Just Accidental?

[savagewind]

How do we test this belief?

Tell me how it is possible to test something that happened so long ago.

 

[Deeje]

You have a much more negative attitude about the world than I and some others do, I guess.

When you see what is going on in this world, how is it possible to be optimistic if you only have man as your savior?
How can man solve the problems, when man IS the problem?

Drug addicts need to be detoxed and they need a good support team to help them deal with the underlying issues that led to them becoming a drug addict in the first place.

I have personal experience in this area. I have family members and close friends who have battled mental health issues for years. Depressive illness has never presented on a scale as is seen in the world at present. Most of it has nothing to do with external issues, but internal ones.....and brain chemistry.

If you are in touch with the mental health side of medicine, you will understand how monumental this issue is. The Psyche wards are full of young people who have caused themselves permanent brain damage due to their substance abuse. Placing mentally ill people in the same place as other mentally ill people, they set up a self perpetuating cycle of abuse. Drug and alcohol addiction are culling our populations but not before theses people go through many parts of the health system, costing governments millions of dollars. Ask anyone who works in an ER to ascertain the magnitude of this problem.
By targeting the root causes, they might get somewhere....but now, the problem is so huge, there is no way to address it successfully except in the minority of cases where recovery was possible. If your country has a drinking culture, like mine, then its hard to get through to people that their relationship to mood altering substances is wrong.....to them its normal.

But there's absolutely nothing wrong in feeding starving people.

I agree. But I also subscribe to the philosophy that it is more beneficial to teach a man to fish than to hand him one. Most people just need a hand up, not a hand out. There is no dignity in receiving hand to mouth charity...it often sets up a gimme mentality that is passed onto the next generation as a sense of entitlement. No one should foster that.
Helping people in times of crisis is what we should expect to see....but helping them to perpetuate a hopeless existence is not desirable.
Aid agencies are overwhelmed.

The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on the plan quite well, actually. Which is why it's the prevailing scientific theory on the subject.

Evolution doesn't speak to the existence or non-existence of god. It is quiet on the subject.

God simply isn't required to explain the diversity of life on earth in scientific terms.

Well, God is not 'required' by those who do not need him. I need him in so many ways, and he fills a need in me that nothing on this earth can. I can ignore my spirituality, but I can't deny it. It feeds a part of me that connects me to something that is entirely missing from empty material pursuits.

If that is reality, then that is reality, and we just have to face it. Some people's lives are short and tragic. Some are long and heroic. And most fall somewhere in between.

At this time in human history, most are experiencing some kind of trauma....be it family problems, financial problems, employment problems, substance abuse, mental or physical health issues, displacement, war, domestic violence....the list goes on and on. If this life is all there is then I might as well go and jump off a cliff....it isn't worth living without the hope of something better to come. I will choose hope over hopeless any day.

Like I told you before, I'd love to think that my father is in some great place somewhere enjoying some great life he never got to have when he was alive. Because I I'd even go so far as to say I hope for that. But hoping for it doesn't make it true, and I can't force myself to believe something just because I want it to be true.

When you come to know God personally, as I have over many years, doubts give way to faith, and as you experience God's hand in your life in a real way, there is no way to deny him. Faith is strengthened. This is what my faith is built on...not just the empty words of an ancient book. These are living words backed up by the greatest power in existence, demonstrated in so many practical ways, it would be hard to enumerate them all.

I too have lost a father, but I expect to see him again in the resurrection....I don't believe he is floating about somewhere in heaven, but I believe that he is sleeping peacefully, awaiting the time when Christ will have done what he promised. To bring in his kingdom rule and resurrect all the dead. Then all those we have lost will be returned to us, never to be separated again. That is a hope I hold very dear.
The reason why you might want that to be true is because we have no program for death. Losing those we love feels so terribly wrong. Grief goes on for years. I still miss my Dad even though I lost him over 40 years ago.

Hope takes the edge off grief.....off trauma.....off illness and suffering....off everyday problems and helps us to focus on the future....not one dependent upon inept humans to solve, but on one who has both the will and the power to do what he promises.

I would love to share that hope with others.

