Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

He didn't. You can fit any kind of vague sounding "prophecies" to fit almost anything you like, if that's what you're going for. Like people do with Nostradamus' writings.

Now, where does the Bible say anything definitive and/or specific about 2016?

We are living in the time of the last ruling power. The "time of the end" (spoken about by Daniel almost 2700 years ago) has a starting year, but no stated year for its end....all we have is a description of world events that identify this time period. Every single event has been fulfilled since 1914, which is a prophetic year in Bible prophesy as the beginning of "the last days". It is not "the end of the world" as some assume, but the end of man's horrible domination of the earth under the influence of God's adversary. (1 John 5:19) There is a reason for everything that is taking place right now.

We don't know exactly when the end will come, but we know that things are going to resemble the "days of Noah"at this time......a time when violence and immorality would be rife in a world that has no excuse for it. (Matthew 24:37-39) We were told to watch out for this sign to know when the end was near. (Matthew 24:42) Nostradamus borrowed a bit from the Bible.

No one is compelled to believe the prophesy, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening just as the Bible predicted. No one believed Noah either.....the end will be sudden and unexpected by the majority. So I guess time will tell, won't it?

The ongoing debate about God's existence will be settled once and for all....never to be raised again.

 

[Deeje]

Indeed there are oddballs here and there that are from credible universities where they answered questions correctly but then turn around to dismiss them. Is their claims based on evidence however? The majority of PhD holders in ID are farmed out of ID unacreddited universities. A scant few are from real universities where they get their degrees I suppose out of spite.

R. Sternberg is a religious man who is at best a theistic evolutionist.
Stephen Meyer is purely motivated by religious beliefs that often have nothing to do with science. He has since devoted his time and effort to looking for evidence of a claim he already believes and has done extremely poorly at that.
Michael Behe is the worst exapmle here. He is a moron to say the least. I don't know ehough about Stephen Meyer to say if he is or isn't an idot. He may be a very intellegent but religous zealotry is a powerful force. Or he is an idiot. I don' know. Sternberg is an intenllegent man with a good track record of good science behind it. The only blotches he has is his involvmenet in ID. Of which he still claims to not be an advocate of. But Michael Behe...father of irriducible complexity arguments is objectively wrong. Every single instance of irriducible complexity he has ever attempted to bring to the table has been explained and refuted. He hasn't a single leg to stand on. His own biology department released a statement saying "hey...not with this guy. He crazy" to paraphrase.

Another classic example of "shooting the messenger". If you discredit the messenger, you discredit his message.....this is so old.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Another classic example of "shooting the messenger". If you discredit the messenger, you discredit his message.....this is so old.

This is only a fallacy if he brings up a point and I use this to deflect away from the point. The point itself was the legitimacy of proponents of ID. I'll gladly talk as to why its a steaming pile without reference to people and often do. Get your fallacies strait.

 

[Deeje]

I wrote and I quote: "Just pretend that the Theory of Evolution didn't exist. What arguments do you have that might convince me that 1. A god exists. 2. That this god created anything?"

Try again?

We have as much solid evidence as you do....and that is the point. Where does this air of superiority come from? We have a belief that is backed up by true science, not the theorizing of men with a pre-conceived agenda, interpreting what they find to fit that agenda. Suggestions born of educated guessing does not = facts.

Please answer the question about mammals posted in a previous response.....

"All mammals only have one thing in common.....they suckle their young with milk. Does this method of feeding their young automatically mean they all had this trait because somewhere way back in the evolutionary line, females somehow began to excrete milk from mammary glands that were previously non-functional? Do we have evidence of any species who have non-productive mammary glands in the evolutionary chain which somehow sprang into production and then automatically instilled the instinct in their young to suckle?"

Is this what you believe the fossils are trying to tell me? Where will I find that specific information in evolutionary science?

And you think what we believe is a fantasy?

 

[Sapiens]

Another classic example of "shooting the messenger". If you discredit the messenger, you discredit his message.....this is so old.

Shooting the messenger? Hardly.

Impeaching an alleged authority? That's a more apt description.

 

[metis]

Wow, and I think the same thing about your group!

