Just Accidental?

[SkepticThinker]

LOL.....more theories about theories. And who is formulating these theories? Don't tell me, let me guess...

It's a good thing we have people who diligently and rigorously study this stuff their whole lives so we don't have to all just cop out with "god did it."

 

[SkepticThinker]

Re: the Bible.
If nothing else it's The Handbook for Human Behavior.
Just my 2 cents worth.
(caveat: disregard all the violence in the o.t. please)

So which parts have you cherry picked as the "Handbook for Human Behavior?"

We're ignoring the OT, so I guess that leaves out the Commandments right off the bat.

 

[jeager106]

So which parts have you cherry picked as the "Handbook for Human Behavior?"

We're ignoring the OT, so I guess that leaves out the Commandments right off the bat.

Bravo!
Compliments on the post.
I like that.
Jesus gave a new command: "As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
Nothing was replaced, just added.
Cherry picked?
Gee I can't quote the entire Christian Bible.

 

[Deeje]

I don't get what you're talking about here. I haven't talked about worship.

When you speak of gods you naturally speak of worship. It goes with the territory.

Rejecting the scientific consensus on the origin of species in favour of a simplistic creation narrative.

Most creationists follow a young earth policy. The Bible does not support a young earth. It doesn't necessarily support a 24 hour "day" either.

While you will likely disagree, I hope you can understand that from most people's perspective to reject evolution is like holding up the flat Earth theory.

Do you think people who reject the Earth being spherical should reflect that in exams etc?

Since the images from space prove that the earth is not flat, that is a little silly. There is a vast difference between proven science and speculative ideas inspired by scientists, which at the end of the day, cannot be proven by any scientific method. How can you not see the difference? No branch of science can prove conclusively that any of their fossils are related in a chain of descent. The way science interprets their evidence could be the greatest con job ever. It is like a religion with many converts.

Certainy there are problems with the education system, but I am not convinced this is one of them.

It is a problem for children raised in Christian households. It's blatant discrimination IMO. There is no room to repudiate the theory without penalty. In order to avoid compromise, our children have to word exam papers carefully.

Evolution is just a phenomenon, like the orbit of planets around the sun etc. My accepting evolution is neither here nor there in my relationship with God!

"Just a phenomenon"? You can just wave your hand over the monumental evidence for creative genius in the myriad lifeforms on this planet, and their amazing environments and deny an intelligent direction for any of it? I can't do that without fighting with my logic.

Surveys in the US show 8% of self-declared JWs accept evolution - this is the lowest of any religious group! But presumably that 8% will not enjoy eternal life.

We do not deny micro-evolution.....we just deny organic evolution. One is not proof for the other.

As to who is worthy of eternal life...we leave that judgment to Jesus. He alone has been appointed to that role. We don't have to impress one another...we have to impress him.

BTW....Not all self-declared JW's actually are. It takes a lot more than wearing a label to be a Witness of Jehovah....just sayin'....

 

[savagewind]

Bravo!
Compliments on the post.
I like that.
Jesus gave a new command: "As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
Nothing was replaced, just added.
Cherry picked?
Gee I can't quote the entire Christian Bible.

Some people can do that.

Am I imaging the movie about the man who can quote the whole Bible and another man thinks he has magic and another man wants his info because Lord of lords! the Bible didn't survive Armageddon?

I have NEVER seArched the internet so musch to find the god-dM MAN'S NAME (iT IS THE TITLE OF THE MOVIE) oH ****

 

[Deeje]

It's a good thing we have people who diligently and rigorously study this stuff their whole lives so we don't have to all just cop out with "god did it."

I believe it's a good thing that we have people who will call science out on the "suggestions" they pass off as "facts" too. Otherwise they would probably continue to convince weak minded people that what they teach is truth instead of mere theory....we know they don't tell the truth and will continue to expose their "science fact" as nothing more than "science fiction".

Why is "evolution did it" more believable than "God did it"?

 

[savagewind]

Oh. I am sorry, off topic I am.............and in the wrong thread.

 

[Kirran]

When you speak of gods you naturally speak of worship. It goes with the territory.

OK, but I didn;t say anything about how I worshipped or what worship meant to me. So I don't know where you got ideas about my worship from.

Most creationists follow a young earth policy. The Bible does not support a young earth. It doesn't necessarily support a 24 hour "day" either.

That's cool.

