Just Accidental?

[shunyadragon]

No .....you are underestimating the fact that not all who believe in creation are YEC proponents. I have no intention of allowing my faith to be blind....quite the contrary...I research everything and I read things very carefully, whether that be scripture or a scientific explanation for how life appeared on this planet.....oh sorry, you don't go there...right? So the 'magical poofing' is in your belief system too...? Duly noted.



I do not subscribe to this man's (or any other man's) reasoning. I have my own reasoning abilities and my research has always allowed me to spot the frauds. Assumption carries weight when the big guys promote it...ask any advertizing agency. You think we have drunk the Kool-Aid? Look at yourselves.



If you mean the trend in defending YECreationism when it is shown to be 'unscientific'...I agree, its mindless. But I do not subscribe to the view that science and the Bible are incompatible....and that you must choose one or the other. They merge beautifully for a very good reason.....they were created by the same person.



Anyone who is looking for an excuse to ditch the Creator is free to do so. He will not interfere with our choices or the reasons for them. It will be entirely our decision and the natural consequence will follow as it does with any important decision we make. And this decision is one of the most important decisions we could make IMO, because of what it means for our future. If you have convinced yourself that there is no future, other than what is in the hands of man.....then what is left to say about that?



We agree!.....but there is a difference between "true" science (the provable kind) and theoretical science that is based on nothing but guesswork about what they "think" "might have" or "could have" taken place when no one was around to dispute their "findings"....except the Creator, of course....and he tells a vastly different story. I know which one makes sense to me...it is the position that embraces both camps (creation and science) without compromising either.



Everything in evolutionary science pertaining to macro-evolution is assumed, not proven. To say otherwise is dishonest. All they have is proof of adaptation....which has never been disputed. It is an assumptuion that adaptation leads to macro-evolution. No one here has ever probved otherwise.



I have shown you throughout this thread that assumption is just as much a part of evolution as it is for ID.
We have as much real proof for our assumptions as you do. Choose your belief system.

ID does not have nearly as many "wild guesses" as evolution does. Evolutionists also believe what they are taught "without question"...I never do. I question everything and through genuine research, I have have uncovered the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in the name of science. Its ramifications I believe, will be far reaching for every human on this planet.

We will then see whose method is sterile.....completely unable to keep itself alive.

So how's the enttertainament value holding up for you?

Simply as far as science is concerned, since the founding of the Discovery Institute and the stating of their purpose, no theory nor hypothesis has been proposed that can be falsified by scientific methods. The rest is bluff and blunder.

 

[Polymath257]

<basic biology deleted>

This "lineage" (mamalian carnivores) includes species that we would recognize as similar in appearance and behavior, but it is "assumed", not proven by any true scientific method that they are related by any continuing lines of decent.

They are related by lines of descent based on the similarities as well as the genetics. The 'assumption' is merely that these animals reproduce.

In the description at the outset, you will notice that I highlighted the word "subsumes" (easily overlooked) which means to

"include or absorb (something) in something else". The species that were "subsumed" are based on guesses, making one species appear to belong to a group, to which they are not related at all except by some structural similarities and behaviors. Their conclusions are not based on true substantiated evidence, but on purely circumstantial evidence, interpreted with strong bias. Science sees what it wants to see and pushes it views very strongly.....with almost religious passion.

On the contrary, it is also based on the genetic evicence, showing the similarities are not simply matters of appearance, but actually matters of descent. Furthermore, we can follow the lines of descent using the genetics.

"The cat-like feliforms and dog-like caniforms emerged within the Carnivoramorpha 43 million years before present.[5] The caniforms included the fox-like Leptocyon genus whose various species existed from 34 million years before present before branching 11.9 million YBP into Vulpini (foxes) and Canini (canines).[6]:174–5."

You see where science pulling a swifty here. How can anyone "know" what happened 43 million years ago? How do they know that "branching" even occurred? They assume that it did. Their "belief" has become a fact.

Again, we can follow the early carnivores and find when the branching happened. The new species didn't just come out of nowhere. The only option was that they descended from the previous species.