 

[Shad]

The term "Christian" is obviously open to interpretation.

Yes I know the habit of Christians to denounce each other because they do not follow a specific denomination doctrine followed.= by the one denouncing people

And wasn't the school wanting to promote YEC?

Nope, since ID favour creationism.

So apart from the "Christian" judge, how many others in the cited group would openly object to anything science proffers as evidence for evolution?

Irreverent point only made so you can make tin foil hat statements.

Was the "Christian" judge swayed by a convincing argument that the evidence revealed an old earth?

Dumb question based on your unwillingness to look up the topic at hand which is now the trial

I don't accept YEC either....So I would have supported the truth.....both sides were wrong.

Your ignorance of the case on display again

Yep, really easy until you have to confront him. I believe that we all will one day. He will prove to you that he created the whole kit and kaboodle....not that it will make any difference by then.

Threats and the just wait game. I have magic beans to sell you, you just have to wait for the magic to work.

"The universe was purposefully created"...there, I just redefined your definition.

Which does nothing more than hammer home God definitions are meaningless

Oh, but I do.....it is a suggestion......not a fact. Just because something "could" have happened, doesn't necessarily mean that it did.

You still tripped over the work and made an error. This error negates the rest of your rant on speculation.

You have to be able to prove it.

Irrelevant due to the word "could". The only one making statements about alien life here is you.

I have no proof for my Creator

Correct

and you no proof that evolution ever happened

Incorrect

....where does that leave us? We each have to decide which camp we belong to.

You enrolling in a biology course? At least that is my hope

Oh dear, there you go assuming again. Did I say there were no cave dwellers?

Yes as you said you didn't believe humans lived in caves

There are still cave dwellers in the world. I was making the point that not all humans once lived in caves as evolution suggests.

Now you are backpedaling

These guys are a figment of someone's imagination. They were never our ancestors. This is not a photograph.....but you knew that...right?

Actually there is evidence found in El Castillo. And yes I know its not a real photo as cameras didn't exist back then. You point is really dumb....

I would call the construction of the pyramids and the ancient cities like Babylon, a feat of man power and ingenuity.

Changing your statement as an ad hoc rescue.

[What ignorance am I displaying?

Merely you do not know what the word "technology" means

The technology I referred to is modern construction equipment that is available today. Imagine trying to construct a skyscraper without today's technology.

Which is exactly the error I said you made previously.

I don't see anyone with a big stick making you believe it.....do you?

Irrelevant as you think this story provides answers yet you admit that you have no evidence for you creator thus it is still just a story. A story you accept, nothing more.

I see evolution as an equally unsubstantiated story.

Wrong as evidence built the theory while your story still has no evidence.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on the plan quite well, actually.

'Explaining' it is one thing. But the evidence is not there, in support of the sheer number of genetic mutations necessary for modification into the vast diversity of body plans!

Since the mechanisms that natural selection is based on are unguided and random, there'd be a plethora of nonfunctional mutations within every genus....a lot more than is observed.

 

[Deeje]

The Irreducible Complexity is not even a hypothesis.

A hypothesis required to be falsifiable and testable. Irreducible Complexity isn't testable.

You crack me up.

Organic evolution isn't testable either. Adaptation is not proof of organic evolution.

Intelligent Design is a joke, because there have been no evidences for this "Designer". All the claims of ID adherents, are just argument based on circular reasoning and wishful thinking.

And of course evolution has nothing to do with "once upon a time", billions of years ago, something "might have" or "could have" happened because our "suggestions" "led us to believe" that "our interpretation of the evidence" means that there is no designer.

Life just happened......

Complex designs just designed themselves.....individually designed components just married themselves to other individually designed components for no apparent reason, and a series of millions of fortunate undirected mutations led to all you see as life on earth today......sounds like more of a fairy story than you think we have.

Circular reasoning is not logic, and wishful thinking is nothing more than in believing in delusional wishes and blind faith. And ID got these in spades.

LOL.....so does evolution.

You've got nothing concrete to boast about......the whole theory is peppered with holes so big, you could drive a Mack Truck through them, yet you guys still maintain that it is a fact. You have no more REAL evidence than we do.....I know you can never admit that, but that is the fact of the matter.

