Just Accidental?

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, actually....the first premise that humans had to evolve from lower primates. When you start with a false premise, you look for confirmation in your "evidence" to support your premise. You can make it fit if your power of suggestion is persuasive enough. Just the same as you can deny a truth if the opposite premise you operate from is also flawed. If you see the existence of a Creator as somehow beneath your dignity because your peers have presented him as myth and no self respecting scientist would subscribe to such nonsense....and religion has falsely misrepresented him by denying the facts that science CAN actually establish, then its up for grabs really. The truth is lost in human egos and peer pressure.

I seriously wonder how any thinking, rational person can look at humans and other primates and determine that we are not closely related. I think the only way someone could come to such a conclusion would be if they have an a priori belief that they have to stick with (i.e. some god created mankind in "his" image).

Supporters of evolution appear to be swapping myth for fact.....but if the Creator is real, then the proposition science is presenting is the real myth, backed up by nothing more that the power of suggestion with artificial facts, by those who are influential in the world of science. At the end of the day, its a choice of belief systems....

Once again I feel the need to point out that the existence of evolution as a fact of life has nothing to do with whether or not there is some cosmic creator god or not. Unless you think some all powerful God would be too stupid to come up with evolution.

Evolution is NOT a belief system. Neither is atheism - it's a lack of belief of a single claim.

IF the Creator is real, is the key term in your post here. Get to presenting some evidence for such a creator god and others may start considering it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Evidence from the fossil record matches with the predictions of the theory of evolution exactly when it comes to human evolution" I am sure is another way of saying "we matched our suggestions ("facts") to our pre-conceived conclusions and called it science, even when we had no real evidence that our conclusions were right." People with degrees said it was true, so it must be.

It isn't the evidence that proves anything at all...its the interpretation of the evidence that you accept. Who said that their interpretation is correct? Science cannot prove evolution anymore than I can prove a Creator, so I think you need to stop protesting that it can.

I hope I have given the readers here at least the alternative view and exposed evolutionary science for what it really is. A con of mammoth proportions.

There is not a single thing that you have presented here that backs up your first premise.
All your "facts" are suggestions and all the "evidence" is guesswork......and I think that has become very evident.

Not at all. If you had actually been paying attention to peoples' posts here, you would know that. I (and others) have addressed your claim on this matter.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who can trust politics to accomplish anything? They promise the world and deliver a few pebbles. What use is a group united by empty promises?



Of course.

I don't trust "others" to know anything for me....I have to know for myself, and not just take someone's word for it. If it makes no sense to me I can't accept it. If I can't explain it to myself, I can't expect anyone else to understand it.



I must admit, the beliefs I was raised with did nothing to inspire my confidence in God but when I was of an age to investigate for myself, I was hungry for knowledge, not doctrine or performance. I knew a little about God (sort of) but I didn't "know" God. Someone introduced me to him and I realized that He was a complete stranger to me, even though I thought I had known him all my life. Learning about him and forming a relationship with him has been an awesome experience. I am sad that unbelievers never get to even an introduction. Too many form their opinions of him from others who have never met him....often pawing over negative parts of the Bible as a reason for rejecting him.

It also helps if you are a spiritual person to begin with.....I am not sure why some people are more spiritually minded than others.

Maybe its in the genes?
I have always believed in God and always respected his word. Even when I lost faith in the church, I never threw the baby out with the bathwater.


I find governmental interference in worship that is harmless and peaceful to be odious. Persecuting people who are law abiding and non violent makes no sense, yet my brotherhood still experience hardship and imprisonment in some countries for no apparent reason other than the fact that they are preachers who won't fight in their wars.



The Bible holds out the promise of a resurrection for all who have died prior to the judgment. Death is the highest penalty anyone can pay for any crime.

According to the Bible, death is death (an unconscious condition) but it isn't a permanent condition. Jesus and his apostles performed resurrections and healing to demonstrate what will take place when God's kingdom will take back control of earth's rulership. In Eden, there was no natural cause of death. We were never designed for heaven, we were designed for this earth and the earth was designed for us. This is why evolution is such nonsense to me. The symbiosis we can observe is no accident. The natural cycles of the earth are geared to support life....this to me is obvious.
Water is the most miraculous substance on the planet, yet we take it completely for granted.

There is not a drop of water present today that wasn't here when the earth was created.....it is just constantly recycled. Nature is a recycler......only man, who alienated himself from the education provided by his Maker, is a polluter. That is soon to be rectified.