Since the images from space prove that the earth is not flat, that is a little silly. There is a vast difference between proven science and speculative ideas inspired by scientists, which at the end of the day, cannot be proven by any scientific method. How can you not see the difference? No branch of science can prove conclusively that any of their fossils are related in a chain of descent. The way science interprets their evidence could be the greatest con job ever. It is like a religion with many converts.

SCIENCE IS NOT INVOLVED IN PROOF. I have said this before, but it seemed to be ignored, so I put it in capital letters.

Science is involved in looking at evidence, not in proving things. That's maths. I have looked into this subject, and much as it doesn't fit with your understanding I think the evidence behind evolution is absolutely rock solid. So I see no real difference in letting kids think the Earth is flat and letting them say evolution is nonsense. I know you don't think this makes sense and you have your reasons, but this is how I see it, after having studied this area substantially.

It is a problem for children raised in Christian households. It's blatant discrimination IMO. There is no room to repudiate the theory without penalty. In order to avoid compromise, our children have to word exam papers carefully.

Not all Christians reject evolution. By a long shot.

"Just a phenomenon"? You can just wave your hand over the monumental evidence for creative genius in the myriad lifeforms on this planet, and their amazing environments and deny an intelligent direction for any of it? I can't do that without fighting with my logic.

I don't see God as some separate entity who is essentially an agent alongside us albeit with much more power. I see God as the ground of all being, as the animating force behind all form and all motion, as the will which moves every atom in the universe. God is manifest as every form, and transcendent of them. So all evolution is God's dance to me.

As for logic - you say yourself you look at things and can't help but think that they're designed and so forth - this isn't logic, it's a kind of instinctive response. That's fine, I'm not knocking it, but describe it accurately.

We do not deny micro-evolution.....we just deny organic evolution. One is not proof for the other.

As to who is worthy of eternal life...we leave that judgment to Jesus. He alone has been appointed to that role. We don't have to impress one another...we have to impress him.

BTW....Not all self-declared JW's actually are. It takes a lot more than wearing a label to be a Witness of Jehovah....just sayin'....

Is microevolution inorganic?

I believe all are not only worthy of eternal life but inevitably receive it.

 

[ArtieE]

Why is "evolution did it" more believable than "God did it"?

Why are the explanations meteorologists have for thunder more believable than "Thor did it"?

 

[savagewind]

I believe it's a good thing that we have people who will call science out on the "suggestions" they pass off as "facts" too. Otherwise they would probably continue to convince weak minded people that what they teach is truth instead of mere theory....we know they don't tell the truth and will continue to expose their "science fact" as nothing more than "science fiction".

Why is "evolution did it" more believable than "God did it"?

It is because God caused evolution to do it. You see, there is no evidence of God, but there is plenty of evidence of evolving species.

Just so you know @Deeje, I am not able to settle on the probability that life is an accident. I am not able to NOT believe in God. I think you are wasting your time debating evolution because it is real and there is proof that it is real. I understand that the proof that one species morphing into another is lacking, but is that really worth your time? A God believer will be a God believer and an atheist will be an atheist. I think that it is not God's will that you should turn atheism into believing......even if you do turn anyone into a believer, there is absolutely no guarantee that the person will become a Jehovah's Witness and that is probably why some people might accuse you of racking up hours.

 

[Deeje]

OK, but I didn;t say anything about how I worshipped or what worship meant to me. So I don't know where you got ideas about my worship fro.

If you identify as Hindu, you evoke religion and worship, regardless of your particular version of it.

SCIENCE IS NOT INVOLVED IN PROOF. I have said this before, but it seemed to be ignored, so I put it in capital letters.

What can I put in capital letters to make you understand what I have said all along?
PLEASE DON'T TEACH THEORY AS FACT WHEN THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE IT. CALL IT A THEORY AND DON'T PRETEND THAT IT IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH WHEN YOU HAVE NO WAY TO SUBSTANTIATE IT WITHOUT BIASED INTERPRETATION OF THE "EVIDENCE".

Science is involved in looking at evidence, not in proving things. That's maths. I have looked into this subject, and much as it doesn't fit with your understanding I think the evidence behind evolution is absolutely rock solid. So I see no real difference in letting kids think the Earth is flat and letting them say evolution is nonsense. I know you don't think this makes sense and you have your reasons, but this is how I see it, after having studied this area substantially.

You actually don't know how illogical that statement is, do you?
How can "evidence" be "rock solid" if there is no way to prove it?
Suggestions are not facts.

Not all Christians reject evolution. By a long shot.