They lump cats and dogs in the same "Family" as if having similar characteristics means relationship....that is an assumption and completely unprovable. These species being "subsumed" into one taxonomic rank gives the appearance of relationship.....but it is only an appearance....smoke and mirrors.

it goes much deeper than outward similarities. If you look at the genetics, they are closer than, say, either would be to primates. That is sufficient, given the fact that species reproduce, to show inheritance.

Continuing.......

"In the history of the carnivores, the family Canidae is represented by the two extinct subfamilies designated as Hesperocyoninae and Borophaginae, and the extant subfamily Caninae.[7] This subfamily includes all living canids and their most recent fossil relatives.[6] All living canids as a group form a dental monophyletic relationship with the extinct borophagines with both groups having a bicuspid (two points) on the lower carnassial talonid, which gives this tooth an additional ability in mastication. This together with the development of a distinct entoconid cusp and the broadening of the talonid of the first lower molar, and the corresponding enlargement of the talon of the upper first molar and reduction of its parastyle distinguish these late Cenozoic canids and are the essential differences that identify their clade.[6]"

Do you see what I see? What is the basis for 'assuming' that dogs and cats and indeed all carniviores evolved from a common ancestor? The 'assumption' is made by comparing similarities in dental structure. Since canids are carnivores, then they assume that all carnivores must be related......? Why? Because it fits their theory, not because they can prove any of it.

Dental structure shows a lot, but the deeper genetics shows a lot more.

Just because felines, and indeed all carnivores, have many varieties, does not mean that they were not individually designed by the Creator to be exactly what you see today. According to the Bible, the earth is very ancient and the Creator had eons of time to experiment with many different lifeforms before choosing the ones who would share life with humans as their caretakers for all time to come. Having the view that the Creator must be some kind of 'great magician in the sky', poofing things into existence, only makes your theory seem more atrractive.....he is nothing like what you see portrayed by the churches.

Funny that whenever a new species shows up, it is similar to a previous species. Funny that all species reproduce and such allows for exactly the types of changes that we see.

I see the very same evidence as you do, but without the indoctrination of atheism, or swallowing popular opinion, I can't dismiss an Intelligent Designer, when all I see is intelligent design.....everywhere in nature. Incredible systems that are vital for life. They are all there, (in what's left of the natural world) working as they were designed to work, and because many of them are not biological, they could not have evolved.

You have been indoctrinated to be blind to the facts because of your religion.

You can believe in macro-evolution if you wish......no skin off my nose.....but please don't push it as fact, when it is no such thing.

It is just as much of a fact as any historical fact is. Biological species change over geological time. The genetics, as well as the outward structures show these changes, both in modern species and in fossil species.

 

[Deeje]

OK, So what???? All this reveals is you can cut and past from a website.

Can you address the quote or are you incapable of defending your position with anything intelligent?

I have taken the information from a widely used site that promotes evolution and the information was provided by those who should know. You have no answer to that? How can you....it was written by one of your own.

No swifty here except for the phony Intelligent Design Creationist Science.

Again...anything intelligent to add?

The problem remains, other than 'cut and paste citation,' you are clueless as to actual science behind the science of evolution. For that matter you remain clueless to the overwhelming evidence for an earth, solar system, and universe billions of years old.

If you read my posts before addressing them, you will see that I am not a YEC. I believe that the earth and indeed the universe, is very probably billions of years old. I believe that many creatures have been around for a very long time. That is because I do not believe that the Genesis "days" were merely 24 hour periods. Creation took eons.

I can marry the provable parts of science and the Bible very well. To me, God is the greatest scientist in existence....I can only imagine him rolling on his heavenly floor laughing at the audacity of the pot claiming it had no potter.

What doesn't sit well with me is misinterpretation of evidence, regardless of which side of this issue you hang your hat.

 

[Deeje]

They are related by lines of descent based on the similarities as well as the genetics. The 'assumption' is merely that these animals reproduce.

That is a rather large assumption when you think about it. How does any species survive without reproduction?

On the contrary, it is also based on the genetic evicence, showing the similarities are not simply matters of appearance, but actually matters of descent. Furthermore, we can follow the lines of descent using the genetics.