God judges the dead on the condition of their heart, not just on their former conduct or beliefs. If someone has never had an opportunity to lean about him, he will not punish them, but he will educate them so that they can choose to serve him or not.



As the quintessential parent, God allows us to experience the consequences of our own actions.
Experience is the best teacher.

He could be better looking though.....

The law of gravity is a good example I think. Disobey this law and it will become painfully and immediately obvious that you don't flout this law and get away with it. The consequences can range from bruising or a bit of skin off...to a serious injury...or even death. God will not prevent the consequence. If death results, it is reversible in the new world to come, hence we don't see it as permanent loss.
Tragic as the loss is, we see it as a temporary separation. The dead sleep peacefully in their graves, waiting for the call to return to life. God never meant for families to be separated.



God never withholds salvation from anyone. We withhold it from ourselves by our own choices.
If God lays down his rules for life (which are very reasonable) and tells his children to follow these rules in order to be happy and to enjoy a peaceful life, but then warns them that if they go down the other track, in order to do things their way, he says that road end in certain death. If we choose it anyway, knowing where it leads.....whose fault is our choice?

Why do you accept the law of gravity? Do you also accept the theory of gravity?

 

[sayak83]

There are fossils of various types of flying creatures—birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According to ToE, they must have evolved from transitional ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have ever been found. There is not even a hint of them.
Are there any fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw?

Of course there is.

But you will deny the fossil evidence when I present them to you, won't you? Just as you did with fossils showing ancient apes to human evolution?

Here is Sinovenator, a feathered dinosaur of the Cretaceous period showing the transition between the heavily boned toothed reptilian jaw and the hollow-boned toothless beak of birds. The thin lower jaw and the large air pockets in the bones of the upper jaw are clearly visible.

The illustration below is for clarifying the facial structure only, as bones are difficult understand unless one is an expert

Now a comparison with the skull of a fish eagle (modern)

 

[oldbadger]

Yep.... Evolution appears to be the most reasoned, sensible, balanced and evidenced proposal that exists, so far.
This thread has shown that beyond any doubt.

 

[Deeje]

Why do you accept the law of gravity? Do you also accept the theory of gravity?

Is this a good enough explanation?.....

"While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.


So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law of gravity that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory of gravity that describes why the objects attract each other."

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

Sounds a bout right to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is this a good enough explanation?.....

"While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.


So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law of gravity that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory of gravity that describes why the objects attract each other."

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

Sounds a bout right to me.

So you're against incorporating new information into our previous understanding of how something operates. Got it. Doesn't make much sense, but okay.

But you read the wrong part. The part you really need to pay attention to is this:

"In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us:

"Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."

So if we know the mass of two objects, and the distance between the center of mass of the two objects, we can calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about WHY it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world."

 

[Deeje]

I seriously wonder how any thinking, rational person can look at humans and other primates and determine that we are not closely related. I think the only way someone could come to such a conclusion would be if they have an a priori belief that they have to stick with (i.e. some god created mankind in "his" image).

Why disparage a belief for which I have as much actual evidence as you do. Why, if we have the same originator, can there not be other creatures who resemble us even in our DNA? We are after all made of the same stuff by the same process. We just each believe that the process was different.

Giving humans qualities and abilities, not seen in these similar creatures, means that we are special. Who can deny that there is no higher creature than man?

Science looks down its educated nose at what appears to be myth based on some sort of ancient magic.....but the existence of an all powerful Creator could be revealed tomorrow as a power yet to be discovered. Science cannot categorically deny the possibility of his existence, because science is just in its infancy really. If an Intelligent Designer does exist and revealed himself, then what would happen to your precious theory......it would go down the gurgler along with all the people who thought that they were too smart to believe in him.

Once again I feel the need to point out that the existence of evolution as a fact of life has nothing to do with whether or not there is some cosmic creator god or not. Unless you think some all powerful God would be too stupid to come up with evolution.

If he is a Creator, then everything he made would be a completed work of skill demonstrating purpose in its design, not a haphazard string of fortunate or unfortunate mutations resulting in half finished creatures which never appear in the fossil record. There is virtual miracle after miracle where the Creator of life facilitated the power of reproduction in all the life forms he created.

Evolution is NOT a belief system. Neither is atheism - it's a lack of belief of a single claim.

Oh but you are wrong....evolution and atheism require belief that life just magically sprang into existence "somehow" and then, in a long line of beneficially mutated genes, caused all things to exist on this planet, completely undirected, suggesting that it did so without any solid evidence to support that assertion whatsoever.