No true Christian can adopt organic evolution as the means by which creation came into being. Creation includes the universe, not just life on earth.
Calling yourself a Christian but denying the Creator's handiwork is hardly following the example of Jesus Christ, who spoke of God as the one who 'created male and female' beings and designed their reproduction so as to ensure their survival and continuation of life in an environment designed to support them.
Is it just a really fortunate co-incidence that food and water and oxygen were there to welcome their entry into the world? How many flukes does it take to create what science is suggesting?

I don't see God as some separate entity who is essentially an agent alongside us albeit with much more power. I see God as the ground of all being, as the animating force behind all form and all motion, as the will which moves every atom in the universe. God is manifest as every form, and transcendent of them. So all evolution is God's dance to me.

What if your vision is blurred? What if it isn't God "dancing" but showing you his creative genius in everything he has made? He isn't just the 'choreographer'.....he is the Creator of the whole show.

As for logic - you say yourself you look at things and can't help but think that they're designed and so forth - this isn't logic, it's a kind of instinctive response. That's fine, I'm not knocking it, but describe it accurately.

However you describe it....it is God-given. It is the ability to discern when something doesn't sit well.....evolution has never sat well with me. It defies logic by overpowering it with continuous suggestion until the suggestion is finally recognised as fact. I will never allow it to override my logic. It is empty.

Is microevolution inorganic?

Adaptation is seen in all creatures as the ability to make small changes in appearance or function based on external circumstances. But it is always confined to a single species. We never see adaptation make changes so significant that they become another kind of creature altogether. This is what science wants us to believe......but there is no actual evidence that it ever happened.

I believe all are not only worthy of eternal life but inevitably receive it.

That's another nice fantasy......All the best with that.

 

[Deeje]

Why are the explanations meteorologists have for thunder more believable than "Thor did it"?

Where did the Bible ever attribute thunder to Thor?

 

[Kirran]

If you identify as Hindu, you evoke religion and worship, regardless of your particular version of it.

So what about my worship is convenient, as you said before?

What can I put in capital letters to make you understand what I have said all along?
PLEASE DON'T TEACH THEORY AS FACT WHEN THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE IT. CALL IT A THEORY AND DON'T PRETEND THAT IT IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH WHEN YOU HAVE NO WAY TO SUBSTANTIATE IT WITHOUT BIASED INTERPRETATION OF THE "EVIDENCE".

A theory is a body of information that offers our best explanation for what we observe. So yeah, it's a theory. Like the germ theory of disease is a theory.

You actually don't know how illogical that statement is, do you?
How can "evidence" be "rock solid" if there is no way to prove it?
Suggestions are not facts.

Well we can't prove germs cause disease. But we have very good evidence for it, to the extent that it'd be foolish not to accept it. It's much the same.

No true Christian can adopt organic evolution as the means by which creation came into being. Creation includes the universe, not just life on earth.
Calling yourself a Christian but denying the Creator's handiwork is hardly following the example of Jesus Christ, who spoke of God as the one who 'created male and female' beings and designed their reproduction so as to ensure their survival and continuation of life in an environment designed to support them.
Is it just a really fortunate co-incidence that food and water and oxygen were there to welcome their entry into the world? How many flukes does it take to create what science is suggesting?

No person with any sense at all can adopt organic evolution as the means by which inorganic things came into being. Organic evolution addresses only the emergence of diversity of forms of living organisms. The Creator's handiwork is not denied by accepting evolution, evolution can be his handiwork.

I believe all creation came into existence by the will of God. So I'm not sure r.e. flukes. Science explains what it can.

What if your vision is blurred? What if it isn't God "dancing" but showing you his creative genius in everything he has made? He isn't just the 'choreographer'.....he is the Creator of the whole show.

As far as I'm concerned, he's the stage and the actors too.

However you describe it....it is God-given. It is the ability to discern when something doesn't sit well.....evolution has never sat well with me. It defies logic by overpowering it with continuous suggestion until the suggestion is finally recognised as fact. I will never allow it to override my logic. It is empty.

All the faculties of a scientist are also God-given.

Adaptation is seen in all creatures as the ability to make small changes in appearance or function based on external circumstances. But it is always confined to a single species. We never see adaptation make changes so significant that they become another kind of creature altogether. This is what science wants us to believe......but there is no actual evidence that it ever happened.

Science is a methodology, and so can want nothing. Are you saying there are no observed examples of speciation? This is certainly false.

That's another nice fantasy......All the best with that.

Ah, a fantasy to you! But for me it is based in experience, reason, instinct, testimony etc.

