Just Accidental?

[Shad]

I believe that there is as much evidence contained in the Bible to clear up questions as there is in science to explain evolution.

Your opinion is not evidence.

One absence of evidence has been the lack of bones discovered in the Sinai desert when millions of Israelites are said to have perished there.
The Apostle Paul wrote of those who perished in the wilderness....“But with most of them God was not pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness” (I Cor. 10:5 NKJV). “Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert” (NIV).

Paul's view are irrelevant.

We get the impression from this passage that most of the bodies were just left in the Wilderness, exposed to the elements and to the vultures, hyenas and jackals! Burying them in the sand would not have prevented the animals from retrieving their remains in such a scarce food source area. If that is the case, there will be very few graves at all, so no apparent gravesites in the Sinai dessert would not indicate that a great number of people hadn't died there. They just weren't buried and if animals disposed of their remains, there would be nothing left.

Irrelevant. Paul's views are not of an expert, contemporary or even from the area in question. You are projecting your religious view as if it has merit to those that do not follow your religious view, it doesn't.

Here is a book that reinforces the beliefs that the Bible expounds. We are not without material evidence and reasonable explanations.

No it only points to one part of the narrative thus does not support all of the Exodus narrative. Besides knowledge of an area is close proximity to the cultural that wrote the text does nothing to establish this knowledge was from the Exodus era rather than after nor that the Exodus narrative is a reliable records of the Exodus event. You made a giant leap from a book about a specific point to all of the Bible as being reliable. Never mind that Hoffmeier ignores that previous narratives can not even name pharaohs, cities correctly nor routes of travel. His names argument is laughable as his point is that foreign words in the text means that it is impossible for these to assimilated at a later date. He completely dismissed the possibility of assimilation and adaption of words and language which has been so well established that your own Bible is evidence of both...

You should educate yourself regarding how little Hoffmeier's argument are accepted in archaeology. You have citied a fringe, and dying, view point that is built on a presupposition of a religious view. Thus Hoffmeier is doing the reverse of archaeological methodology. He is looking for evidence of a theory he already holds rather than constructing a theory based on evidence.

 

[Sapiens]

I am not a Creationist. I am a proponent of Intelligent Design,

Same thing.

which I believe is demonstrated to all who have not swallowed the lie that evidence for an Intelligent Creator doesn't exist.

Despite repeated requests you have failed to produce any.

It exists everywhere and it doesn't take a science degree to see it.

You need to be more specific and cite evidence that applies to the question at hand, not present vague allusions in abstract generalities.

I have no desire to swap insults with you.

Is that what you've been doing? Try harder, I did not notice. On the other side, I have not tried to insult you, all I've done is describe things as you yourself do ... you don't know jack, and you like it like that.

Condescension will never win over actual evidence.

Look the word up or you will spend a lifetime misusing it. There was nothing patronizing in my comments to you ... I called a spade a spade.

Evolution is a theory for which no actual evidence exists except in the minds of scientists willing to stretch the truth to ridiculous limits.

That would be, in your view, virtually the entire worldwide scientific community.

Supposition is not fact and never will be.

Straw-man.

Biased branches of science in cahoots will never result in the truth being told.

Since there are no biased branches of science in cahoots, we need not worry about that.

You can believe in evolution all you want....but it will never make the greatest scientist in existence disappear.

Since it's never appeared, that's not a concern that is high on my list.

I notice that you have not commented on the dark side of science's contribution to the world.....Science will be shown up for what it really is....the greatest enemy of life on this planet. What is so great about science?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. What you don't get is that while you are entitled to your own opinion(s) most rational people eschew demanding that they be permitted their own private facts.

You're abusive. Which usually results from a weak argument. And you accuse her of ad hominem....that's rich!

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person", short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. She made her competence in the field being discussed part of the issue, not me.

