Just Accidental?

[savagewind]

I was under the impression you didn't believe in step-by-step development. I took you more for a magic poofer.

I believe life is like a garden which God tended. According to Genesis 2:2, God no longer tends to it. I am not a poofer.

Lactation is only one example of it coming together so neatly. I don't know how many there are. I am sure there are more than I can study in a lifetime.

I have said that I am a God believer by default. Do you know what that means?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No you don't. There is not a shred of actual evidence for a chain of evolutionary descent between any of them...it is assumed....suggested and theorized, but there is nothing real to back that up. You could just as easily be looking at a variety of ape species all created by the same power, out of the same raw materials. We know that many species came and went before the creation of man, so our "beliefs" are just as valid as yours. Variety and similarity do not = evolution.

There is further evidence that links them aside from just similarity. But lets be honest. I could take you back in time and it fast forward and let you watch the whole thing and you still wouldn't believe it. Am I correct in assuming that?

So lets take this from a different approach. Lets assume you are right and that every linking species we have ever found is simply a totally seperate species that existed at the same time right along each other.
So we have Australopithecus, homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo nledi, homo rudolfensis, homo georgicus, homo pekinensis, homo heidelbergensis, Neanderthal, Denisovan, Homo Habilis, and finally Homo Sapiens all existed at the same time. Why do we not find any Homo Sapien skeletons alongside Australopithecus or even remotely near in terms of time? Same for any of the more recent species? Why do we not find human bones next to extinct dinosaur bones even further down if we have existed since the dawn of life on the planet? Why do we not find Chickens? Why do we not find bats?

Why do we see a trend of very similar animals as the time flows by? Why do we see new species that look very similar to older species but did not see them before? Did god keep creating different life throughout time and just so happen to make them in the same area and similiar not only to their previous animals but also like the ones to follow? Almost as if an inbetween point between them?

 

[gnostic]

Deeje

Did you understand what I wrote in post 1310?

About the differences between evidence and proof...and between science and mathematics.

It is important that you understand the distinctions, because they are the same, though people with less education in maths and science use them synonymously, when in science vs religion or creationism vs evolution forums, you should know the differences.

1. Proof is for mathematics and mathematicians.
2. Evidence is for science and scientists.

Science requires testable and empirical evidences.

Mathematics requires "proving" a logic and mathematical solutions, eg solving mathematical equations.

Hence proof is logic-based (or conceptual) solution, while evidence is real-world (and testable) based solution.

Proof is or "can be" subjected to bias, because theoretical physicists are only interested in proving and promoting their own versions of logic.

Evidences can refute (as well as verify) a scientist's papers, hypothesis or theory, hence it is more objective than logic-based or mathematical-based proof.

Please read post 1310.

 

[Deeje]

Platypusses don't suckle, nor do whales. Pigeons feed their chicks a kind of milk, but don't 'lactate' in the same way we do.

These three are hardly related, so the method of feeding is not really important. These creatures are designed to feed their own young. Whales have nipples which are inverted until the baby nudges its mother for food. Whales have no lips, so the milk is injected into the baby's mouth. It's still lactation.

Platypuses don't have nipples, yet they still secrete milk for their young from milk patches, which are eagerly 'vacuumed' up by the youngsters.....it's still lactation.

Pigeons, flamingos and male Emperor penguins feed their chicks a rich milk-like substance produced in their crop. That is not lactation, but prepares the digestive systems of these three species.

It's hard to see how you can take so much detailed design in the reproduction and feeding regimes in so many living things for granted....all amazing and individually ingenious, yet you just wave it away as an accident of "biology" . How many fortunate accidents does it take to make a viable theory?

Lactation and suckling aren't miraculous, any more than any other biological process or relationship.

One can only ask if evolution proponents are as blind as their theory? I guess one is not moved to express gratitude to blind biological processes.

Eyes developed gradually, step by step. So did lactation and suckling.
-- and nipples aren't required.

Again I am amazed that you can say that with no proof whatsoever. There is nothing in biology to substantiate that any of those processes were gradual or that there are any fossils who have been found in an evolutionary chain with half developed sight or underdeveloped mammary glands. Science has to guess because soft tissue does not fossilise like bone.

Living things have eyes individually designed for their lifestyle and environment. Feeding of young, like the whole reproductive systems in multitudes of creatures, is not happenstance, but shows finely tuned design. Nothing that complex could possibly happen by chance....no matter how much time you throw at it.

You're arguing from biological ignorance.

One can only wonder what you are arguing from.....certainly not from any proof.....only supposition and conjecture, without which your theory would completely collapse.