 

[ArtieE]

Where did the Bible ever attribute thunder to Thor?

Strawman. Never said it did. Answer the question: "Why are the explanations meteorologists have for thunder more believable than "Thor did it"? Why are their explanations more valuable and useful and rational and logical than "Thor did it"?

 

[gnostic]

Jesus was speaking to a Jewish audience who had no belief in an afterlife. I am not wrong about that verse.

That's actually strictly not true.

By the 6th century BCE Exile and the Second Temple period, some Jews were influenced by the religions of their conquerors - the Neo-Babylonian and the Persian.

For example, before the Exile, there were no writings (scriptures) where angels were not nameless. Then suddenly personal names were given: Michael, Gabriel and Satan.

That because Zoroastrianism had spread west into Babylonia during the 5th century, where Zoroastrian angels have personal names.

And by the Hellenistic period, they were influenced by the Greek and Egyptian religions. And by this time' non-canonical texts began appearing, known collectively as the Apocrypha (like Tobit) and Pseudepigrapha (like 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, Book of Jubilees, Assumption of Moses, etc).

More angels with names began popping up, starting with 1 Enoch. Here, we began seeing fallen angels, known as the Watchers or the Grigori. This is when the character of Satan began to change.

What the gospels called "demons" were clearly derived from 1 & 2 Enoch.

Enoch who played only a very tiny part in the OT, is mostly known for being Noah's great grandfather. But in these Hellenistic books, he plays the hero and became the scribe of God, later known in Jewish tradition (Talmud, Midrash) and folklore (3 Enoch, Aggagah, Kabbalah) written after the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, as Metatron.

1 Enoch and 2 Enoch written before Jesus' time, include Enoch visit to heavens, witnessing angels. In 2 Enoch it say that the Watchers were imprisoned and punished in the 3rd heaven and particularly in the 5th heaven. In the 3rd heaven, fallen angels weren't the only ones being punished; people (humans) who have been wicked were also locked up and tormented here.

But place of torment for people in the afterlife, were clearly influenced by Jews interaction with the Greeks and Egyptians. During the 3rd and 2nd centuries, said to be the time, when that some Jews had migrated to Egypt and also when they were translating the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, as well as the Enochian texts and Book of Jubilees, were influenced by Greek images of Tartarus and Egyptian Duat.

The idea of afterlife in heaven, were also mostly influenced by the Greek Elysian Field and Blessed Isle, and Egyptian Osiris. Even the whole martyr and resurrection of Jesus weren't original, and most likely originate either from the Greek Orphic cult or the Egyptian Osiris.

Osiris was the god that die, and resurrected, ruling the Netherworld. Osiris was the one who decide who should go to the Egyptian versions of heaven or hell, during the Judgement (the weighting of the soul (known as ba, which is usually represented as a heart) against the feather of Ma'at, goddess of truth and cosmic order), but Osiris had final say.

Below, is the drawing from the Book of the Dead, Papyrus of Ani (c 1250 BCE).

Osiris is the seated figure on the right, behind him is his sisters Isis (wife) and Nephthys. The man in white appear twice robe, is the same person, the decease and the one being judged, most likely to be Ani.

Under the scale, the creature kneeling next to jackal-headed Anubis, is called Ammit, the Devourer - with crocodile head, and lion-hippo body. If the ba (soul) is heavier than the feather, it would mean the decease is sinful, so Ammit swallow the soul, the spirit go to Duat, the Egyptian version of Greek Tartarus and Christian Hell.

Ammit was said to reside in the "Lake of Fire". Does that not ring a bell to you?

And due to these influences upon Hellenistic Jews, Christians made use of these pre-Christian texts.

Jesus certainly didn't invent concept of the afterlife...not even to the Jews.

 

[james bond]

I was on the road today for four hours driving to San Jose for business. On the way home, I ended up following a late model white Cadillac with ATHEIST as its personal license plate. Soon afterward, I saw a huge cross lit up on the hillside which said JESUS SAVES. I thought it was appropriatist.

 

[Deeje]

So what about my worship is convenient, as you said before?

I see your religious position as one that kind of allows you to have your cake and eat it too. That kind of convenient. Claiming to believe in God whilst believing in evolution to me is combining polar opposite positions.

There appears to be no sacrifice required on your part to please your god(s). As one who was formerly a Christian, (if I remember correctly) you will understand that statement. Sacrifice is what God did for us, and it is what he requires from us in return. Not because he will bring hardship upon us, but because his arch enemy will make the road hard to traverse. Being a Christian, is not an easy life so we have to be prepared to travel rough at times. It is a cramped and narrow path, not a highway. (Matthew 7:13, 14) If we experience no hardship because of our faith, then I believe that we are on the wrong road.