I suggested that:

1. you fail to grasp the significance - not an ad hominem, statement of fact.
2. Patent foolishness - not an ad hominem, description of her claim.
3. When all else fails, try the ad hominem fallacy. - - not an ad hominem, statement of fact.
4. you just make claims that it is not so and spout logical fallacies. - not an ad hominem, statement of fact.
5. anti-intellectualism - not an ad hominem, statement of fact.
6. your common sense is naught - not an ad hominem, statement of fact, by her own admission.
7. Even common sense contradicts you - not an ad hominem, statement of fact.
8. best to keep your mouth shut least everyone see how weak your case is. - not an ad hominem, helpful suggestion.

Now, had I said that she is a member of an evil cult and as such should not be listened to ... that would be an ad hominem. Now do you grasp the difference? If not, try wiki, they have a pretty good write up on logical fallacies. - Now, that borders on condescension, since it could be taken as patronizing, are you starting to grasp the difference?

 

[gnostic]

I do not see anyone with a big stick forcing you to believe anything

You are free to believe whatever you like.

Egypt was not noted for recording its defeats or humiliations.
Saying something is 'not likely' is half way between that and saying that it was 'likely'.

I will take the Bible's word over human history records any day. That is my choice.

Excuse me...but you are overlooking the fàct that every verse and every book (including letters and poems) in both Old and New Testaments bible are human records.

Seriously are saying they were written by a god, angels, fairies or aliens?????

Second, the people of Israel, hence the Israelites, may exist as the people, but there are no literary evidences of Bronze Age that Hebrew writings ever existing in the late Bronze Age especially in the dates you have given to me - 1513 and 1473.

The earliest writings are found in a place called Tel Zayit, southwest of Jerusalem. They are inscriptions were found on a single stone on a wall, written in Paleo-Hebrew alphabets, which have been dated to the 10th century BCE, early Iron Age. But no one know what inscriptions mean.

I know that you want to believe that Moses was a real person who wrote the Pentateuch or Torah, but "believing" and the evidences don't go hand-in-hand.

All evidences point to the Pentateuch or Torah being written by various people over different periods of time, between possibly as early as 950 and 500 BCE.

If a person believe in what he believe in, and that belief go against fact or evidences, then such belief amounts to nothing more than blind faith or wishful thinking.

My examples with the cities of Pithom and Rameses mentioned in Exodus 1, to the real Egyptian cities of Pithom and Pi-Ramesses are not simply human records...

...no, they are archaeological evidences, which showed they were both built at different time...and not at the dates you had provided.

Pi-Ramesses was named after the 2nd king of the 19th dynasty, Ramesses II (1279 – 1213 BCE), the best known king of this dynasty. Like, his father (Seti) before him, Ramesses was involved in many building programmes in Thebes and other cities, like palaces, mortuary temples and tombs, including building a new city, Pi-Ramesses.

And Pithom was built either by the 13th dynasty of the late Middle Kingdom, or during the time of Hyksos, in the 17th century BCE.

So either your dates are wrong, or the Exodus is wrong...well I know both bible and your estimated dates are wrong, given the facts that the two cities couldn't be built at same time.

Look I don't, Deeje...I am well aware that some Egyptian historical records could possibly be flawed or even distorted through propaganda. That's why I don't rely on just written records. Archaeological evidences are just as important as the written ones, and Egypt have plenty of monuments and artefacts that can be dated. So I like to use both records and archaeology.

And you forget one important thing, the bible, whether it be what Christians called the "Old Testament" and "New Testament" are written records too. And what is written in the bible can often be distorted, flawed, contradictory or just plain wrong.

You cannot say all historical records that disagree with the bible to be wrong, if you don't consider the bible can be wrong or distorted.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Your 'statements of fact' are not facts, simply your opinion.

If you call those "facts", no wonder you accept CD as fact.

Now, that borders on condensation....

I think you meant "condescension". Yes, your disdain is evident. It usually inhibits fruitful, reasonable discussion. Thank goodness "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" is growing.. It should eventually lead to more equitable, fair-minded discussions.

 

[gnostic]

I believe that there is as much evidence contained in the Bible to clear up questions as there is in science to explain evolution.

Evolution is biology, deeje.

The bible don't contain anything to explain biology, not even basic anatomy and physiology.

So how could the bible explain anything, let alone debunk evolution, when none of the authors to the bible can grasp nature without resorting to the old superstitions that "God did it".