CDer's have to ignore much evidence, the Cambrian Explosion being one category (with partial explanations rife with special pleading imo), and other evidence contorted to fit your presupposed view.

Good day.

All that you have shown with the above is that you literally have no clue how science works. We can be pretty brutal towards someone else's work that we may feel is substandard or just plain wrong. Just take out a couple of copies of Scientific American and look near the begging whereas other researchers can sometimes just grill another who wrote an article the month before.

IOW, maybe educate yourself instead of writing something so terribly misguided. If your church teaches you the above, then maybe find another one that actually tries to deal with truth versus brainwashing their congregants so as to accept intellectual and/or theological blindness.

And let me suggest than no serious scientist ignores what is found, including the implications, with the Cambrian Explosion, but a quite a few theists do. And if you have doubts about that, just respond to this post and ask and I'll spell it out for you, including in theological terms. My guess is that you do not understand the problem with using the CE as an example of divine creation.

 

[metis]

"Previous genetic evidence has proven inconclusive, however, regarding whether species divergence took place in the face of continuous gene flow and whether hybridization between the terminal forms of the ring ever occurred."

Excerpt from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7507/abs/nature13285.html

Do you have any clue why the quote above actually goes against what you supposedly are trying to prove?

Hint: Look at the two words I underlined.

 

[Deeje]

Ring species. There, done.

Not "done" by a long shot.

"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."

The fact that two related species cannot interbreed in nothing new on this earth. There are many related species who cannot interbreed, yet they are of the same "kind" of creature. This biological fact does not produce different "kinds" of creatures.....the birds are still birds, the insects are still insects and the fish are still fish. Adaptation is what is observed...not macro-evolution. They never leave their base species.

Your turn to provide the mechanism that acts as a barrier from small changes becoming larger changes over large periods of time. You're making assertions and assumptions about some genetic barrier that you say exists but that nobody has been able to find, so you back it up with evidence. You don't get to make assertions about things that don't exist.

Let me give you an example from your own science....

Now this is supposed to be the evolution of the modern horse over a period of 55 million years...correct?

If this is a process of adaptation, rather than evidence of organic evolution, then the animals are all still four legged creatures with fur. The trouble with this picture is that the relationship in a gradual progression is not provable. All that science really knows is that these creatures existed at these various periods of time. There is nothing linking them in an evolutionary chain except suggestion and these nice diagrams to help with the visualization. Eohippus even has spots! How creative is that!

"Kind" isn't a word that is used in evolutionary science.

Funny that .....it is a word used by the Creator however. I'm thinking that he would know exactly what it means.....and we can get a fairly good idea from what we actually see in nature.

As you well know because it's been pointed out to you many times. Also, I don't think I ever got your definition for that word. Are dogs and cats the same "kind?" How do we determine "kind" in any kind of useful way?

Dogs are a "kind" in that they can be domesticated or wild but still visually dogs....wolves, dingoes, hyenas etc are all within the "dog" kind. Cats too are a "kind". Like dogs, domestic cats have many different breeds, all created by humans in selecting traits that they desire in their favorites. None of those breeds would exist without human interference. Wild cats are plainly of the same "kind"....regardless of size, we can see that they are still cats, not dogs.

Bears can come in many shapes and sizes as well....but they are all bears.

And don't get me started on insects........is that useful enough?

 

[Deeje]

Shooting the messenger? Hardly.

Impeaching an alleged authority? That's a more apt description.

Further impeachments can be expected...... Just not the one you are expecting.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Previous genetic evidence has proven inconclusive, however, regarding whether species divergence took place in the face of continuous gene flow and whether hybridization between the terminal forms of the ring ever occurred."

Excerpt from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7507/abs/nature13285.html

You forgot the important part, that tells us what the researchers are specifically referring to:

In the greenish warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides) species complex, a ring of populations wraps around Tibet. Two reproductively isolated forms co-exist in central Siberia, with a gradient of genetic and phenotypic characteristics through the southern chain of populations connecting them4, 5, 6. Previous genetic evidence has proven inconclusive, however, regarding whether species divergence took place in the face of continuous gene flow and whether hybridization between the terminal forms of the ring ever occurred7, 8, 9.