 

[gnostic]

Again I am amazed that you can say that with no proof whatsoever.

You still don't understand that biology required evidences, not proof.

Science, including biology, required "evidences", not "proofs".

Proof is for mathematics and for mathematicians.

Proof is a logic or mathematical solution, often in the form of mathematical equations. Proof is conceptual-based, therefore it is not really that useful in the real world world.

Evidences are more real-world, more objective than proof, because evidence need to be observable, testable and measurable.

if it is not testable, it isn't science or "scientific".

Again, I would ask you to read my earlier post - 1310 - which explain the differences between proof and evidence, because they are not the same things, and if you understand the differences, you would not be using them synonymously.

 

[gnostic]

One can only wonder what you are arguing from.....certainly not from any proof.....only supposition and conjecture, without which your theory would completely collapse.

No, deeje. You seemed to be the only ignorant one here.

 

[Deeje]

Deeje

Did you understand what I wrote in post 1310?

About the differences between evidence and proof...and between science and mathematics.

What you don't seem to understand is that I don't really care about your excuses or your convenient definitions....that is all they are to me.

At the end of the day, science has a theory....an unprovable theory that is based solely on "evidence" that it itself has 'manufactured' because it has a premise upon which the whole scenario is built.....everything that is "suggested" or "supposed" is based on that first premise....that evolution MUST HAVE taken place. I say hog wash! Forcing suggestions into evidence to theorize how something "might have" happened is a little different to allowing the evidence to speak for itself. Science puts words in the fossils' mouths.

It is important that you understand the distinctions, because they are the same, though people with less education in maths and science use them synonymously, when in science vs religion or creationism vs evolution forums, you should know the differences.

Here's the "you don't understand" excuse. I think we understand more than you give us credit for.
It takes more than a science degree and an understanding of a subject to actually prove what it claims.
The evidence, to me, is not convincing at all. The power of suggestion is hard at work here. If you don't see it, then its working.

I think you need to understand "the distinction" from the view of the common man. They usually fall for good marketing...that is a science too.....perception management.

If evolution proves itself to be false, what will you lose by denying the Creator? Perhaps more than you bargain for.

1. Proof is for mathematics and mathematicians.
   [*]Evidence is for science and scientists.

How convenient. You can pass something off as absolute truth....shoot down the opposition with nothing but educated guessing and a heap of biased articles and diagrams, making unsubstantiated statements as if they were proven facts.....and then make excuses when someone calls you out on it. Not good enough.

It's a theory...call it what it is and stop pretending that it MUST be true. The "evidence" equally suggests an Intelligent Designer to me.

Science requires testable and empirical evidences.

That is just the point...the "empirical evidence" is completely missing. The "evidence" is nothing more than conjecture, forced to fit their pre-conceived criteria, and masquerading as undeniable science. When you are up to your eyeballs in it, you can't seem to see past the end of your collective noses.

Proof is or "can be" subjected to bias, because theoretical physicists are only interested in proving and promoting their own versions of logic.

So why is something that "can be subjected to bias" (and blatantly is) promoted as absolute truth? Do you not see the point in offering it as a theory instead of the way it is promoted at present? This is what I have said all along.....call it what it is and stop downgrading ID as if only idiots will accept it. The arrogance of the proponents of evolution is seen all across this thread and others. I do not have a science degree, but I do have intelligence and a reasonable sense of logic. I also acknowledge my spirituality, which many have killed off in their efforts to find alternatives to creation.

Evidences can refute (as well as verify) a scientist's papers, hypothesis or theory, hence it is more objective than logic-based or mathematical-based proof.

Please read post 1310.

It isn't about not understanding...its about not accepting the excuses. Can you not comprehend this?

 

[ArtieE]

How many fortunate accidents does it take to make a viable theory?

How many fortunate accidents did it take to make you? Your parents would have to meet and one particular sperm had to meet one particular egg. Their parents would have to meet and one particular sperm had to meet one particular egg. Their parents would have to meet and one particular sperm had to meet one particular egg. Not to mention all the other factors that would have to fall into place. All the way back to Adam and Eve. Surely you being here can't just be due to an amazing string of fortunate accidents?

 

[Deeje]

How many fortunate accidents did it take to make you? Your parents would have to meet and one particular sperm had to meet one particular egg. Their parents would have to meet and one particular sperm had to meet one particular egg. Their parents would have to meet and one particular sperm had to meet one particular egg. Not to mention all the other factors that would have to fall into place. All the way back to Adam and Eve. Surely you being here can't just be due to an amazing string of fortunate accidents?