"God did it" is not an explanation, and it is certainly not science.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Excuse me...but you are overlooking the fàct that every verse and every book (including letters and poems) in both Old and New Testaments bible are human records.

Seriously are saying they were written by a god, angels, fairies or aliens?????

Second, the people of Israel, hence the Israelites, may exist as the people, but there are no literary evidences of Bronze Age that Hebrew writings ever existing in the late Bronze Age especially in the dates you have given to me - 1513 and 1473.

The earliest writings are found in a place called Tel Zayit, southwest of Jerusalem. They are inscriptions were found on a single stone on a wall, written in Paleo-Hebrew alphabets, which have been dated to the 10th century BCE, early Iron Age. But no one know what inscriptions mean.

I know that you want to believe that Moses was a real person who wrote the Pentateuch or Torah, but "believing" and the evidences don't go hand-in-hand.

All evidences point to the Pentateuch or Torah being written by various people over different periods of time, between possibly as early as 950 and 500 BCE.

If a person believe in what he believe in, and that belief go against fact or evidences, then such belief amounts to nothing more than blind faith or wishful thinking.

My examples with the cities of Pithom and Rameses mentioned in Exodus 1, to the real Egyptian cities of Pithom and Pi-Ramesses are not simply human records...

...no, they are archaeological evidences, which showed they were both built at different time...and not at the dates you had provided.

Pi-Ramesses was named after the 2nd king of the 19th dynasty, Ramesses II (1279 – 1213 BCE), the best known king of this dynasty. Like, his father (Seti) before him, Ramesses was involved in many building programmes in Thebes and other cities, like palaces, mortuary temples and tombs, including building a new city, Pi-Ramesses.

And Pithom was built either by the 13th dynasty of the late Middle Kingdom, or during the time of Hyksos, in the 17th century BCE.

So either your dates are wrong, or the Exodus is wrong...well I know both bible and your estimated dates are wrong, given the facts that the two cities couldn't be built at same time.

Look I don't, Deeje...I am well aware that some Egyptian historical records could possibly be flawed or even distorted through propaganda. That's why I don't rely on just written records. Archaeological evidences are just as important as the written ones, and Egypt have plenty of monuments and artefacts that can be dated. So I like to use both records and archaeology.

And you forget one important thing, the bible, whether it be what Christians called the "Old Testament" and "New Testament" are written records too. And what is written in the bible can often be distorted, flawed, contradictory or just plain wrong.

You cannot say all historical records that disagree with the bible to be wrong, if you don't consider the bible can be wrong or distorted.

http://www.2001translation.com/Authenticity.htm

 

[Deeje]

@Sapiens Re the video you posted.....seriously, that was the greatest load of nonsense I have ever seen. The agenda was clear from the beginning. This guy was out to destroy the faith of these people...plain and simple.

Let me make this clear.....I have no belief in dinosaurs co-existing with humans or being on Noah's ark. How absurd.

As I have already stated, I am not a YEC so I do not believe that the earth is only thousands of years old, nor do I believe that the Grand Canyon was produced by the flood.

I am not a fundi, or a Muslim, and I do not believe in crucifixes as a talisman for air travel....that is a form of idolatry to me.

Who would suggest that a whale needed to be on board the ark? Good grief! no marine creatures needed to be there unless they could not survive the inundation.

Who suggested that there had to be 16,000 animals? We don't have a specific list.
Since Noah was not instructed to collect them, it was God who determined what "kinds" needed to be on board.

Being committed to the Biblical story doesn't mean that we have to throw science out the window. There is middle ground.
I have nothing in common with either side in this video.

The chimpanzee is our closest living relative? This is what the DNA reveals, but the fact is all living things share the same DNA. We are all created by one entity who used the same raw materials to produce all the life there is on this planet.
If we evolved from chimps, why are there still chimps...why have they not evolved to the same level as humans? Why, out of all the species of living things are we unique? Creation explains that...evolution cannot.

