Just Accidental?

[Sapiens]

I can't resist turning the quote miners' tactic back on them:

I have no idea

See how it works?

Anyway ... onward ...

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

This thread does have a "pearls before swine" feel to it. After all, you wrote: "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 ..."

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

Trying to stretch your intellect and understanding, I guess I have failed.

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.

What the experiment proved was that your take on incorrectness of linking the skulls in a progressive line is horse puckey, it falsified your claim of: "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..."

And you close with a straw-man logical fallacy: "...It isn't accidental any more than the computer I'm typing on, is accidental." as we have all come to expect from you.

 

[Deeje]

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.

In your dreams sunshine.

Adaptation is provable science. Even humans have the ability to adapt to a changed environment. Isn't that why we find dark skinned people near the equatorial regions and fair skinned people nearer the poles?

That is a far cry from organic evolution.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

These are a few different species of ducks....one can only marvel at their artistic designs and color schemes.

Who could possibly think that these just evolved and turned out like this through the process of gene mutations and adaptation? What survival advantage is there in being this beautiful?

Actually, the subjective beauty of the colors of those ducks is a fairly weak argument for design. There are far more complex things associated with living organisms that you could allude to, such as the incredibly sophisticated echolocation system in bats. Eons of evolution can give organisms the appearance of design.

 

[Deeje]

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

You should know better than to quote scripture to me mate.

ʼA·dhamʹ (Adam) means “man; human; earthling man; mankind” (generic) It pertains to females as well.
The Hebrew expression for woman is ʼish·shahʹ (literally, a female man), which is also rendered “wife.”

The word "brethren" is sometimes translated "brothers" but it means females as well.

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.

LOL God doesn't think us girls are an afterthought. We are actually necessary for reproduction.
I hardly think God was advocating bestiality.

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

Read Genesis chapter one.....its all there. Remember that "kinds" cover many species within that kind.

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

Since God is the giver of life and also one who can restore it, there is no one who can charge him with murder. If someone breaks a law that is considered a capital offense, it is lawful to take that person's life. Justice demands it. A whole world of people had gone off the rails to such an extent that they were no longer capable of a good thought, let alone any good actions. If that was their "normal state" and there was no way that their children would learn to be any different in that climate of violence and immorality, then God was perfectly within his rights as the lawgiver to act as executioner.

Thankfully just one family managed to remain in tune with the Creator's standards, otherwise we would not be here.

 

[Sapiens]

In your dreams sunshine.

Adaptation is provable science. Even humans have the ability to adapt to a changed environment. Isn't that why we find dark skinned people near the equatorial regions and fair skinned people nearer the poles?on

That is a far cry from organic evolution.

Evolution too is proven science. It's not a "far cry" from organic evolution, adaptation it is an integral part of organic evolution.

 

[Deeje]

Actually, the subjective beauty of the colors of those ducks is a fairly weak argument for design. There are far more complex things associated with living organisms that you could allude to, such as the incredibly sophisticated echolocation system in bats. Eons of evolution can give organisms the appearance of design.

If that is what you think after looking at all the pictures posted on this thread, then that is your prerogative.
In human experience, something that is designed for a specific purpose, always has a designer. Please tell me what you use in everyday life that aids you in accomplishing a specific task that was not designed for that purpose by an intelligent mind.

The beautiful designs on these creatures clearly serve a purpose, as do all other magnificent things in creation.
You can call it nature.....I call it God. One is a blind force that has no intelligence directing any of it...the other demonstrates incredible creativity and has a clear purpose in all of it.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

If that is what you think after looking at all the pictures posted on this thread, then that is your prerogative.
In human experience, something that is designed for a specific purpose, always has a designer. Please tell me what you use in everyday life that aids you in accomplishing a specific task that was not designed for that purpose by an intelligent mind.

The beautiful designs on these creatures clearly serve a purpose, as do all other magnificent things in creation.
You can call it nature.....I call it God. One is a blind force that has no intelligence directing any of it...the other demonstrates incredible creativity and has a clear purpose in all of it.

Apparent design is not necessarily indicative of actual design. Remember: intuition is worth very little in determining truths about the workings of the universe. It is intuitive to many people that elephants and feathers will fall at different rates in a vacuum. Is this true? No. It is intuitive to many people that sophisticated organisms must have been designed by an intelligent designer. Is this true? Again, not necessarily. Even if it were true, it would only raise even tougher questions, such as "Who designed the designer?" After all, an entity sophisticated enough to design all living organisms would certainly be far more sophisticated than the organisms that it designed, no? Now, as you can see, we have a brand new problem.