Yes, we understand where that reasoning takes perfectly intelligent people.....we all evolved from that simple cell that accidently appeared out of nowhere and transformed itself into worms then into plants and bananas and then into us apparently.

Amoebas gradually evolving into dinosaurs is quite a stretch in anyone's language. It makes an Intelligent Creator look.......intelligent.

Belief in ID, to us means that God could also have used the same raw materials for all his creation. Just as a carpenter can construct many different things from one material and use the same basic structure for many different projects, so the building blocks of life can be used in a similar fashion. Why is that impossible?

Again, we can follow the early carnivores and find when the branching happened. The new species didn't just come out of nowhere. The only option was that they descended from the previous species.

You assume that branching happened.....we assume that a new species was created that may have superceded the last.
The human race are creators too, just like their Maker.....we update and supercede the things we makes as well. Is the Creator not allowed to experiment?
You don't really know and neither do we....we can all assume but neither of us has any proof. You guys just pretend to and hope nobody notices.

it goes much deeper than outward similarities. If you look at the genetics, they are closer than, say, either would be to primates. That is sufficient, given the fact that species reproduce, to show inheritance.

Same material, similar structure, same designer who has decided to stay with a basic structure that works for many different models. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
A potter uses the same clay to make a wide variety of vessels......he has a signature design that identifies him as the artist. So does the Creator.

Dental structure shows a lot, but the deeper genetics shows a lot more.

Genetics aside....even the dental structure of many unrealted species is similar. It does not prove anything.
Similarity does not necessarily = relationship.

Funny that whenever a new species shows up, it is similar to a previous species. Funny that all species reproduce and such allows for exactly the types of changes that we see.

Are beavers and otters related? If you found just their skeletal remains, and were not aquainted with their anatomy, would you be able to tell the difference?

You have been indoctrinated to be blind to the facts because of your religion.

And I could say exactly the same about you. You have a belief system, just the same as I do. You have no more proof that your belief system is correct...anymore than I do. You just can't admit it. We marry our faith with the science.....you build your faith on it. One of us is going to be very disappointed one day.

It is just as much of a fact as any historical fact is. Biological species change over geological time. The genetics, as well as the outward structures show these changes, both in modern species and in fossil species.

This is what you have been told....and don't look now, but humans have fiddled with history too....I assumed that you knew this?

All that "overwhelming evidence"....but when you really examine it without the rose colored glasses, you discover that there is no real evidence at all that does not rely on inference.....implication.....supposition and suggestion. Show us the evidence that does not rely on those things. I have not seen any to date.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No .....you are underestimating the fact that not all who believe in creation are YEC proponents.

Irrelevant and not part of my argument.

I do not subscribe to this man's (or any other man's) reasoning.

You're a Jehovah's Witness. You subscribe to their reasoning.

Anyone who is looking for an excuse to ditch the Creator is free to do so. He will not interfere with our choices

He always imitates the nonexistent god. Why is that?

Everything in evolutionary science pertaining to macro-evolution is assumed, not proven.

Except the parts that have been observed or are supported by fossil, anatomical, or genetic observations.

I have shown you throughout this thread that assumption is just as much a part of evolution as it is for ID.

You haven't shown me any such thing. Science and pseudoscience are not the same thing.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you address the quote or are you incapable of defending your position with anything intelligent?

I have taken the information from a widely used site that promotes evolution and the information was provided by those who should know. You have no answer to that? How can you....it was written by one of your own.

I addressed the quote. It is simply a summary of some aspects of the science of evolution nothing more. It goes no where in supporting your Alice in Wonderland argument.

Again...anything intelligent to add?

It is a reasonably accurate, but brief outline of some aspects of evolution. So what?!?!?!

If you read my posts before addressing them, you will see that I am not a YEC. I believe that the earth and indeed the universe, is very probably billions of years old. I believe that many creatures have been around for a very long time. That is because I do not believe that the Genesis "days" were merely 24 hour periods. Creation took eons. -

OK. that was not clear in the past.

What doesn't sit well with me is misinterpretation of evidence, regardless of which side of this issue you hang your hat.

It is your lack of knowledge of science and the misinterpretation of the evidence that bothers me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can you address the quote or are you incapable of defending your position with anything intelligent?