Going onto the skulls and the "chronological order" of them is misleading because when the scientist says "it looks like" the order should show man along with the early apes, if creation is true, he is implanting a suggestion....subtle and all as it is, he is leading their thinking in one direction. He is assuming a line of descent where no actual link can be established. There is nothing to say that these are not merely extinct species of apes (many different species of apes still live in Africa) who have come and gone, like so many others, without there being a line of descent at all. Similarities do not prove relationship.

The scientist is assuming that humans and these ancient ape species had to co-exist for creation to be true....there is nothing in the Bible to suggest such a thing. Many living things existed for eons before man arrived....and he arrived, fully erect and as human as we are. Finding ancient fossils and comparing similarities between humans and apes doesn't prove relationship either. But the 6 literal day creation scenario is as flawed as evolution itself.

Someone being the "toughest nut to crack" also infers that the nut needed cracking in the first place.
We all have choices and we can see and perceive the evidence for ourselves. To purposely destroy someone's faith is a cruel and inhuman thing to do, because what do you replace that faith with? What does science offer to the human race that could possibly compare with the hope that God is offering? Yet from your perspective, you would take candy from a baby in the belief that it isn't good for them and you would walk away and ignore their tears in the belief that you had done them a favor? Really?

The road trip depicted in this video was set up to divide and conquer, even among the group themselves. It was designed to make those who believe in creation look like fools and to separate them from their faith. I can see why they look foolish since they come across as those who appear to be flying in the face of the evidence. Sadly I believe that they have been led down the wrong path which has opened them up to such ridicule and painted the group to be somewhat like the church they visited. No church in the first century operated in a 'pie in the sky' fashion like that, I can assure you. That kind of airy fairy faith is easily shot down because it has no foundation. When faith is built on solid evidence, and you know how the power of suggestion works with evolutionary science, you see right through the rhetoric and into an empty space. Evolution pretends to be truth but it operates with smoke and mirrors.

I am not anti-science.....I am anti science-suggestion masquerading as science-fact.

If you think that this video in any way represents my belief system, then you haven't heard a word I have said.

 

[sayak83]

Thank goodness "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" is growing.. It should eventually lead to more equitable, fair-minded discussions.

Here is objective evidence that it is not.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/23/an-elaboration-of-aaas-scientists-views/

98% of all scientists and 99% of all PhD scientists believe in evolution, including human evolution. The highest consensus on any of the questions asked by the poll.

 

[Sapiens]

When you reduced to critiquing spell-checker errors you really need to go get a life. Yes, I have great disdain for those who make claims who then fail to be able to provide any rational support for them. There is no fruitful or reasonable discussion possible with such, by definition, since they are barren of thought and inherently unreasonable.

Yes it is most encouraging to note that the petition, "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" is lagging behind Project Steve (to sign you must support evolution, be a scientist and be named "Steve") by a margin of two to one. Good show!

 

[Deeje]

More technologically advanced countries == more happy people.

You think toys make people happy? Fast food perhaps? The cars we drive? The phones we use? What is it in these technologically advanced nations that makes people happy? Are people happy where you live?

Whilst we might think we are are personally happy, we cannot ignore the fact that many in these so called happy countries are miserable. Financial problems, family breakdown, health problems, job insecurity, loneliness, homelessness, depression, anxiety about the future......This graph is not a very good indicator of the true picture. How can "happiness" truly be gauged by the use of technology?

What about the downside of science? The pollution cause by science's contribution to the world of plastic?

What about the heinous weaponry that science has invented so that wars might be fought in a more successful way....delivery systems of warheads that can target specific areas with better accuracy? How happy are the people on the receiving end of these weapons?

What kind of a mind can create and use his technology on other humans?

How can you boast about the achievements of science when the flipside of the good they do is more than outweighed by the evil they create?

Do you have your head in the sand?

 

[Sapiens]

@Sapiens Re the video you posted.....seriously, that was the greatest load of nonsense I have ever seen. The agenda was clear from the beginning. This guy was out to destroy the faith of these people...plain and simple.

I did not post the video for that purpose, but rather to refute the single point you attempt to make about the fossil record and common sense, which it did quite defectively as we saw a bunch of creationists apply their commonn sense and sort the hominid skulls in exactly the way the scientists would have.