A theory is a body of information that offers our best explanation for what we observe. So yeah, it's a theory. Like the germ theory of disease is a theory.

Germ Theory: "The doctrine holding that infectious diseases are caused by the activity of microorganisms within the body."

Interesting that this definition calls it a "doctrine". Bacteria and viruses are also clearly seen under a microscope. Evidence based science is not the problem. Its the theory that masquerades as fact, when there is no proof to substantiate it, that I have difficulty with.

Well we can't prove germs cause disease. But we have very good evidence for it, to the extent that it'd be foolish not to accept it. It's much the same.

I think there is enough evidence based on cause and effect to substantiate the relationship between disease and bacteria or viruses. Israel's hygiene laws confirm what doctors only discovered in later times.

"The germ theory was proposed by Girolamo Fracastoro in 1546, but scientific evidence in support of this accumulated slowly and Galen's miasma theory remained dominant among scientists and doctors. A transitional period began in the late 1850s as the work of Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch provided convincing evidence; by 1880, miasma theory was still competing with the germ theory of disease. Eventually, a "golden era" of bacteriology ensued, in which the theory quickly led to the identification of the actual organisms that cause many diseases.[2][3] Viruses were discovered in the 1890s." (Wiki)

No person with any sense at all can adopt organic evolution as the means by which inorganic things came into being. Organic evolution addresses only the emergence of diversity of forms of living organisms. The Creator's handiwork is not denied by accepting evolution, evolution can be his handiwork.

Evolution denies God's creativity, and invalidates his word. You are under no obligation to believe that creation was brought about as the deliberate acts of an Intelligent Designer, but there is nothing in the Bible to suggest anything else. Humans invented the concept of evolution, not God.
Inorganic things like the earth itself, its axis, speed of rotation, distance from the sun, and its atmosphere are clearly designed to support life.

I believe all creation came into existence by the will of God. So I'm not sure r.e. flukes. Science explains what it can.

That is just the problem...."science explains what it can" as long as it doesn't involve an Intelligent Designer guiding the creation process from start to finish and declaring his satisfaction at the close of each creative period.
The "flukes" are too numerous to have ever produced all the diversity of life on this earth. That would be tantamount to winning the lottery for every creature in existence.

As far as I'm concerned, he's the stage and the actors too.

And you are entitled to believe whatever you wish.....I believe that God's purpose in creating the universe was just that. There was no exact plan because a plan does not allow for the exercise of free will. God's purpose is more like a journey......you have a starting point and a destination, but no set way to get there because the road may have many detours and roadworks. Since God's purpose is already a foregone conclusion, those who fail to reach that destination will never enjoy what God is offering.

All the faculties of a scientist are also God-given.

If you mean that God created his human creatures with intellect and a thirst for knowledge, then I agree.
The human mind is unique and capable of learning many things in many different ways. Science is just one of them.

Science is a methodology, and so can want nothing. Are you saying there are no observed examples of speciation? This is certainly false.

There are many examples of adaptation within species, but NO examples of any "kind" of creature becoming a totally different "kind", as the example with the whale illustrated quite well.

From the other thread......

Can science really be suggesting that this....

extinct about 48 million years ago.
turned into this (Pakicetus)

then to this (Ambulocetus)

then to this (Rodhocetus)

then to this (Dorocetus)

and finally to this (Baleana)

Now compare the first picture with the last one and tell me that you really believe that nonsense.

A bunch of bones does not in any way link any of these creatures to one another, millions of years apart. There are no transitional species in between any of these and you only have to look at the depiction of Pakicetus and compare it to Ambulocetus and you can see a very big stretch of someone's imagination.

Ah, a fantasy to you!

Fantasy to a lot of people.

But for me it is based in experience, reason, instinct, testimony etc.

If you think so.....but its complete unsubstantiated rubbish to me.

 

[ArtieE]

I was on the road today for four hours driving to San Jose for business. On the way home, I ended up following a late model white Cadillac with ATHEIST as its personal license plate. Soon afterward, I saw a huge cross lit up on the hillside which said JESUS SAVES. I thought it was appropriatist.

Jesus should save atheists from owning late model white Cadillacs?