Its called the gene pool I believe, and it has nothing to do with evolution. Individuals do not matter in the big scheme. Believing in an Intelligent Designer doesn't mean that we are all individually created by him. All creatures have the ability to reproduce and we are all individually the products of that beautifully designed process.

 

[ArtieE]

Its called the gene pool I believe, and it has nothing to do with evolution. Individuals do not matter in the big scheme. Believing in an Intelligent Designer doesn't mean that we are all individually created by him.

So you are just a result of an uninterrupted string of an incalculable number of fortunate accidents all the way from Adam and Eve to now? But a pretty duck can't be a result of an incalculable number of fortunate accidents?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Its called the gene pool I believe, and it has nothing to do with evolution..

lol what? The gene pool is a useless term without evolution.

 

[Deeje]

So you are just a result of an uninterrupted string of an incalculable number of fortunate accidents all the way from Adam and Eve to now? But a pretty duck can't be a result of an incalculable number of fortunate accidents?

No, there was not a fortunate accident among them. That uninterrupted line of descent was not the product of evolution because at no time were humans anything but humans. The primate story is yours, not ours.

Humans, ducks, lizards, apes or any other species you can name, also have a line of descent from the day of their creation. It's a difficult concept I know, but try to use your imagination......heaven knows science does.

 

[Deeje]

lol what? The gene pool is a useless term without evolution.

Is it? Why? Who do you think created the genes that make up every creature?

Or did they just "poof" into existence too?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Is it? Why? Who do you think created the genes that make up every creature?

Or did they just "poof" into existence too?

Nah. Evolved from early stages of life. Before that or rather in a mixed with the early forms of life from non-living but organic complex protiens that self replicated. It is creationism that states they "poofed" into existence. You also didn't respond to my last post. I was interested in what you would say.

 

[Deeje]

You also didn't respond to my last post. I was interested in what you would say.

Sorry, must have got lost in the traffic.....

There is further evidence that links them aside from just similarity. But lets be honest. I could take you back in time and it fast forward and let you watch the whole thing and you still wouldn't believe it. Am I correct in assuming that?

If you took me back in time, it would confirm what I believe, not the fantasy that you have been handed.

You have no proof apart from suggestion MoR....when did suggestion replace facts? I believe what my eyes and common sense tells me.

So lets take this from a different approach. Lets assume you are right and that every linking species we have ever found is simply a totally seperate species that existed at the same time right along each other.
So we have Australopithecus, homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo nledi, homo rudolfensis, homo georgicus, homo pekinensis, homo heidelbergensis, Neanderthal, Denisovan, Homo Habilis, and finally Homo Sapiens all existed at the same time. Why do we not find any Homo Sapien skeletons alongside Australopithecus or even remotely near in terms of time? Same for any of the more recent species? Why do we not find human bones next to extinct dinosaur bones even further down if we have existed since the dawn of life on the planet? Why do we not find Chickens? Why do we not find bats?

If you understood what we believe then perhaps you would be able to answer that for yourself.

Firstly, the creative process did NOT take place in 7 literal 24 hour days.....so let's just lose that bit of nonsense shall we? What does that leave us with? According to Genesis.....the time of "the beginning" is not stipulated, but merely stated. So at some point in the infinite past, material creation was brought into existence. There was a time when matter did not exist and this is something that science and ID proponents can agree upon. Creation had a beginning.

Secondly, there is also no timeframe between creation of the universe and preparation for Earth's habitation from a "formless and waste" state. This allows for an "old earth". Which also allows for the beings that were placed on this planet to also have old origins. The Creator individually crafted each creature, from the smallest to the largest. He appears to have experimented with different species, some of which he apparently allowed to become extinct before deciding on which species would precede the appearance of man.
We know for sure that dinosaurs never inhabited the earth at the same time as man. We also know that the ability to procreate was given to each individual creature so that populations would be maintained as he purposed.

I believe that many of what science designates as 'primate' ancestors of man were no such thing. There is a gulf between primates and humans that no amount of evolution can explain. "Early man" in science's definition, were not human, but just more species of apes.

I don't believe that cavemen (as early humans) ever existed. I believe that humans were always intelligent and resourceful but that some peoples became separated and isolated from the mainstream and became more primitive as a regressive step, rather than a progressive one. Primitive peoples still exist even in this modern world, isolated and removed from modern life. What does this prove?

So I do not see what you have listed as impediments to ID at all. There is an order of creation listed in Genesis, which, if taken over a long creative period, can explain the fact that humans appear last.