 

[Watchmen]

These are a few different species of ducks....one can only marvel at their artistic designs and color schemes.

Who could possibly think that these just evolved and turned out like this through the process of gene mutations and adaptation? What survival advantage is there in being this beautiful?

Methinks you don't have a basic understanding of evolution. Are you seriously interested in learning?

 

[savagewind]

Methinks you don't have a basic understanding of evolution. Are you seriously interested in learning?

I want to rate that funny, but I don't want to be misunderstood.
She is a Jehovah's Witness and they are taught that they alone are interested in learning. You see, they believe God is communicating to the Earth via the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses and anyone who cares about truth should end up with them believing everything they believe.

 

[Deeje]

It is intuitive to many people that sophisticated organisms must have been designed by an intelligent designer. Is this true? Again, not necessarily. Even if it were true, it would only raise even tougher questions, such as "Who designed the designer?" After all, an entity sophisticated enough to design all living organisms would certainly be far more sophisticated than the organisms that it designed, no? Now, as you can see, we have a brand new problem.

This has already been addressed on this thread. Science does not assume the right to deny a Creator simply because they cannot prove his existence. They cannot prove that organic evolution is true either but it doesn't stop them from teaching it as fact. They say they can prove it, but the truth is the whole theory is based on supposition and conjecture.

The existence of a power capable of creating the universe is simply not in the realms of scientific experience.....it doesn't mean that it can't exist and it doesn't mean that this entity was created. We have no idea because we can only see the results of his activity. Its a bit like asking someone to prove that the wind exists. You can see its effects but not the wind itself.
Cause and effect teaches us that anything produced has to have a cause......life had to have a cause. Science cannot provide proof that life could appear by random chance.

Assumptions are all we have....you base yours on science and I base mine on the Bible. You trust your teachers, I trust mine.

We all have choices. We should make them wisely.

 

[Deeje]

I want to rate that funny, but I don't want to be misunderstood.
She is a Jehovah's Witness and they are taught that they alone are interested in learning. You see, they believe God is communicating to the Earth via the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses and anyone who cares about truth should end up with them believing everything they believe.

Please go and troll somewhere else or I will report you.

 

[Deeje]

Methinks you don't have a basic understanding of evolution. Are you seriously interested in learning?

Methinks you need to read more of this thread. I understand exactly what evolution is all about....I accept adaptation as minor changes within species, but I reject organic evolution completely. Do you know the difference? Most evolutionists use one as proof of the other. There is no connection.

 

[savagewind]

Please go and troll somewhere else or I will report you.

I am not dead! I was sure you had finally (and wisely) put me on ignore. Are you too curious, like I am too curious? I love you Deeje!

 

[savagewind]

This has already been addressed on this thread. Science does not assume the right to deny a Creator simply because they cannot prove his existence. They cannot prove that organic evolution is true either but it doesn't stop them from teaching it as fact. They say they can prove it, but the truth is the whole theory is based on supposition and conjecture.

The existence of a power capable of creating the universe is simply not in the realms of scientific experience.....it doesn't mean that it can't exist and it doesn't mean that this entity was created. We have no idea because we can only see the results of his activity. Its a bit like asking someone to prove that the wind exists. You can see its effects but not the wind itself.
Cause and effect teaches us that anything produced has to have a cause......life had to have a cause. Science cannot provide proof that life could appear by random chance.

Assumptions are all we have....you base yours on science and I base mine on the Bible. You trust your teachers, I trust mine.

We all have choices. We should make them wisely.

I want to rate that funny, but I don't want to be misunderstood.
She is a Jehovah's Witness and they are taught that they alone are interested in learning. You see, they believe God is communicating to the Earth via the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses and anyone who cares about truth should end up with them believing everything they believe.

This is actually pure truth and I am not amazed (anymore) someone who calls herself "in the truth" might think it is trolling.

Now, THAT is trolling a thread. Now you can report me dear lady.

 

[savagewind]

Please go and troll somewhere else or I will report you.

Hahahaha How will you know I have or I have not gone to troll somewhere else?

A REAL troll post.

 

[Watchmen]

Methinks you need to read more of this thread. I understand exactly what evolution is all about....I accept adaptation as minor changes within species, but I reject organic evolution completely. Do you know the difference? Most evolutionists use one as proof of the other. There is no connection.