Let me make this clear.....I have no belief in dinosaurs co-existing with humans or being on Noah's ark. How absurd.

I never said you did.

As I have already stated, I am not a YEC so I do not believe that the earth is only thousands of years old, nor do I believe that the Grand Canyon was produced by the flood.

I never said you did.

I am not a fundi, or a Muslim, and I do not believe in crucifixes as a talisman for air travel....that is a form of idolatry to me.

I never said you did.

Who would suggest that a whale needed to be on board the ark? Good grief! no marine creatures needed to be there unless they could not survive the inundation.

That would have been all but the eurohayline organisms.

Since Noah was not instructed to collect them, it was God who determined what "kinds" needed to be on board.

Then your god screwed up royally when it came to all the aquatic organisms.

Being committed to the Biblical story doesn't mean that we have to throw science out the window. There is middle ground.

Naw.

I have nothing in common with either side in this video.

I never said you did.

The chimpanzee is our closest living relative? This is what the DNA reveals, but the fact is all living things share the same DNA. We are all created by one entity who used the same raw materials to produce all the life there is on this planet.

If that is the case then may we stipulate that the raw material used for humans and chimps was more shared that it was between humans and any other extant animal, that gorillas came next, etc.? If that is the case how do you explain that? Is it evidence of evolution or is it evidence of a trickster god who is bound and determined to fool you?

If we evolved from chimps, why are there still chimps...why have they not evolved to the same level as humans? Why, out of all the species of living things are we unique? Creation explains that...evolution cannot.

Another dishonest straw-man. Humans did not evolve from apes, gorillas or chimps. We are all modern species that have followed different evolutionary paths, though humans share a common ancestor with primates.

Going onto the skulls and the "chronological order" of them is misleading because when the scientist says "it looks like" the order should show man along with the early apes, if creation is true, he is implanting a suggestion....subtle and all as it is, he is leading their thinking in one direction. He is assuming a line of descent where no actual link can be established. There is nothing to say that these are not merely extinct species of apes (many different species of apes still live in Africa) who have come and gone, like so many others, without there being a line of descent at all. Similarities do not prove relationship.

It more than makes the point I was trying to illustrate, keep your red herrings and straw-men to yourself please.

The scientist is assuming that humans and these ancient ape species had to co-exist for creation to be true....there is nothing in the Bible to suggest such a thing. Many living things existed for eons before man arrived....and he arrived, fully erect and as human as we are. Finding ancient fossils and comparing similarities between humans and apes doesn't prove relationship either. But the 6 literal day creation scenario is as flawed as evolution itself.

True, there's nothing in the Bible ... I guess the Bible has it wrong.

Someone being the "toughest nut to crack" also infers that the nut needed cracking in the first place.

It does?

We all have choices and we can see and perceive the evidence for ourselves. To purposely destroy someone's faith is a cruel and inhuman thing to do, because what do you replace that faith with?

Honesty and truth perhaps?

What does science offer to the human race that could possibly compare with the hope that God is offering?

There is no go. I
d, your pedaling a lie.

Yet from your perspective, you would take candy from a baby in the belief that it isn't good for them and you would walk away and ignore their tears in the belief that you had done them a favor? Really?

Yes, I'd swap it for a healthy and delicious piece of fruit. In fact, I did just that this morning. Swapped the Snickers Bar for a Dragon Fruit ... everyone was happy.

The road trip depicted in this video was set up to divide and conquer, even among the group themselves. It was designed to make those who believe in creation look like fools and to separate them from their faith. I can see why they look foolish since they come across as those who appear to be flying in the face of the evidence. Sadly I believe that they have been led down the wrong path which has opened them up to such ridicule and painted the group to be somewhat like the church they visited. No church in the first century operated in a 'pie in the sky' fashion like that, I can assure you. That kind of airy fairy faith is easily shot down because it has no foundation. When faith is built on solid evidence, and you know how the power of suggestion works with evolutionary science, you see right through the rhetoric and into an empty space. Evolution pretends to be truth but it operates with smoke and mirrors.

Irrelevant to my point.

I am not anti-science.....I am anti science-suggestion masquerading as science-fact.