The Discovery Institute have been using the silly and outdated Watchmaker analogy, and such analogy isn't science, it is just flawed and fallacious logic. There have been no credible evidences for any Designer. Comparing the Designer to the Watchmaker, is nothing more than manipulative desperation by ID advocates, especially by those at the Discovery Institute.

"Silly"? "Outdated"? "Flawed fallacious logic"? Who said? Its just simple logic that science has no way of dismissing because it can't prove that evolution ever took place. It can't dismiss the Designer because it has no way to determine how life began. I can see who is desperate......and trying to manipulate the minds of others with language that make ID proponents out to be a bunch of uneducated morons. We're not, you know.

If life was produced by this Intelligent Designer, then your theory falls in a heap. What will you do if that's the case?

 

[Sapiens]

You crack me up.

Organic evolution isn't testable either. Adaptation is not proof of organic evolution.

False: Organic Evolution: 9 Main Evidences of Organic Evolution

And of course evolution has nothing to do with "once upon a time", billions of years ago, something "might have" or "could have" happened because our "suggestions" "led us to believe" that "our interpretation of the evidence" means that there is no designer.

Life just happened......

Complex designs just designed themselves.....individually designed components just married themselves to other individually designed components for no apparent reason, and a series of millions of fortunate undirected mutations led to all you see as life on earth today......sounds like more of a fairy story than you think we have.

When in doubt you never fail to trot out the old and worn out straw-men.

LOL.....so does evolution.

You've got nothing concrete to boast about......the whole theory is peppered with holes so big, you could drive a Mack Truck through them, yet you guys still maintain that it is a fact. You have no more REAL evidence than we do.....I know you can never admit that, but that is the fact of the matter.

Only in your mind, only in your dreams.

"Silly"? "Outdated"? "Flawed fallacious logic"? Who said?

Virtually the entire scientific community whose members are far more conversant with the data and conclusions than you are.

Its just simple logic that science has no way of dismissing because it can't prove that evolution ever took place.

Another straw-man.

It can't dismiss the Designer because it has no way to determine how life began. I can see who is desperate......and trying to manipulate the minds of others with language that make ID proponents out to be a bunch of uneducated morons. We're not, you know.

"uneducated morons?" many are, some are just deluded, a few just plain lie if you believe the court.

If life was produced by this Intelligent Designer, then your theory falls in a heap. What will you do if that's the case?

Accept it as reality, but all data points to that not being so.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

......a specific denomination doctrine......

Is that all you think there is, doctrines from 'denominations'? Or did Jesus himself give any doctrines, i.e., commands to follow? Of course Jesus did! (John 14:15; John 15:10) Now, which should be of importance....what churches say, or what Jesus says? Here's a command that Jesus gives: John 13:34-35. How do the churches measure up to this command? As Jesus said, following this one would basically ID His followers. This love would have to transcend all barriers, be they racial, national, cultural, etc.

Who meets these requirements? Those who honor Jehovah God, Jesus' Father....His worship results in peace and unity. -- Isaiah 2:2-4

 

[Shad]

Is that all you think there is, doctrines from 'denominations'? Or did Jesus himself give any doctrines, i.e., commands to follow? Of course Jesus did! (John 14:15; John 15:10) Now, which should be of importance....what churches say, or what Jesus says? Here's a command that Jesus gives: John 13:34-35. How do the churches measure up to this command? As Jesus said, following this one would basically ID His followers. This love would have to transcend all barriers, be they racial, national, cultural, etc.

Considering there are denominations that do accept evolution my statement is not only correct but is evident by these very denomination existences. Keep in mind this is not strictly "creator" claim but a claim that evolution is false along side a "creator" claim. All you have done is repeat your doctrine views as if it is the only one that is true, nothing more. You state a presupposition you hold, nothing more.

Who meets these requirements? Those who honor Jehovah God, Jesus' Father....His worship results in peace and unity. -- Isaiah 2:2-4

Again furthering my point that when one denomination disagrees with another it jumps to denouncing it, its followers and making claims that they are not true believers which is nothing more than the No True Scottsman fallacy. You take a doctrinal disagreement to claim that those that do not accept your specific doctrine are not honouring God.