 

[ArtieE]

We have as much solid evidence as you do....and that is the point. Where does this air of superiority come from? We have a belief that is backed up by true science

You quoted my post but didn't address it. List some of the "true science" that backs up your belief that your god exists and created stuff.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We are living in the time of the last ruling power. The "time of the end" (spoken about by Daniel almost 2700 years ago) has a starting year, but no stated year for its end....all we have is a description of world events that identify this time period. Every single event has been fulfilled since 1914, which is a prophetic year in Bible prophesy as the beginning of "the last days". It is not "the end of the world" as some assume, but the end of man's horrible domination of the earth under the influence of God's adversary. (1 John 5:19) There is a reason for everything that is taking place right now.

We don't know exactly when the end will come, but we know that things are going to resemble the "days of Noah"at this time......a time when violence and immorality would be rife in a world that has no excuse for it. (Matthew 24:37-39) We were told to watch out for this sign to know when the end was near. (Matthew 24:42) Nostradamus borrowed a bit from the Bible.

No one is compelled to believe the prophesy, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening just as the Bible predicted. No one believed Noah either.....the end will be sudden and unexpected by the majority. So I guess time will tell, won't it?

The ongoing debate about God's existence will be settled once and for all....never to be raised again.

More unsubstantiated assertions. Yay.

 

[Deeje]

This is only a fallacy if he brings up a point and I use this to deflect away from the point. The point itself was the legitimacy of proponents of ID. I'll gladly talk as to why its a steaming pile without reference to people and often do. Get your fallacies strait.

Lets explore what a logical fallacy is.....

"Logical Fallacies


An Encyclopedia of Errors of Reasoning

The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others, and to avoid them in one’s own arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric.


What is a Logical Fallacy?

A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy. I say “roughly speaking” because this definition has a few problems, the most important of which are outlined below. Some logical fallacies are more common than others, and so have been named and defined. When people speak of logical fallacies they often mean to refer to this collection of well-known errors of reasoning, rather than to fallacies in the broader, more technical sense given above."

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
So when we apply this to evolution, we can see that it too can just as easily be deemed a logical fallacy. When your first premise is flawed, then everything you build on it will be equally flawed.

There are two belief systems each with those who "believe" them based on what they want their truth to be. Neither has solid provable science to back them up.

 

[Deeje]

You quoted my post but didn't address it. List some of the "true science" that backs up your belief that your god exists and created stuff.

The fact that stuff exists is proof that it had to have an originator. Stuff doesn't just "poof" itself into existence. Your fantasy is worse than mine.

 

[Deeje]

More unsubstantiated assertions. Yay.

If you say so. Proof of the pudding, and all that.....

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you say so. Proof of the pudding, and all that.....

What proof?

 

[Sapiens]

We have as much solid evidence as you do....and that is the point. Where does this air of superiority come from? We have a belief that is backed up by true science, not the theorizing of men with a pre-conceived agenda, interpreting what they find to fit that agenda. Suggestions born of educated guessing does not = facts.

Please answer the question about mammals posted in a previous response.....

"All mammals only have one thing in common.....they suckle their young with milk. Does this method of feeding their young automatically mean they all had this trait because somewhere way back in the evolutionary line, females somehow began to excrete milk from mammary glands that were previously non-functional? Do we have evidence of any species who have non-productive mammary glands in the evolutionary chain which somehow sprang into production and then automatically instilled the instinct in their young to suckle?"

Is this what you believe the fossils are trying to tell me? Where will I find that specific information in evolutionary science?

And you think what we believe is a fantasy?

It's past time to put the lie to your underlying claim: "We have as much solid evidence as you do....and that is the point. Where does this air of superiority come from? We have a belief that is backed up by true science, not the theorizing of men with a pre-conceived agenda, interpreting what they find to fit that agenda. Suggestions born of educated guessing does not = facts."

There is a rather simple proof that your claim of having, "as much solid evidence as you do" is (at best) an empty boast and (at worst) a premeditated lie.

First of all there's the matter of you clearly not knowing the solid evidence that we have, you have repeatedly made hideous errors of fact when it comes to basic zoology. Just recently you made the claim "All mammals only have one thing in common.....they suckle their young with milk."

