the sentence had said "There are four possible explanations for this observation. Either the species are closely related and both inherited their antifreeze genes from a common ancestor, or the antifreeze glycoproteins evolved independently in the two lineages or some god was involved or some aliens deliberately did it."? Then what? How should scientists proceed to find out the actual truth?

 

[metis]

My "whine" was not about the tone of the comments, as I have come to expect this kind of defensive rhetoric from those who lack a substantiated argument....

As usual, another "deflection". The point I was making is that you act in such a pathetically hypocritical manner.

These are BOTH "belief systems", whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

Anyone who does not understand the nature of objective scientific analysis is ignorant on how science works. The "scientific method" was designed to try and avoid bias, whereas religious beliefs are built on bias. Equating them as being the same simply is grossly delusional.

"Believe" whatever you like, based on why you want to believe it....but don't pretend that there is concrete proof for macro-evolution when we know that no such proof exists.

Is that why geneticists, who are the reigning experts on this, simply do not support your assertions? Oh ya, you undoubtedly think they're undoubtedly just ignorant and dishonest as well.

People here have shown you over and over again what scientists have concluded from their many studies, including with links to scientific sources, but you just ignore what they say and then come back and say they haven't substantiated anything. Bizarre.

 

[Jose Fly]

My "whine" was not about the tone of the comments, as I have come to expect this kind of defensive rhetoric from those who lack a substantiated argument....but it was the base level of the content, used as an excuse not to address the issues, that was so immature....and coming from those who are supposed to be highly educated......

I posted a list of legitimate questions and what did I get? A barrage of person comments about how my beliefs interfere with my judgment about all this.

Let's summarize what's going on here....

We have a person who belongs to a religion that tells her if she goes against their teachings about science, they will ruin her life. That person then spends many, many hours online asking strangers for evidence that would contradict those teachings. But naturally given the potential consequences, whenever such evidence is presented she makes up ridiculous excuses to wave it away and then declares victory.

Now most rational people are going to very quickly appreciate the reality of the situation.....they will stop spending time posting and explaining scientific evidence to her, and will turn their focus to the obvious root of the issue, i.e., her religion. But then whenever anyone even broaches that subject and the importance of the emotional blackmail her religion is putting her under, she claims "personal attack" and plays the victim.

This is the point where I kind of feel sorry for you Deeje. The patterns in your behaviors are so transparent, it's like reading a hypothetical case history from a psychology 101 textbook. Two things are readily apparent here: 1) every bit of your behavior here is a direct result of the threat of personal ruin your church has you under, and 2) you are not emotionally strong enough to confront that abusive situation.

So I guess we'll just keep watching you repeat this sad pattern, until you're either ready to deal with the real issue or you leave.

 

[Jose Fly]

My "faith" in my Creator plays just as much of a role in my "beliefs" as your faith in science does in yours.

Can you show me where anyone in my profession has threatened me with personal ruin if I deviate from their "teachings"?

 

[Sapiens]

As I recall, it is science itself that has failed to produce the evidence that adaptation leads to anything other than small changes in a single family of organisms. That it leads to anything that eventually morphs one species into another, is a suggestion that science cannot prove ever took place....no matter how much time you throw at it. Mechanisms require a mechanic.

You recall wrong, all you need to remember is "classic argument from ignorance."

I think he sounds more convincing than you since you offered nothing to counter what he said. Perhaps you are the one clearly floating nonsense?

He does not even write in intelligible sentences.

Well look at that......no water, no life.
What is water Sapiens? How did it get here? Did it also just magically appear for no apparent reason?...like life itself? It is brilliantly recycled, ensuring that there is fresh water for land dwellers to drink. What happens when we drink salt water? Who designed the mechanism that turns salt water into fresh drinkable water? Just a fluke...right?

Another classic argument from ignorance.

On the subject of fish with 'anti-freeze' proteins in their blood, I thought this was interesting......note the explanation in support of how it "must have" happened.....two choices as to how evolution explains it all....

"Surprisingly, the Antarctic toothfish is not the only fish in the sea that produces these handy chemicals. At the Earth's opposite pole lives the Arctic cod, which has antifreeze glycoproteins nearly identical to those of the Antarctic toothfish.

There are two possible explanations for this observation. Either the species are closely related and both inherited their antifreeze genes from a common ancestor, or the antifreeze glycoproteins evolved independently in the two lineages. The answer is clear when you look at the evolutionary tree of the fish. The two species in question are distantly related and neither has close relatives with the unusual proteins; hence, this seems to be an example of convergent evolution, a form of evolution in which similar traits evolve in two separate lineages because both are faced with similar environmental challenges and experience a similar process of natural selection."

It goes on to say....

"This explanation is also supported by genetic evidence. Different genes are responsible for producing antifreeze in the two species. The Arctic cod's antifreeze gene has nothing to do with the genes that code for its pancreatic digestive juices. Its antifreeze gene must have evolved in some other way, along a separate path from that taken by the antifreeze gene of the Antarctic toothfish, but reaching the same endpoint. In these two lineages, at opposite ends of the globe, the process of natural selection has favored the evolution of remarkably similar proteins.."

No ice in their veins

Distantly related fish (how do they even determine this?) that live at opposite poles with no identified common ancestor....so "this seems to be" evolution that we just made up to explain what isn't obvious....."two possible explanations" but we can't really prove either of them......so because one fish has a different code to the other, "its antifreeze gene MUST HAVE evolved in some other way"..... Really? You see certainty in this speculation?