In my opinion you are, in fact, a few posts back you said you were.

 

[Deeje]

@Sapiens I have no idea what you think you are playing at, but please go and waste someone else's time will you.

By what stretch of whose imagination do you feel you are contributing anything of value to this thread?

What did the scientist prove by the placement of the skulls? Absolutely nothing. There was nothing to link the skulls but time. There is no way to prove a chain of evolution because they could well have just been a bunch of extinct species, who all occupied the same land, unrelated and long gone. There is no way to tell.

 

[metis]

There was nothing to link the skulls but time. There is no way to prove a chain of evolution because they could well have just been a bunch of extinct species, who all occupied the same land, unrelated and long gone. There is no way to tell.

But you've painted yourself into a corner. If Adam & Eve were supposedly the first humans, and all humans supposedly emanated from them, how could there be other "species" of humans? They must have evolved, eh?

You've just checkmated yourself. Game over.

 

[ArtieE]

To science, humans might be primates....but to God we are his children, uniquely made in his image.

Well, technically women weren't supposed to be here. The original plan only called for animals and man.

Genesis 2:20
New International Version
So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

So God created women just because there was no suitable helper among the animals. If there had been, you wouldn't be here at all.

 

[ArtieE]

Please tell me where in these populations the species ceased to be the same "kinds" of creatures.

Please list all the "kinds" of creatures there are so we can check.

 

[ArtieE]

Nature preserves life...science has furnished the means to destroy all life. What is so great about science?

That would have sounded a little less hypocritical if you didn't represent a god that drowned a whole planet full of life.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To science, humans might be primates....but to God we are his children, uniquely made in his image. That differentiates us from all other creatures who do not possess the attributes that we do. (particularly spirituality) Between humans and any apes there is a chasm that cannot be filled by any evidence, because none exists. Science can suggest links in an evolutionary chain, but they cannot produce them. The chain is imaginary, built on supposition. No one can challenge that fact because you all know that its true. At the end of the day, you have a belief that has no more solid evidence for its validity that we do.

You're going to need to back that up with something.

I'm not sure why you think you get to make bold assertions without backing them up while expecting rock solid proof from science.

You have? What pictures of real creatures did you post that were not illustrations of what science imaged a creature to look like? Where is the evidence of relationship in a continuing line of descent from one creature to another?

Science cannot produce evidence that is not highly manufactured and sold to people with great marketing. The power of suggestion works as any advertiser will tell you. Good graphics just adds to the illusion.

God doesn't need to sell himself.....he allows his creation to speak for itself.

I'm not sure how you could have missed them all. I've posted many links to- and photos of the many, many fossils in existence. I'm certainly not the only one who has done that.

I've given you the evidence linking the creatures together along with explanations as to how scientists are able to determine their degree of relatedness. I'm certainly not the only one who has done that.


Everything you've wanted has been provided for you. And here we are again at square one, answering all the same questions all over again, because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the evidence that you have asked for. I really don't understand this resistance to learning new things. Science if fascinating to me.

Your talking points have been refuted many times over. So I wonder why you're still using them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations that can interbreed with relatively closely related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series that are too distantly related to interbreed."
www.darwinwasright.org/ring_species.html

Please tell me where in these populations the species ceased to be the same "kinds" of creatures.
I can acknowledge adaptation because there is at least evidence for it, but there is no real evidence that any species became some other "kind" of creature. Evolutionists have to suggest a link because none exist in reality.



But of course, you have no pre-conceived ideas of your own?



Spoken like a true evolutionist....condescension seems to speak louder than any real evidence. You can quote all the scientific data you like Sapiens, but you cannot furnish a link between species in a supposed evolutionary chain, except by suggestion. Throw in the good graphics and voila! It becomes fact instead of fantasy.

That places the theory of evolution in the same position as ID. It is a belief system strung together with supposition but no real evidence. I see more evidence for intelligent creation than I ever do for mindless evolution.



My lack of background is a blessing IMO, for the simple reason that my common sense is not buried by the constant bombardment of "scientific" rhetoric trying to demonstrate how this process happened with nothing more than the power of suggestion and a few fossils who have no real story to tell unless the interpreters are standing by putting words into their bony mouths. I can see with my own eyes what intelligently planned diversity produces......It isn't accidental any more than the computer I'm typing on, is accidental.