Yawn* You comment did far more to establish my point than my own comment did. Hilarious.

 

[Deeje]

Virtually the entire scientific community whose members are far more conversant with the data and conclusions than you are.

You know, out of all the evolution stories I think this one is my favorite.....

"The evolution of whales


The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.

Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial.


These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."

The evolution of whales

Now, I don't know about you guys, but that is just hilarious.....

"Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus"

So because science believes, (but cannot prove) that these ancient land animals became hippos and whales, we just have to take their word for it that all this stuff is true? They "know" that "the ancient relatives of the hippos" "were not large or aquatic"......so that must hold true for whales as well......? Must it? Is this conjecture masquerading as science again?

"The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know."

Are they serious? If none of them is a direct ancestor of the other, then why do they appear in a diagram as though there was a direct line of descent? Smoke and mirrors......

"These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals......From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all."

No....really?

"However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal"
So, these land animals MUST be the ancestors of whales because they have an ear bone that resembles a whale's......

Oh c'mon....you really expect us to swallow this stuff?

I just think the pomposity of some of evolution's proponents is masking their embarrassment.

 

[savagewind]

Some more bad math for you.

Life on Earth began 3,800,000,000. Is that enough zeros?

Intelligent life seems to have happened about 6000 years ago.

Divided, because I can.

Is only 633,333.

When life began, it was something like this, by popular opinion (and I don't doubt it).

I got it from an article about hypernaturalism versus supernaturalism. Reasons To Believe : How Did God Create the First Life on Earth?

My point is that all of life as we know it only took 633,333 times longer than the time it took for humankind to have evolved. The numbers do not work imo. If there were only ever 100 different kinds of life, I might have to cede to the atheists. I can't and I am as certain as I can be that I never will be able to.

Yes, four billion is a big number to grasp, but it isn't hard to grapple with the idea that some people count to billions, every day! (I don't.)

 

[viole]

Out of all that was discussed, you picked the ship? OK, there was a good reason for using it......

The Titanic is a great metaphor for the situation that people find themselves in today. The passengers were told that the ship was unsinkable and they believed it. But, when they hit the iceberg, reality set in they realised that they had been sold a lie, and survival became the focus. Sadly, the ship's builders had not installed enough lifeboats based on their assumption that they would not be needed. We know the awful story of how it all played out.

I was on the "Titanic" along with everyone else once, but when I saw the ship listing and the water rushing in, I also saw the need to get off it and into a lifeboat, then making sure to keep a good distance from the sinking ship, which will take down anything that is in close proximity. Anyone who stayed with the ship, of course, went down with it, or froze to death in the water.

Would it make sense to rearrange the deck chairs or to consult the menu for breakfast? What about upgrading to a better cabin?
This is what I see the majority of people doing today. The world is sinking and the majority are under the impression that everything will somehow be all right. The world is "unsinkable"....right?

Those who understand what is about to take place according to Bible prophesy, are knocking on cabin doors to warn the heavy sleepers that they need to take action to save themselves. And shouldn't we be taking all the steps we can to get off that ship whilst doing our best to stay out of the freezing water?

I see this as a choice we all have to make. According to the Bible, not many will be in the lifeboats, yet there is plenty of room.

Your analogy does not hold water (pun intended).

We could have, in principle, found the weaknesses of the Titanic and the risks associated. An engineer would have never said that it is unsinkable. That is nonsense. Every ship is sinkable. It is a simple law of physics found long ago and easy to test.

She would have said, if competent, that it is indeed sinkable if this and that happen. Real events that can physically occur, like a collision with an object that destroys all buffers if the incident angle and velocity have a certain value. But since that has a low probability, the risk was considered acceptable.

But in the case of the Bible we have nothing to assess probabilities. Nothing. And what do I know what I really risk if I have nothing to base my risk assessment upon? No matter how precise this assessment might be. On the Titanic I could have, in principle, if you know the design, the laws of Archimedes and the weather in the North Atlantic.