What is presented in a series of bits and pieces strung together with educated guesswork and wishful thinking. The premise that we "must" have evolved has replaced the theory that we "could" have. Therefore all that science says must be true because they can fit all their bits of fossils into a line if they use nothing more than imagination and suggestion. This is what you have.

IF the Creator is real, is the key term in your post here. Get to presenting some evidence for such a creator god and others may start considering it.

My "evidence" is every bit as good as yours. All you have so far is belief in what science has told you. Your facts are missing along with all your transitional forms. A chain needs links...so where are they?

I have a belief system too and I accept it at face value because its the only logical conclusion I can come to.
I'm still waiting for someone to show me the transitional form of a giraffe?

If evolution is true, there must be intermediate species. What does a half formed giraffe look like?

What transitional species did elephants evolve from? I want photographs of the evidence, not just diagrams.

 

[Deeje]

So you're against incorporating new information into our previous understanding of how something operates. Got it. Doesn't make much sense, but okay.

But you read the wrong part. The part you really need to pay attention to is this:

"In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do.

I guess the language of science falls outside of plain English. If you have to alter the meaning of a word to make it appear to carry more weight than it actually does, then that is very telling IMO.

A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world."

I am all for testing things thoroughly but the "predictive" part takes on a whole new life of its own where evolution is concerned.

 

[sayak83]

I'm still waiting for someone to show me the transitional form of a giraffe?

If evolution is true, there must be intermediate species. What does a half formed giraffe look like?

.

Delivered as requested.

The fossil animal is called Samotherium Major, a species intermediate between modern giraffes and okapi-like ancestors.

All details of the fossil including complete description of the neck and other features of the skeleton that make it a transitional giraffe ancestor are presented in the paper below.
http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/2/11/150521

Samotherium major, known from the Late Miocene of Samos in Greece and other Eurasian localities, is a key extinct giraffid; it possesses cervical vertebrae that are intermediate in the evolutionary elongation of the neck. We describe detailed anatomical features of the cervicals of S. major, and compare these characteristics with the vertebrae of the two extant giraffid taxa. Based on qualitative morphological characters and a quantitative analysis of cervical dimensions, we find that the S. major neck is intermediate between that of the okapi and the giraffe. Specifically, the more cranial (C2–C3) vertebrae of S. major represent a mosaic of features shared either with the giraffe or with the okapi. The more caudal (C5–C7) S. major vertebrae, however, appear transitional between the two extant taxa, and hence are more unique. Notably, the C6 of S. major exhibits a partially excavated ventral lamina that is strong cranially but completely absent on the caudal half of the ventral vertebral body, features between those seen in the giraffe and the okapi. Comprehensive anatomical descriptions and measurements of the almost-complete cervical column reveal that S. major is a truly intermediate-necked giraffid. Reconstructions of the neck display our findings.

The neck bone anatomy is shown in detail below.
a) Okapi b) Samotherium c) Giraffe

Next question?

 

[sayak83]

I guess the language of science falls outside of plain English. If you have to alter the meaning of a word to make it appear to carry more weight than it actually does, then that is very telling IMO.

In science the word "law" always meant a mathematical formula that describes how certain quantities are inter-related and had no other meaning.



This is true from the very beginning of science , i.e. 16th century. The technical words used in science do have meaning quite different from what it means in any ordinary language , for science is done by the English, the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Spanish, the Japanese, the Chinese .... Hence the terminology of science is not held hostage to parochial languages of a region or a nation. The terms of science are precisely defined within science and are distinct from meaning in common tongue.

The same applies to the word "law" in science.

Ideal gas law:- PV=nRT
Newton's Law:- F=ma
Coulomb's Law:- F=( k* q1*q1)/(r^2)
Hooke's Law :- F=kX

etc.

Science is not English. Its a universal system of knowledge acquisition through analysis and investigation of reality completely autonomous of cultural presuppositions or conventions.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes, actually....the first premise that humans had to evolve from lower primates. When you start with a false premise, you look for confirmation in your "evidence" to support your premise. You can make it fit if your power of suggestion is persuasive enough. Just the same as you can deny a truth if the opposite premise you operate from is also flawed. If you see the existence of a Creator as somehow beneath your dignity because your peers have presented him as myth and no self respecting scientist would subscribe to such nonsense....and religion has falsely misrepresented him by denying the facts that science CAN actually establish, then its up for grabs really. The truth is lost in human egos and peer pressure.