I have taken the information from a widely used site that promotes evolution and the information was provided by those who should know. You have no answer to that? How can you....it was written by one of your own.



Again...anything intelligent to add?



If you read my posts before addressing them, you will see that I am not a YEC. I believe that the earth and indeed the universe, is very probably billions of years old. I believe that many creatures have been around for a very long time. That is because I do not believe that the Genesis "days" were merely 24 hour periods. Creation took eons.

I can marry the provable parts of science and the Bible very well. To me, God is the greatest scientist in existence....I can only imagine him rolling on his heavenly floor laughing at the audacity of the pot claiming it had no potter.

What doesn't sit well with me is misinterpretation of evidence, regardless of which side of this issue you hang your hat.

I wonder what your Creator thinks about the fact that you don't seem to think "he" is intelligent enough to have come up with evolution. I bet that gives "him" a good laugh too, eh?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Above it, each rank is classified within more general categories of organisms and groups of organisms related to each other through inheritance of traits or features from common ancestors.

Oops! Common ancestors for differing "kinds." That doesn't sound like creationism to me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I research everything and I read things very carefully, whether that be scripture or a scientific explanation for how life appeared on this planet

Your posting belies that claim. You still don't understand the basics of evolution. You keep talking about proof, macroevolution, adaptation, what hasn't been observed in a manner that betrays a lack of foundation.

You think we have drunk the Kool-Aid?

Yes.

If you mean the trend in defending YECreationism when it is shown to be 'unscientific'...I agree, its mindless.

My quotes weren't about YEC. They were about the relationship between faith and closed-mindedness.

Everything in evolutionary science pertaining to macro-evolution is assumed, not proven.

That is incorrect. Speciation has been observed in the field and lab.

I have shown you throughout this thread that assumption is just as much a part of evolution as it is for ID.

That is also incorrect. Religion is assumption. Science is not.

We have as much real proof for our assumptions as you do

That's three in a row.

Did you forget this? :

• The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?" Scientist Bill Nye answered, "Evidence." Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian."

This is the essential difference between evidence based thought and faith based thought. Here's more:

• "We're not two sides of the same coin, and you don't get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken, with the stuff that is not evidence-based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens ... I'm open to anything for which there's evidence. Show me a god, and I will believe in him. If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky during the halftime show of this Sunday's Super Bowl and turns all the nachos into loaves and fishes, well, I'll think ... "Oh, look at that. I was wrong. There he is. My bad. Praise the Lord." - Bill Maher

ID does not have nearly as many "wild guesses" as evolution does.

ID is 100% wild guess, and 100% sterile. Zero useful ideas have come from that concept, which is what we expect from incorrect hypotheses.

Evolution has no guesses. It is a scientific theory that accounts for observed facts. Many useful ideas are based on that theory, which is pretty much the test of the validity of an idea.

We will then see whose method is sterile

No need to wait. Just list the accomplishments of science and those of religion. I'll start: space travel, instantaneous global communication, motors, light at night, and the small pox and polio vaccines, longer life expectancy, and air conditioning.

Your turn.

 

[Deeje]

Irrelevant and not part of my argument.

Sorry but it is very relevent. Not all creation believers are YEC's. Creation can stand alone just from the Bible. All you have to do is examine the wording in the original language to get an entirely different picture to what the YEC's believe. I have never subscribed to any of it.

You're a Jehovah's Witness. You subscribe to their reasoning.

Yes I am, and yes, I do believe their reasoning for the same reason that you believe the reasonings of evolutionary scientists.....it makes perfect sense and it does not contradict true science....or the Bible. I don't have to sacrifice one for the other or assume that God must have used evolution in creation because I don't want to appear to be "unscientific" in my beliefs.

He always imitates the nonexistent god. Why is that?

I have no idea who you are talking about. I do not worship any non-existent gods. The God I worship leaves evidence for his existence in every cell of every living thing that has ever existed. He is a power in my life that has directed me since I was very young. The more I have gotten to know him, and experienced his hand in so many ways, the more in awe I become of him.

Except the parts that have been observed or are supported by fossil, anatomical, or genetic observations.