All I have are just stories in a book, that contradict other stories in other books (sold out with the same conviction) that have only few things in common. Including the total lack of evidence that what they say is true or can be measured in any way or form.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shad]

Are they serious? If none of them is a direct ancestor of the other, then why do they appear in a diagram as though there was a direct line of descent? Smoke and mirrors......

You only show that you can not understand the diagram. Do I need to explain how to read a diagram that should be easy for a child to understand yet baffles you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

And any religion or denomination that tells it's members to ignore reality like that must be regarded as being bogus.

As so many here have posted, the evidence for evolution goes even beyond the massive amounts of evidence to support it, but also the basic concept is just plain old common sense: all material items change over time, and genes are material items. On top of that, because genetic change tends to be incremental, there's no logic in the supposed macro/micro-evolution gap that's unbridgeable.

The bottom line is that any religious approach that has it's members going through life with blinders on simply is a nonsensical and bogus religion/denomination. If somehow the ToE negated a belief in God(s), that would be one thing, but it simply doesn't as it doesn't include nor exclude that possibility. But if one has been thoroughly brainwashed to believe that somehow it does, even though most theologians do not believe there's any such conflict, then we can see why some people simply cannot be willing to open their eyes to the reality.

But then, I'm preaching to the choir. You're singing solo, right? .

I guess I just have no patience for that. Reality is what it is, regardless of what anyone wants it to be or tries to explain it away. It just is.

You are right ... all observations of the reality we live in indicate that all material things change over time. Human beings have apparently observed this all throughout our history - that's how obvious it is. To deny the obvious is to delude oneself, in my opinion. And I just can't do that. I'm not sure how anyone can.


Do Re Me Fa Sol La Ti Do!

 

[SkepticThinker]

'Explaining' it is one thing. But the evidence is not there, in support of the sheer number of genetic mutations necessary for modification into the vast diversity of body plans!

Since the mechanisms that natural selection is based on are unguided and random, there'd be a plethora of nonfunctional mutations within every genus....a lot more than is observed.

Yes it is. Hence the reason it's a scientific theory.

Evolution is guided by natural selection and other mechanisms.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Considering there are denominations that do accept evolution my statement is not only correct but is evident by these very denomination existences. Keep in mind this is not strictly "creator" claim but a claim that evolution is false along side a "creator" claim. All you have done is repeat your doctrine views as if it is the only one that is true, nothing more. You state a presupposition you hold, nothing more.



Again furthering my point that when one denomination disagrees with another it jumps to denouncing it, its followers and making claims that they are not true believers which is nothing more than the No True Scottsman fallacy. You take a doctrinal disagreement to claim that those that do not accept your specific doctrine are not honouring God.

Yawn* You comment did far more to establish my point than my own comment did. Hilarious.

Straw man, actually.
It's not my doctrine; its Jesus' doctrine.

What I wrote...am I wrong?

I know you have no interest.

But, for followers of Christ, who cares what Jesus said, right?

Sad, really.

 

[Sapiens]

You know, out of all the evolution stories I think this one is my favorite.....

"The evolution of whales


The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.

Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial.


These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."

The evolution of whales

Now, I don't know about you guys, but that is just hilarious.....

If you spent as much time studying and thinking as you do guffawing you'd start to understand. The fact that you find something funny is not evidence that it is not correct. I realize that you feel (and have stated) that the fact that you are utterly ignorant of a large body of human knowledge better equips you to understand reality, but you must realize that is, shall we say, a minority opinion. Most people, and logic itself, dictate that the more you know, the better equipped you are to comment.

"Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus"

So because science believes, (but cannot prove) that these ancient land animals became hippos and whales, we just have to take their word for it that all this stuff is true? They "know" that "the ancient relatives of the hippos" "were not large or aquatic"......so that must hold true for whales as well......? Must it? Is this conjecture masquerading as science again?

It is rather simple, there are multiple lines of osteological evidence that show characteristics that are shared by whales and hippos but not by other lineages. This is perfectly mirrored by immunological and genetic data.

"The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know."