Why have you assumed that was the starting point? I will have to call you on that. I suggest reading the history of evolutionary study. Human evolution and our discoveries are an interesting read I suggest for everyone. We didn't first assume that we evolved from primates and then looked for evidence. IT became evident that we are in fact primates. If all species of canines share a common ancestor then so do all primates. We didn't evolve from a "lesser primate" as there is no such thing as a lesser primate. The term "Great ape" is in regard to the increased size and lack of a tail. A few other differences are noted as well.

Tldr version- You are simply claiming that we started with a point and ran with it. It was the other way around. Evidence first, then conclusion. Then continued supporting evidence is discovered. Nothing in science ever gets a pass without evidence.

Why would a creator be beneath dignity? In fact it is one of the most glorious of notions. You are not just an animal, you are an image of an almighty perfect being. I believe it is the religious that reject the idea of coming from apes because of a certain arrogance humans have for themselves.

Religion continues because of the exact processes you described. Social pressure. Social learned behaviors ect. Science is subject to different pressures. Going against the grain is sometimes hard but if the evidence is solid then the grain will not stand a chance.

Lastly belief in god has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution has to do with a specific religious belief that conflicts with the observed universe but not the concept of a deity itself.

Supporters of evolution appear to be swapping myth for fact.....but if the Creator is real, then the proposition science is presenting is the real myth, backed up by nothing more that the power of suggestion with artificial facts, by those who are influential in the world of science. At the end of the day, its a choice of belief systems....

I would agree. A belief system based on evidence and reason vs a belief system based on misguided faith. Evolution of course being the former and religion the latter. But it is not a choice of belief between two equally likely or valid choices but rather a choice to be rational or delusional.

 

[Deeje]

@Deeje

Pretend that none of us has ever heard of the Theory of Evolution and that it doesn't exist.

I don't have to pretend.

But you have this theory that some god(s) exist and that this/these god(s) made the animals and us. Now, present your evidence for the existence of this/these god(s) and that they made anything.

The evidence is all around you.....beautifully designed and produced as a finished article.

Look at them and tell me that all this perfection just happened with no intelligence directing the design of any of these creatures....
Are you blind?

I could fill pages with these pictures and every one of them would make your silly theory look like a sick joke.

Nothing is in the process of developing eyes or ears or lungs or a brain....they are all exhibiting their own evidence of having been thoughtfully designed by an intelligent mind with an amazing flair for aesthetics and color coordination.

How on earth would I ever even contemplate the the idea that all this life just appeared out of nowhere and formed itself undirected into all I see here? I know what appeals to my logic, but I'm not sure about yours.

 

[Deeje]

Delivered as requested.

The fossil animal is called Samotherium Major, a species intermediate between modern giraffes and okapi-like ancestors.

All details of the fossil including complete description of the neck and other features of the skeleton that make it a transitional giraffe ancestor are presented in the paper below.
http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/2/11/150521



The neck bone anatomy is shown in detail below.
a) Okapi b) Samotherium c) Giraffe

Next question?

Nice diagrams, now where is the evidence? Reading up on their explanation of how the giraffe got its long neck made me laugh.

A few fossil bones from all over the place and all of a sudden they have suggested it into giraffe ancestor with a shorter neck.
Did they have shorter legs too or was that the giraffe's own idea...to make his legs long as well?

 

[ArtieE]

How on earth would I ever even contemplate the the idea that all this life just appeared out of nowhere and formed itself undirected into all I see here? I know what appeals to my logic, but I'm not sure about yours.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot... you are saying that these animals couldn't exist naturally but had an Intelligent Designer but your Intelligent Designer, a being so advanced that it is capable of creating a whole universe and these animals exists naturally and wasn't created or designed? It just "appeared out of nowhere"?

 

[Deeje]

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot... you are saying that these animals couldn't exist naturally but had an Intelligent Designer but your Intelligent Designer, a being so advanced that it is capable of creating a whole universe and these animals exists naturally and wasn't created or designed? It just "appeared out of nowhere"?

We are speaking about known quantities here on earth....seen, observed, appreciated....but the Creator is not of this world...in fact he is an unknown quantity altogether, so how is it that I am supposed to quantify him? I couldn't even hazard a guess.

You think science has discovered all there is to know about what exists out there?

 

[Valjean]

Look at them and tell me that all this perfection just happened with no intelligence directing the design of any of these creatures....
Are you blind?

I could fill pages with these pictures and every one of them would make your silly theory look like a sick joke.