My debating style is simple. Facts are facts and beliefs are beliefs. Your theory is a theory, so call it one. Don't change the definition of the word to suggest that it is proven fact when we know that it is no such thing.

What I have said all along is that science has no more facts for evolution than proponents of ID have for an intelligent first cause who designed all the diversity of life on this planet.

Choose your belief system based on what you want to believe....that is the choice we all have.

How about you tell us, since you're the ones pushing "kinds." Science doesn't deal with "kinds." Try Google.

The rest is just repetition of the same things all over again. You seem to be stuck in an echo chamber.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Genetics. Small adaptations are minor changes within a species. They never translate into bringing other "kinds" of creatures into existence.There is no evidence that adaptation can ever result in what science is suggesting.

The roadblocks in the genetic code will not allow even related species to interbreed and produce offspring. The resulting offspring are invariably infertile. Mules, ligers, zonkeys etc.

What roadblock? Please identify the mechanism and demonstrate that it acts as a roadblock to larger changes over time. You'd be the first person to ever do it.

 

[Wu Wei]

We are undoubtedly living in the greatest and most prosperous time ever in human history. Period. And much of it is due to science and technology. This is true not only on the objective facts (wealth, prosperity, health etc.) but also on subjective wellbeing.

More technologically advanced countries == more happy people.
http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/03/HR-V1_web.pdf

And do not tell us about ecology and climate change. Scientists have been repeatedly and unambiguously talking of the dangers of climate change and the need for scientifically structured conservation efforts from the 1980-s and still we are being met with denial and disbelief. Its the irrational small-mindedness of vested economic and political special interests that are leading the world..once again...into deep crisis. Scientific technologies and solutions to develop sustainable agro-forestry practices and renewable energy systems are available and have been available for a long time. But they cannot be implemented or commercialized unless there is an effort and investment into this. If scientists were heeded, the transition to renewables and sustainable agriculture etc. would have been finished by now and there would have been no global warming or ecological troubles whatsoever.

Finally science of evolution is not even remotely concerned with the God question. Its much busier in aiding in the development of new medicines, tracking the changes in virus and virulent bacteria, and tracing gene and protein trees in order to understand their structure and functions.

For example, much of modern medicine research use mouse as a test subject. The assumption is similar looking genes producing same proteins are connected in similar physiological pathways between a mouse and a human. So the drug (or poison...in case one is testing the effect of a carcinogen) will act on it the same way. But how do you actually test this? Evolutionary theory along with common ancestry provides important information to sort out those genes whose functions have been conserved against those where the function has changed.

It is widely known that DNA to Amino Acid transcription code has lots of redundancies. So in every gene, there are sections of the DNA where change in letters due to mutations have no effect. These sections of DNA in the gene are invisible to selection and hence are subject to the laws of neutral mutation that are very well known. In contrast the sections of the gene whose letter change do have an effect on the protein will be visible to selection. Now two cases are possible:-

Rate of mutation in the redundant sections>>Rate of mutation of non-redundant sections.

In this case selection effects are actively purging the gene from all mutations that are affecting the protein and hence the gene function is conserved.

Rate of mutation in redundant section<Rate of mutation in non-redundant section

In this case there has been one or more advantageous mutations in the gene that have altered the function of the gene and that is being positively selected for.

Now the only thing that is left is to sequence the gene from mice, men and a few other mammals...separate out the redundant from the non-redundant part. Calculate the rate of evolution in each part based in time of divergence from combined fossil and genomic data , and find what the ratio is.

This helps to ascertain which gene and physiological pathways of mice are good model for humans and hence can be trusted in medicine research and which are not. Such knowledge has aided greatly in treatment developments.

Now I would like you to explain this using the ID model and to talk about a specific way in which "God created everything" is to help research as evolutionary theory is successfully doing in many many cases.

Based on that, All I have to say is Damn happy Canadians and Scandinavians....all they do is make the rest of us look unhappy