Are they serious? If none of them is a direct ancestor of the other, then why do they appear in a diagram as though there was a direct line of descent? Smoke and mirrors......

Ah ... once again you display ignorance of what is said and shown. Where any of the individual animals on the evogram the direct ancestor of another, that would be shown as a straight line, not a bracket (which indicates a "cousin" species rather than a "daughter" species). The diagram displays exactly what it represent to display and criticizing it that fashion demonstrates ignorance of its meaning rather than inaccuracy in its presentation.

"These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals......From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all."

No....really?

Really. That is to be expected. The ancestral forms (first whales) were terrestrial and thus would be expected to be molded by natural selection to favor those adaptations that better equipped them for their terrestrial existence.

"However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal"
So, these land animals MUST be the ancestors of whales because they have an ear bone that resembles a whale's......

MUST? No.

Likely? Yes.

It is not that hard to understand. Were you substituting at a day care that was lily white but for one black kid and a black woman showed up claiming to be the child's aunt, with lab test results showing that she and the child had the same rare blood type, a rare and heritable immunological deficiency and dozens of identical DNA markers, that none of the other children in the school possessed, would you believe that she was, in fact, the child's aunt?

Oh c'mon....you really expect us to swallow this stuff?

Thinking people the world over find it highly probable. People with a presuppositional and antiintellectual bent do not.

I just think the pomposity of some of evolution's proponents is masking their embarrassment.

Good for you, now ... when you can translate that thought into something other than logical fallacies and unsupported claims, then someone might pay attention to what you have to say.

 

[Deeje]

Your analogy does not hold water (pun intended).

I believe it does.

We could have, in principle, found the weaknesses of the Titanic and the risks associated. An engineer would have never said that it is unsinkable. That is nonsense. Every ship is sinkable. It is a simple law of physics found long ago and easy to test.

She would have said, if competent, that it is indeed sinkable if this and that happen. Real events that can physically occur, like a collision with an object that destroys all buffers if the incident angle and velocity have a certain value. But since that has a low probability, the risk was considered acceptable.

The Titanic was "sold" to the public as "unsinkable". The passengers and even the Captain apparently bought it, based on its unique design. This world is "sold" to the masses as a product of human invention that has the ability to solve all problems, even if it is with an "iceberg" of atomic weapons. The world is sinking rapidly and people are still operating on the assumption that man will solve all his self-created problems......but what is the reality? Do you see hope in his plans and schemes?

But in the case of the Bible we have nothing to assess probabilities. Nothing. And what do I know what I really risk if I have nothing to base my risk assessment upon? No matter how precise this assessment might be. On the Titanic I could have, in principle, if you know the design, the laws of Archimedes and the weather in the North Atlantic.

There is so much more to the Bible than mere stories. Prophesies written hundreds or even thousands of years in advance could not be the product of men. The wisdom of its teachings cannot compare with human wisdom. But its wisdom can only be measured by those who try to live it.

Missionary E. Stanley Jones asked Mahatma Gandhi: “Mr Gandhi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is it that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower”? Gandhi's reply..... “Oh, I don’t reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It is just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ”.

He also said in answer to British Viceroy, Lord Irwin: "when your country and mine shall get together on the teachings laid down by Christ in this Sermon on the Mount, we shall have solved the problems not only of our countries but those of the whole world”. Now that is a wisdom all should subscribe to.

If even a Hindu can see the value of Christ's teachings, shouldn't we at least give them some unprejudiced examination?

All I have are just stories in a book, that contradict other stories in other books (sold out with the same conviction) that have only few things in common. Including the total lack of evidence that what they say is true or can be measured in any way or form.

Beliefs are measured in the way that people "live" them. Believing something is useless unless you live up to those beliefs 24/7. Most professing Christians these days are nominal, professing belief without allowing that belief to shape the way they think or live. They can dutifully attend a Church service on Sunday and then leave their Christianity at the door till they come back next week to put it on again for half an hour or so.
That is Jesus' definition of a hypocrite.

We can all measure the caliber of our faith by how many actually "live" it, rather than just see it as something we "do" sometimes. If it isn't a way of life, what is the point of it?