Why do we see a trend of very similar animals as the time flows by? Why do we see new species that look very similar to older species but did not see them before? Did god keep creating different life throughout time and just so happen to make them in the same area and similiar not only to their previous animals but also like the ones to follow? Almost as if an in between point between them?

The one thing you see in creation is variety......so much that it nearly boggles the mind. The Creator is creative...why should that be a surprise? The variety of birds, insects, marine creatures, and land animals reflects the personality of the one who created them.

I believe that it actually takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in a higher power that exists in a realm as yet undiscovered by science at this juncture.

Nah. Evolved from early stages of life. Before that or rather in a mixed with the early forms of life from non-living but organic complex protiens that self replicated. It is creationism that states they "poofed" into existence.

You just said that "life evolved from early stages of life".....we all know that all life must come from pre-existing life, so where did life come from in the first place? You can cook all the primordial 'soup' you like.....no life is just going to pop up out of nowhere and think its a good idea to replicate....now we see who has the real fairy story.

 

[ArtieE]

No, there was not a fortunate accident among them. That uninterrupted line of descent was not the product of evolution

So if it was no accident that your parents met each other and one particular sperm met one particular egg and their parents met each other and one particular sperm met one particular egg all the way back to Adam and Eve are you saying that your god personally arranged for you to exist?

 

[Deeje]

So if it was no accident that your parents met each other and one particular sperm met one particular egg and their parents met each other and one particular sperm met one particular egg all the way back to Adam and Eve are you saying that your god personally arranged for you to exist?

Are you acting dumb...or are you not acting?

I thought I answered this several times already....."I" am not important. If another sperm had reached the egg first I would have been somebody else. My life was not foreordained or predestined....I was just the fortunate end result of the process that the Creator put in place when he made humans and told them to have children. This makes me so grateful for my life.....being born is a miracle! The odds against any of us being here at all is monumental.

 

[ArtieE]

Firstly, the creative process did NOT take place in 7 literal 24 hour days.....so let's just lose that bit of nonsense shall we?

What!? You say you are a creationist and then you contradict both answersingenesis and the Institute for Creation Research?

"If the days of creation are really geologic ages of millions of years, then the gospel message is undermined at its foundation because it puts death, disease, thorns, and suffering before the Fall. The effort to define “days” as “geologic ages” results from an erroneous approach to Scripture—reinterpreting the Word of God on the basis of the fallible theories of sinful people."
https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/could-god-really-have-created-everything-in-six-days/

"What can we conclude concerning the length of the "days" of creation? The usage of the word "day," with a number, means a 24-hour period."
http://www.icr.org/article/meaning-day-genesis/

You just said that "life evolved from early stages of life".....we all know that all life must come from pre-existing life, so where did life come from in the first place?

Yes, where did your god come from in the first place if life can only come from pre-existing life? Isn't your god alive?

 

[ArtieE]

Are you acting dumb...or are you not acting?

I thought I answered this several times already.....

No, you haven't answered why you think life couldn't have evolved by chance because it would require a string of fortunate unguided accidents while you have no problem accepting that you are here by chance due to a string of fortunate unguided accidents. Why the double standard?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If you took me back in time, it would confirm what I believe, not the fantasy that you have been handed.

You have no proof apart from suggestion MoR....when did suggestion replace facts? I believe what my eyes and common sense tells me.

So I was correct in my assumption then. And as a side note understand that your eyes and common sense are two of the worst tools for obtaining truth. If they were not then magic tricks wouldn't be amusing.

If you understood what we believe then perhaps you would be able to answer that for yourself.

Firstly, the creative process did NOT take place in 7 literal 24 hour days.....so let's just lose that bit of nonsense shall we? What does that leave us with? According to Genesis.....the time of "the beginning" is not stipulated, but merely stated. So at some point in the infinite past, material creation was brought into existence. There was a time when matter did not exist and this is something that science and ID proponents can agree upon. Creation had a beginning.

Secondly, there is also no timeframe between creation of the universe and preparation for Earth's habitation from a "formless and waste" state. This allows for an "old earth". Which also allows for the beings that were placed on this planet to also have old origins. The Creator individually crafted each creature, from the smallest to the largest. He appears to have experimented with different species, some of which he apparently allowed to become extinct before deciding on which species would precede the appearance of man.
We know for sure that dinosaurs never inhabited the earth at the same time as man. We also know that the ability to procreate was given to each individual creature so that populations would be maintained as he purposed.

There seems to be a dischord with your group overall. Some are Ken Ham believers and some are closer to what is evolutionary theists. You seem somewhere in the middle.