Who shaped the water molecule? Or was that just another convenient accident?

Another classic argument from ignorance.

It is a cleverly designed system Sapiens. It has been recycling dead matter for eons whilst keeping billions of organisms alive....these in turn keep other living things alive. Humans could take a leaf.....ya know.

Another classic argument from ignorance, but then you've always been a one trick pony and that trick is not even a good one.

 

[osgart]

eating animals to survive isn't exactly a divine plan. why would God create such a predicament?

the universe is savage and indifferent to life.

where's all the perfection in the universe?

 

[SkepticThinker]

How can I be anti-science when I believe the Creator to be the greatest scientist in existence? I don't believe that theoretical science can be offered as fact when it can never be substantiated......and you know it can't.

Because of your belief that this Creator made the universe for us, it appears that you are denying the science that conflicts with the things that belief entails. You seem to accept the science only when it does not pose a threat to those preconceived beliefs. The result is that it has hindered your understanding of the available science.

Ummm...do you know the difference between a threat and a warning? If I knocked at your door and told you that a natural disaster like Hurricane Irma was bearing down on your region, and you needed to take action ASAP, would you consider my warning a threat?

Believe what I believe, or else. Do as I say, or else. Just a warning, of course.


Oh I'm not upset by it. I find it kind of amusing, actually. I just don't think it adds anything to your argument(s).

 

[SkepticThinker]

My "faith" in my Creator plays just as much of a role in my "beliefs" as your faith in science does in yours.

On the one hand, we have "faith" that there is an all-knowing, all-seeing invisible being that created a universe with us in mind, and that we can glean the minutia of what this being wants from us from an ancient book and from superficial examination of the ducks and trees around us.

On the other hand, we have "faith" that the self-correcting method of observing, testing, repeating, publishing, comparing, sharing and integrating information from several different independent groups from various different disciplines over long periods of time, will help us glean information about the universe we find ourselves in.


I'm sorry, but I fail to see how those two types of faith are the same. Especially given that the second type of "faith" is the one that has resulted in producing all knowledge we currently hold about the world we live in.

 

[Deeje]

What if the sentence had said "There are four possible explanations for this observation.

What changes except the level of uncertainty.

Either the species are closely related and both inherited their antifreeze genes from a common ancestor, or the antifreeze glycoproteins evolved independently in the two lineages or some god was involved or some aliens deliberately did it."? Then what? How should scientists proceed to find out the actual truth?

Science is telling us that the second proposition "must have" happened...but there is nothing to back this up but supposition. They doesn't really mean "must have"....but more "might have"......big difference.

Anyone looking to support evolution will immediately hang onto their explanations no matter how flimsy the evidence is. You have "beliefs"......can you not see that you are in no better position to tout your theory than we are to acknowledge the evidence for Intelligent Design?

 

[Deeje]

As usual, another "deflection". The point I was making is that you act in such a pathetically hypocritical manner.

Oh boo hoo metis.

Seriously, what is with the continual appeals to emotion. This is a debate forum...for goodness sake....I don't care about your accusations.......they are water off a ducks back. Discuss the topic!

It is not hypocrisy to tell the truth. Didn't Jesus do this? Did he tip-toe around people so as not to hurt their itty bitty feelings?
If you are so offended by my posts.....don't read them.

Simple solution....right?

Anyone who does not understand the nature of objective scientific analysis is ignorant on how science works.

I think we are all aware of "how science works"......there is no "objectivity" on either side of this argument. Each is as passionate about extolling the virtues of their position as the other. I am not here to convince you or any other evolution supporter about the validity of my arguments, but since this thread has had over 69,000 views to date, "someone" must be interested in the content of this debate. How many other threads in this forum have had this much traffic?

The "scientific method" was designed to try and avoid bias, whereas religious beliefs are built on bias. Equating them as being the same simply is grossly delusional.

I think we all understand what "delusional" means and who is exhibiting it. You don't think there is bias in science? Now that is funny.

The "scientific method" is what scientists use to add their own flavor to the pot. It's about "interpretation" of evidence, not what the evidence itself is saying. Bias is at work there.

Is that why geneticists, who are the reigning experts on this, simply do not support your assertions? Oh ya, you undoubtedly think they're undoubtedly just ignorant and dishonest as well.

Are the "reigning experts" being "deliberately ignorant and dishonest"?....NO! in most cases. But, according to the Bible, there is a power that controls this world that has more influence than you can possibly imagine. His main agenda is to steer people away from the truth about creation by appealing to ego and self interest.....and it works! The halls of higher learning are full of people who are after recognition and accolades and degrees and acknowledgments and grants, not to mention tenure and a fat salary. Corruption is everywhere, even when it isn't obvious.

Under the heading....
Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science
Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed.

Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science | David Colquhoun

That's the thing about con artists and their practices.....the con looks like the truth. They present themselves as completely trustworthy.

People here have shown you over and over again what scientists have concluded from their many studies, including with links to scientific sources, but you just ignore what they say and then come back and say they haven't substantiated anything. Bizarre.

Actually, what's bizzare is the fact than none of you have anything substantial to offer by way of unbiased evidence. Everything that has been presented so far has been shown to be the same 'educated guesswork' and 'assumption' masquerading as facts by the same people who are still here pretending that they proved something....they proved nothing.
Just flogging the same dead horse.

We are all choosing sides metis......our choices reflect where our heart is. I believe this is decision time and we had better make the right choice. This is no time for indecision.