 

[Sapiens]

I believe it does.

“A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

To not be wasting everyone's time, in this forum, you need to bring more to table than your beliefs.

 

[Deeje]

If you spent as much time studying and thinking as you do guffawing you'd start to understand. The fact that you find something funny is not evidence that it is not correct. I realize that you feel (and have stated) that the fact that you are utterly ignorant of a large body of human knowledge better equips you to understand reality, but you must realize that is, shall we say, a minority opinion. Most people, and logic itself, dictate that the more you know, the better equipped you are to comment.

I see all that human knowledge as built on the flimsiest of foundations. Everything that science teaches is based on the assumption that evolution is a foregone conclusion......it isn't to those who accept ID.
If your first premise is flawed, then everything you build on it will be equally flawed.
You can use all the high sounding scientific jargon you like to make it sound more convincing, but at the end of the day, the foundations of your building will collapse under the weight of the preposterous reasoning that science uses to prop up its arguments.....which appear to me to be based more on a superior attitude and the power of suggestion, than on any real evidence.

It is rather simple, there are multiple lines of osteological evidence that show characteristics that are shared by whales and hippos but not by other lineages. This is perfectly mirrored by immunological and genetic data.

It is also equally possible that a Creator designed and made all these species independently of one another over an extended period of time. Since we believe that he created all life from the same raw materials, similarities in their DNA or genetic data would be in evidence. It is no proof of evolution.

Ah ... once again you display ignorance of what is said and shown. Where any of the individual animals on the evogram the direct ancestor of another, that would be shown as a straight line, not a bracket (which indicates a "cousin" species rather than a "daughter" species). The diagram displays exactly what it represent to display and criticizing it that fashion demonstrates ignorance of its meaning rather than inaccuracy in its presentation.

I am looking at the diagram as most "uneducated" people would......what about this diagram? What is this implying if not a direct line?

Or this one....

This is not the truth because science cannot prove that there is any descent from one to another...it can only "suggest" that it happened, and produce this kind of "evidence" to back it up. What creatures fill the gaps?

The ancestral forms (first whales) were terrestrial and thus would be expected to be molded by natural selection to favor those adaptations that better equipped them for their terrestrial existence.
MUST? No.

Likely? Yes.

I don't think it's "likely" at all. I see no "evidence" except science's "suggestion" that it "might have" happened. Yet here you are taking the high ground as if you have positive proof.....you don't have any more actual "proof" than I do.

It is not that hard to understand. Were you substituting at a day care that was lily white but for one black kid and a black woman showed up claiming to be the child's aunt, with lab test results showing that she and the child had the same rare blood type, a rare and heritable immunological deficiency and dozens of identical DNA markers, that none of the other children in the school possessed, would you believe that she was, in fact, the child's aunt?

This is a basis for establishing truth? All that would be required is a phone call or an email from the child's father stating that his sister would be by to pick up his child. I have such an email (or Gmail)...would you like to read it?

Thinking people the world over find it highly probable. People with a presuppositional and anti-intellectual bent do not.

There it is again...the inevitable put down. You believe that intellectuals are the only people who are capable of "thinking"? You assert that "probability" is the same as certainty? You think science isn't "pre-suppositional"? You assume that people who listen to pompous intellectuals spouting from their high horses can't think that those people are dead wrong?

Good for you, now ... when you can translate that thought into something other than logical fallacies and unsupported claims, then someone might pay attention to what you have to say.

I will if you will.

To not be wasting everyone's time, in this forum, you need to bring more to table than your beliefs.

I am surprised that you even bother with this thread Sapeins.....unless of course you think it might be exposing science for the fraud that it is presenting itself to be on this issue....?

"Someone" is obviously paying attention or the views would not be over 18,000.

 

[KBC1963]

I see all that human knowledge as built on the flimsiest of foundations. Everything that science teaches is based on the assumption that evolution is a foregone conclusion......it isn't to those who accept ID.
If your first premise is flawed, then everything you build on it will be equally flawed..

Indeed

Deeje their first premise can't be flawed... remember nothing makes sense without looking thru the evolutionary lens.....