Few questions at this piont however. First is why would an omnipotent and all knowing god require "experimental" life? Why would he make it look just like they evolved if they did not evolve? Was he attempting to trick mankind? A common explanation from the Ken Ham group is that the devil did it.

I believe that many of what science designates as 'primate' ancestors of man were no such thing. There is a gulf between primates and humans that no amount of evolution can explain. "Early man" in science's definition, were not human, but just more species of apes.

I don't believe that cavemen (as early humans) ever existed. I believe that humans were always intelligent and resourceful but that some peoples became separated and isolated from the mainstream and became more primitive as a regressive step, rather than a progressive one. Primitive peoples still exist even in this modern world, isolated and removed from modern life. What does this prove?

So I do not see what you have listed as impediments to ID at all. There is an order of creation listed in Genesis, which, if taken over a long creative period, can explain the fact that humans appear last.

What of neanderthal and denisovan populations? They were species of homo that were clearly not seperate from humans. They bred with humans. You have neanderthal DNA in you right now. What of homo rhodesiensis which is FAR FAR FAR more similar to humans than to chimpanzees? Why do we see them exist for a relatively short period of time before disappearing and leaving only extremely similar species behind? Why did god make a buildup of chimplike animals around 5 million years ago but suddenly made an animal with a similar features to its previous ancestors but had a human like hip 4 million years ago which lived till just about 2 million years ago however suddenly alongside another extremely similar creatuer who is first seen 2.8 million years ago. However this little guy had smaller molars (more human like), continued to keep the human like hip which was slightly more human like. It also had a bigger brain and have been found with stone tools. That was called H. Habilis. That species seemed to have died out around the same time H. Erectus showed up around 1.8 million years ago. This guy had all of the same stuff. Slightly more human hip than the last guy, slightly larger brain than the last guy. H. Habilis which lived right around the same time and side by side was extremely similar but had even slightly larger brains Its beginings however were after H. erectus. H. Habils had locking knee joings (just like humans whom no other animal living today has marking this species and those that follow it to be the only ones in the animal kingdom with this exact trait. Some quadrapeds have similar mechanisms but it is not the same mechanism.) This species also is noted for having a shifted foramen magnum to be almost exactly where humans's foramen magnum is located.

Then we get to H. Rhodesiensis who lived less than a million years ago. Extremely human like. Same limb structure. Only slightly smaller brain than a human. Jaw and teeth bones similar to humans and flat human like face structure.

Beyond them just slightly after is Neanderthal and Denisovans. Human like species who are often considered sub-species of H. Sapiens. that lived alongside us and in many cases breeded with us.

So you are telling me that god decided to do all of that? Slightly modify chimp ilke species down two seperate lines (one for chimps and one for humans) but killed them all off and made Adam and Eve out of the dirt? Even though we know that DNA and allel changes happen? Even though we understand how evolution takes place? Even though you and most other creationists believe in "microevolution"? Even though it would only take a microevolution level of change to get us to our most recent ancestors you still believe them to be at otally seperate species?

You see the similarity of skulls between us and other apes (as we are apes) as well as our hand structures, hip and joint structures and don't see us even as the same "kind"? But you believe zebras and horses to be of the same "kind" despite being more genetically distant than us and chimpanzees?

The one thing you see in creation is variety......so much that it nearly boggles the mind. The Creator is creative...why should that be a surprise? The variety of birds, insects, marine creatures, and land animals reflects the personality of the one who created them.

I believe that it actually takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in a higher power that exists in a realm as yet undiscovered by science at this juncture.

The universe is vast and mind boggling. That isn't evidence of a creator. Stating that a creator is creative doesn't give any kind of evidence to the idea that one magical being made it all.

Your higher power is pure faith. Evolution is based on evidence. We have fossils we have DNA evidence, we have archealogical evidence, we have geological evidence, we have anatomical evidence.

You just said that "life evolved from early stages of life".....we all know that all life must come from pre-existing life, so where did life come from in the first place? You can cook all the primordial 'soup' you like.....no life is just going to pop up out of nowhere and think its a good idea to replicate....now we see who has the real fairy story.

Abiogensis isn't confirmed or totally known. In fact we have dozens of different theories on exatly how it happened. Other than the frindge theories that aren't given much credit it is mostly agreed upon that it happened in three stages.
1. Origin of biological monomers which can and do happen spontaneously.
2. The origin of biological polymers. Also can be done in a lab though significantly more complex than step 1.
3. The evolution (not biological at the begining but biological at the end) from advanced biological polymers into functional cells. The bilipid membrane is easily formed and can be created a lab.

This is both possible and probable despite not being there to see it happen. Possible trumps magic every day in science. Probable even more so.