You're arguing from personal incredulity again, Deeje.You're ignoring the naturally directed, selective mechanisms that account for these forms. You're dismissing the mountains of evidence supporting change over time and insisting that magic is the only reasonable mechanism.
You remind me of the Papal envoy who refused to look through Galileo's telescope, saying he refused to look at something his religion told him wasn't true.

Nothing is in the process of developing eyes or ears or lungs or a brain....they are all exhibiting their own evidence of having been thoughtfully designed by an intelligent mind with an amazing flair for aesthetics and color coordination.

Not true, though the process is too slow to observe in real time.
All these organs and features are works in progress. I'm sorry they're not developing or changing fast enough for you to observe the process, and I'm frustrated by your refusal to see the changes when they do occur fast enough to observe.

How on earth would I ever even contemplate the the idea that all this life just appeared out of nowhere and formed itself undirected into all I see here? I know what appeals to my logic, but I'm not sure about yours.

Who's claiming this? Almost 600 posts and you still don't seem to understand the mechanisms we've been trying to explain to you that account for 'all this life.'
It's you who is claiming that all this life appeared fully formed out of nowhere. It's you who is appealing to magic and conflating it with "my logic."

Evolution is not just chance. It's been explained to you a hundred times that variation occurs with each generation, and that certain variants are selected for by natural, unintentional mechanisms.
You've been offered evidence you refuse to consider, and continue to mischaracterize it.

 

[Deeje]

Yep.... Evolution appears to be the most reasoned, sensible, balanced and evidenced proposal that exists, so far.
This thread has shown that beyond any doubt.

That is like preaching to the choir OB.....who else would swallow that nonsense?

 

[ArtieE]

We are speaking about known quantities here on earth....seen, observed, appreciated....but the Creator is not of this world...in fact he is an unknown quantity altogether, so how is it that I am supposed to quantify him? I couldn't even hazard a guess.

You think science has discovered all there is to know about what exists out there?

Not the point. Do you see how illogical it is for you to claim that animals would have to have been designed and created but not your Intelligent Designer, a being so advanced that it was capable of creating the universe and your animals? At least the evolutionists are doing their best to explain how animals exist, now it's your shot: Do your best to explain how your Creator exists. And remember, for every time you complain about the explanations of the evolutionists, remember how little you have.

 

[Deeje]

You're arguing from personal incredulity again, Deeje.You're ignoring the naturally directed, selective mechanisms that account for these forms. You're dismissing the mountains of evidence supporting change over time and insisting that magic is the only reasonable mechanism.

There you go again with the "magic" thing. There is no more magic in my belief than suggesting that life itself just "poofed" into existence somehow millions of years ago. You wanna pit my magic against yours?

You remind me of the Papal envoy who refused to look through Galileo's telescope, saying he refused to look at something his religion told him wasn't true.

It isn't my religion telling me.....its my own eyes. Do you need your eyes checked? If you can look at those pictures and still claim that these creatures are all just accidents of evolution, then you are clearly deluded along with the scientists who artificially paint your pictures and diagrams. You are looking at evolution through rose colored glasses.

Not true, though the process is too slow to observe in real time.
All these organs and features are works in progress. I'm sorry they're not developing or changing fast enough for you to observe the process, and I'm frustrated by your refusal to see the changes when they do occur fast enough to observe.

If there was actual evidence to back up your theory, that would be something, but I have seen no factual evidence to date. The changes happening so slowly should be evidenced by the fossil record but alas, the record fails to back up your story.

Who's claiming this? Almost 600 posts and you still don't seem to understand the mechanisms we've been trying to explain to you that account for 'all this life.'
It's you who is claiming that all this life appeared fully formed out of nowhere. It's you who is appealing to magic and conflating it with "my logic."

I understand perfectly well what it is you want me to believe but it doesn't hold water. You have science fiction to back up your claims; there are no science facts....no real evidence is ever forthcoming. Suggestion is not fact...how many times would you like me to repeat it?

Evolution is not just chance.

Everything in evolution is based on blind chance. There is nothing intelligently directed. Life did not just appear out of nowhere. Science knows this much.

It's been explained to you a hundred times that variation occurs with each generation, and that certain variants are selected for by natural, unintentional mechanisms.
You've been offered evidence you refuse to consider, and continue to mischaracterize it.

Look at the pictures again and tell me about "unintentional mechanisms".

The evidence is right under your nose but you refuse to see how lame your explanation is when you have no more proof for what you believe than I do....you have just been convinced by people who have made the power of suggestion an art form.