New fossil find makes whale evolution even more unlikely
Whale evolution is supposed to be one of the best documented cases of gradualism in the fossil record. No doubt, when you stack the fossils up next to each other, you can see what appears to be a morphological transition from a terrestrial mammal to an aquatic whale.
Since evolution occurs at the biochemical level, however, to determine whether or not this series of fossils represent an actual evolution of mammals into whales, or if they are morphologically similar but distinct species, we must determine whether the 10 million years that separates the first whale from its mammalian ancestor is enough time to re-engineer a mammal into a whale. Consider the extent of the required changes:

1. “Whales require an intra-abdominal counter current heat exchange system (the testis are inside the body right next to the muscles that generate heat during swimming)
2. They need to possess a ball vertebra because the tail has to move up and down instead of side-to-side
3. They require a re-organization of kidney tissue to facilitate the intake of salt water
4. They require a re-orientation of the fetus for giving birth under water
5. They require a modification of the mammary glands for the nursing of young under water
6. The forelimbs have to be transformed into flippers
7. The hindlimbs need to be substantially reduced
8. They require a special lung surfactant (the lung has to re-expand very rapidly upon coming up to the surface), etc.”[1]

The task of turning a mammal into a sea creature is comparable to the engineering task required to turn a car into a submarine. These are not minor changes, but a perfectly coordinated overhaul of virtually every aspect of mammalian features. To demonstrate that this series of fossils represents an actual evolution of the whale from non-whale ancestors requires more than pointing out the morphological similarities. Biologists must be able to identify the biochemical pathways required to produce such changes, and demonstrate that such pathways could reasonably be traversed given the amount of time available.

Keep in mind that when it comes to evolvability, time is the least important factor to consider. The rate of evolution is determined primarily by population size, reproduction rates, and mutation rates. The larger the population, the smaller the generation times, and the faster the mutation rates, the faster the rate of evolution. Conversely, the smaller the population, the larger the generation times, and the slower the mutation rates, the slower the rate of evolution. If you have a small population, long generation times, and an average mutation rate, it will take a long time for mutations to create enough raw materials on which natural selection can act. To see how this works, contrast whales and mice. Because of the small population size and long generation times of whales, it takes whales 200 million years to accumulate the same number of mutations mice can accumulate in 1500 years. If mice haven’t changed in 1500 years, then why should we expect mammals to have evolved into whales over a period of 200 million years, yet alone the 10 million years in which it is claimed the process took place in?
Given a population size of 100,000 whales per generation, and generation times of five years, Richard Sternberg has calculated that it would take 43.3 million years for just two specific coordinated mutations to become fixed in the species. If it would take 43 million years for two specific coordinated mutations to become fixed in the species, and the re-engineering of mammals into whales would require thousands of such changes, then it is not feasible to believe that mammals could evolve into whales in 3 billion years, yet alone 10 million years. While the morphological similarities between Pakicetids, Ambulocetids, Rodhocetus, and Basilosaurids are very interesting and might suggest an evolutionary relationship at first glance, the biochemical data demonstrates that it is not reasonable to believe they share an evolutionary relationship. They cannot be causally connected to each other because there simply was not enough time for such an evolution to occur.

The whale evolution story has been further complicated by the recent discovery in Antarctica of a jawbone of the oldest, fully aquatic whale (announced October 2011). It dates to 49 million years ago. This is nine million years older than Basilosaurids—an organism previously thought to be the oldest fully aquatic whale—and only 3 million years younger than what is purported to be the ancestor to whales, Pakicetus: a fully terrestrial creature. In fact, this new find dates to the same age as what used to be thought of as the first proto-whale, Ambulocetus: a semi-aquatic creature that lived in the waters of South Asia. It’s difficult to maintain that these fossils represent an evolution of the whale when the first fully aquatic whale appears on the scene at the same time as its supposed oldest semi-aquatic ancestor. That’s like saying you were born at the same time as your great great great great grandfather.
New fossil find makes whale evolution even more unlikely

Now those people were definitely not wearing their evolutionary lens's so we can definitely throw all their talk away as irrelevant gibberish right?