And with that, you demonstrate you don't really know. Would you like to learn?

 

[gnostic]

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

Good grief.

You are joking, aren't you?

This same webpage have already posted in one of the older threads, because I have already read it.

It is largely an apologetic page, making up excuses for the bible's inconsistencies, without a single evidence to back up each of the claims the author made.

I couldn't take it seriously back then, I can't it seriously now.

 

[sayak83]

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?

Did you actually take a look at the report?
http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/03/HR-V1_web.pdf
The evaluation did not count their "stuff" to measure happiness, the people were directly asked how satisfied they were with different aspects of their lives and their overall happiness and optimism about their lives. In the simplest measure (Cantril ladder) they were asked to imagine the best possible life (10) and the worst possible life (0) and asked to place their current life condition in this 0-10 scale. And this is the map
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/world-happiness-map

Sample developed countries
US 7.1, Australia 7.3, Canada 7.4, Germany 6.99, Israel 7.27

Sample developing countries
Brazil 6.95, Saudi Arabia 6.38, Turkey 5.39, China 5.25, India 4.4, South Africa 4.46, Pakistan 5.13

Underdeveloped Countries
Congo 4.27, Ethiopia 4.51, Niger 3.86, Liberia 3.62


And yes, more stuff (GDP) is strongly correlated to more happiness.

https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction/

Once again data is against you. Here is the deal. You live in our own faith bubble where people look at the world in a certain ideological manner which is not shared by the majority of people in the world and in your country (Australians are very happy with their lives in general). People indeed are happy with having stuff and the conveniences present in a developed society and most developing country folks aspire to have them and are happier the more they have them. Just facts borne by the data, reported by the people themselves.


I will discuss war (hint:- read the Leviathan) and environment (hint:-read about plastic to power conversion technologies) later. But this is a thread in evolution. And just to repeat the main point in my reply which you ignored


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

 

[metis]

In your dreams sunshine.

Adaptation is provable science. Even humans have the ability to adapt to a changed environment. Isn't that why we find dark skinned people near the equatorial regions and fair skinned people nearer the poles?

That is a far cry from organic evolution.

But the example you cite is "organic evolution". And it is not my "dreams" as you checkmated yourself because if you admit, as you did, that different human species had existed from a single source, that's "evolution"-- pure and simple.

If an early form of Homo erectus strolled into your house, I can pretty much guarantee you that you and your family would be heading out in a hurry, and it's not just appearances that are different.

So Deeje, game over.

Hey, but I'll still allow you to celebrate Thanksgiving anyway. Oh, but wait, you don't celebrate that, right? I'll guess I'll just have to eat your share of turkey, dressing, and mashed potatoes, followed by a nice piece of pumpkin pie with lots of whipped cream. Seems like you're on quite a losing streak.



Added: Hey, I'm just teasing you a bit, so please don't take the above personally.

 

[Sapiens]

Did you actually take a look at the report?
http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/03/HR-V1_web.pdf
The evaluation did not count their "stuff" to measure happiness, the people were directly asked how satisfied they were with different aspects of their lives and their overall happiness and optimism about their lives. In the simplest measure (Cantril ladder) they were asked to imagine the best possible life (10) and the worst possible life (0) and asked to place their current life condition in this 0-10 scale. And this is the map
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/world-happiness-map

Sample developed countries
US 7.1, Australia 7.3, Canada 7.4, Germany 6.99, Israel 7.27

Sample developing countries
Brazil 6.95, Saudi Arabia 6.38, Turkey 5.39, China 5.25, India 4.4, South Africa 4.46, Pakistan 5.13

Underdeveloped Countries
Congo 4.27, Ethiopia 4.51, Niger 3.86, Liberia 3.62


And yes, more stuff (GDP) is strongly correlated to more happiness.

https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction/

Once again data is against you. Here is the deal. You live in our own faith bubble where people look at the world in a certain ideological manner which is not shared by the majority of people in the world and in your country (Australians are very happy with their lives in general). People indeed are happy with having stuff and the conveniences present in a developed society and most developing country folks aspire to have them and are happier the more they have them. Just facts borne by the data, reported by the people themselves.


I will discuss war (hint:- read the Leviathan) and environment (hint:-read about plastic to power conversion technologies) later. But this is a thread in evolution. And just to repeat the main point in my reply which you ignored


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Of course the ID model explains nothing and predicts nothing, it is completely bankrupt.