 

[Kirran]

I see your religious position as one that kind of allows you to have your cake and eat it too. That kind of convenient. Claiming to believe in God whilst believing in evolution to me is combining polar opposite positions.

There appears to be no sacrifice required on your part to please your god(s). As one who was formerly a Christian, (if I remember correctly) you will understand that statement. Sacrifice is what God did for us, and it is what he requires from us in return. Not because he will bring hardship upon us, but because his arch enemy will make the road hard to traverse. Being a Christian, is not an easy life so we have to be prepared to travel rough at times. It is a cramped and narrow path, not a highway. (Matthew 7:13, 14) If we experience no hardship because of our faith, then I believe that we are on the wrong road.

No, I haven't been a Christian. And yes, I think there's sacrifice involved. I think absolutely everything must ultimately be sacrificed to God and that our ultimate destiny is to totally surrender to God. That is not easy.

Evolution denies God's creativity, and invalidates his word. You are under no obligation to believe that creation was brought about as the deliberate acts of an Intelligent Designer, but there is nothing in the Bible to suggest anything else. Humans invented the concept of evolution, not God.
Inorganic things like the earth itself, its axis, speed of rotation, distance from the sun, and its atmosphere are clearly designed to support life.

Well, you think it denies His creativity whereas I and many others certainly do not. God is greater than that for me, God's the canvas upon which this is all happening, God's the painter, God's everything involved.

Also, as you can guess, I don't hold to an infallible view of the Bible but see it as a human-written set of documents some of which is attempting to translate divine revelation and some of which is talking about history and tents and so forth.

And you are entitled to believe whatever you wish.....I believe that God's purpose in creating the universe was just that. There was no exact plan because a plan does not allow for the exercise of free will. God's purpose is more like a journey......you have a starting point and a destination, but no set way to get there because the road may have many detours and roadworks. Since God's purpose is already a foregone conclusion, those who fail to reach that destination will never enjoy what God is offering.

Well it's good to know some more about JW beliefs.

There are many examples of adaptation within species, but NO examples of any "kind" of creature becoming a totally different "kind", as the example with the whale illustrated quite well.

From the other thread......

Can science really be suggesting that this....

extinct about 48 million years ago.
turned into this (Pakicetus)

then to this (Ambulocetus)

then to this (Rodhocetus)

then to this (Dorocetus)

and finally to this (Baleana)

Now compare the first picture with the last one and tell me that you really believe that nonsense.

A bunch of bones does not in any way link any of these creatures to one another, millions of years apart. There are no transitional species in between any of these and you only have to look at the depiction of Pakicetus and compare it to Ambulocetus and you can see a very big stretch of someone's imagination.

There have been many examples of speciation observed. A common method by which species are delineated is reproductive isolation. If organisms from two different populations can't reproduce and produce fertile offspring, they're different species. This doesn't hold water across all taxa, but is a decent general-purpose definition. By this definition, we've observed at least half a dozen speciation events within the Drosophila genus in laboratory populations, we've observed speciation of the apple maggot fly Rhagoletis pomonella into apple-feeding and hawthorn-feeding species as a result of introduction to the Americas by humans, and in a few other invertebrate species as well. This is not to mention many more examples among prokaryotes, which is predictable given their much shorter generation times.

As for the whales and their ancestry - this is only an argument from incredulity. I could say 'Oh no I don't believe people could have crossed the Atlantic to North America with ships from the 11th Century, that sounds like nonsense' and someone could then show me the evidence. I could then brush it aside because 'No that just can't be true, how ridiculous'. Nobody could argue me down from this position, and I could sit there being incredulous indefinitely, but it would impact the fact that the findings totally indicated a particular series of events.

We already had enough evidence to totally accept evolution prior to this, but since the genetic evidence has come pouring in (in particular since the advent of next-generation sequencing technologies) we have more evidence in that quarter than we ever had from elsewhere. Association of symbiont lineages, divergence of codon usage frequencies, the patterns of variation in junk DNA, everything - you go anywhere and it's right there staring you in the face that this is the process by which this variation emerged (for me, the process by which God brought things to their current state of affairs). I recognise that you are unable to accept this given your adherence to a religion which does not permit it, but I hope it is edifying to some readers.

If you think so.....but its complete unsubstantiated rubbish to me.

Another person's religion is likely to be!

 

[ArtieE]

The "flukes" are too numerous to have ever produced all the diversity of life on this earth. That would be tantamount to winning the lottery for every creature in existence.

So is your God a fluke and which lottery did he win? Or was he created? Imagine the odds against a God accidentally existing.