I corrected you: "Once again (surprise, surprise) you reveal that you lack sufficient background to be taken seriously in this discussion. Actually ALL mammals have a bunch more common attributes than you seem to know about, but then we know that your zoological knowledge is very limited. Some attributes are unique and ubiquitous in mammals (hair, auditory ossicles in the middle ear, sweat glands and a whole passel of other specialized skin glands, advanced diaphragm, a jaw joint composed only of the dentary and the squamosal, etc.) some are just unique to mammals though not ubiquitous (placental gestation, lactation, etc.) some are ubiquitous to mammals but shared with a few other groups (warmblooded, 4-chambered heart)."

Yet you repeat a claim that has already been falsified. That's dishonest to the core.

In any case, your previous posts reveal that your biological knowledge is spotty at best. When that is pointed out to you you tell us how you revel in your ignorance, yet now you pretend to know how much solid evidence we have.

You need to get a grip and get your story straight.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Lets explore what a logical fallacy is.....

"Logical Fallacies


An Encyclopedia of Errors of Reasoning

The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others, and to avoid them in one’s own arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric.


What is a Logical Fallacy?

A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy. I say “roughly speaking” because this definition has a few problems, the most important of which are outlined below. Some logical fallacies are more common than others, and so have been named and defined. When people speak of logical fallacies they often mean to refer to this collection of well-known errors of reasoning, rather than to fallacies in the broader, more technical sense given above."

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
So when we apply this to evolution, we can see that it too can just as easily be deemed a logical fallacy. When your first premise is flawed, then everything you build on it will be equally flawed.

There are two belief systems each with those who "believe" them based on what they want their truth to be. Neither has solid provable science to back them up.

What is the first logical fallacy of evolution? Please explain.

 

[Deeje]

What is the first logical fallacy of evolution? Please explain.

The first logical fallacy of evolution is that it ever happened. They have a collection of bones and science has created this imaginary chain linking various creatures whose fossil remains were excavated from the earth, and who existed supposedly with many millions of years between them. But the fact is, they are linking them all together with nothing more than suggestion and supposition. Science cannot prove there ever was a chain to begin with. The first premise is fantasy.

 

[Sapiens]

Not "done" by a long shot.

"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."

The fact that two related species cannot interbreed in nothing new on this earth. There are many related species who cannot interbreed, yet they are of the same "kind" of creature. This biological fact does not produce different "kinds" of creatures.....the birds are still birds, the insects are still insects and the fish are still fish. Adaptation is what is observed...not macro-evolution. They never leave their base species.

You can't have it both ways.

Let me give you an example from your own science....

Now this is supposed to be the evolution of the modern horse over a period of 55 million years...correct?

If this is a process of adaptation, rather than evidence of organic evolution, then the animals are all still four legged creatures with fur. The trouble with this picture is that the relationship in a gradual progression is not provable. All that science really knows is that these creatures existed at these various periods of time. There is nothing linking them in an evolutionary chain except suggestion and these nice diagrams to help with the visualization. Eohippus even has spots! How creative is that!

Creative? No. Just another ignorant comment on your part.

Pre-domestication color variants including black and spotted have been inferred from cave wall paintings and confirmed by genomic analysis (Pruvost, M.; et al. November 2011. "Genotypes of predomestic horses match phenotypes painted in Paleolithic works of cave art". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (46): 18626–18630. doi:10.1073/pnas.1108982108.].

The above illustration shows a representative sequence, but should not be construed to represent a "straight-line" evolution of the horse. Reconstruction, left forefoot skeleton (third digit emphasized yellow) and longitudinal section of molars of selected prehistoric horses

Skeletal evolution

(thanks to wiki)

Funny that .....it is a word used by the Creator however. I'm thinking that he would know exactly what it means..

You have no evidence of that.

...and we can get a fairly good idea from what we actually see in nature.

... but a better approach is contemporaneous cave paintings and genetic analysis, too bad your sketchy paleontological, anthropological and zoological backgrounds did not help you out here. Ignorance is not always bliss.