Why do you insist that there is evidence in the fossil record, or in biology, or even in genetic observations to support your theory?
Their "observations" are based on their "interpretation" of said evidence. Their bias is always going to be skewed towards their pre-conceived ideas and their haste to find anything that supports it.

You haven't shown me any such thing. Science and pseudoscience are not the same thing.

I heartily agree.....'pseudo-science' masquerading as 'actual science' is a waste of time and effort. It leads nowhere.

The definition of "pseudo-science" is "a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." Macro-evolution definitely falls under that definion IMO. There is not a single shred of solid evidence from any "scientific method" that macro-evolution ever happened.....and you all know it. If there was proof, it would have been produced by now. All that has been produced is a whole lot of "might have's" and "could have's". This is not the language of fact. It is the language of deception.

So if you have some real evidence that does not rely on "belief"..."suggestion"...."inferrence" or "supposition" then please produce it. If it is claimed by scientists that "evolution is a fact", then please show us those facts.

In 3,850 posts there has been nothing close to demonstrating any positive, substantiated evidence that macro-evolution is not a figment of collective, scientific imagination.

 

[Deeje]

Your posting belies that claim. You still don't understand the basics of evolution. You keep talking about proof, macroevolution, adaptation, what hasn't been observed in a manner that betrays a lack of foundation.

I do understand....that is why it's nonsense to me. The "foundation" of evolution was Darwin's observation of the various species he saw on the Galapagos Islands. It was adaptation that he witnessed....not macro-evolution. He saw recognizable species that had adapted to island life....nothing more. Not one of them was becoming something else.

There is no solid evidence for anything beyond that, ever produced in any scientific experiment ever conducted.

Evolution is faulty at its very foundations. You have built a very impressive edifice on matchsticks.

My quotes weren't about YEC. They were about the relationship between faith and closed-mindedness.

And of course we don't see any "close-mindedness" from evolutionists....do we?

It appears that you guys need more faith with less evidence than we do.

That is incorrect. Speciation has been observed in the field and lab.

Speciation is what? It is adaptation within a species producing a new variety of that species. Where is the evidence for species becoming something other than what their taxonomic genus says they should be? You have nothing but imagination to base your theory on.

That is also incorrect. Religion is assumption. Science is not.

Really? And your saying so means what? That you and science must be right. I don't believe a word of it....for the same reason that you don't believe me. You have chosen your belief system and it is duly noted. If you are confident that what you believe is true, then why are you still here arguing about it? I think I know.....

That's three in a row.

Did you forget this? :

• The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?" Scientist Bill Nye answered, "Evidence." Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian."

This is the essential difference between evidence based thought and faith based thought. Here's more:

• "We're not two sides of the same coin, and you don't get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken, with the stuff that is not evidence-based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens ... I'm open to anything for which there's evidence. Show me a god, and I will believe in him. If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky during the halftime show of this Sunday's Super Bowl and turns all the nachos into loaves and fishes, well, I'll think ... "Oh, look at that. I was wrong. There he is. My bad. Praise the Lord." - Bill Maher

Hmmmm....guess there is a clear case of not reading my posts before replying to them.

How many times must I say it....I don't even know who these men are....nor am I interested in anything they have to say.
Can I make that any clearer? My views are shaped by my faith in the Bible and in its author, whom I believe is the Creator of all things. My definition of my faith is mine. OK? Believing in creation does not make me a creationist.

ID is 100% wild guess, and 100% sterile. Zero useful ideas have come from that concept, which is what we expect from incorrect hypotheses.
Evolution has no guesses. It is a scientific theory that accounts for observed facts. Many useful ideas are based on that theory, which is pretty much the test of the validity of an idea.

Since I believe that all the assumptions made about macro-evolution are "wild guesses" I can only agree with you here.

What useful ideas have come from evolution? Please name me some.

No need to wait. Just list the accomplishments of science and those of religion. I'll start: space travel, instantaneous global communication, motors, light at night, and the small pox and polio vaccines, longer life expectancy, and air conditioning.

The accomplishments of science can be deomonstrated on one side of a page.....the damage done by misuse of science would fill volumes.

"Space travel"? What has that accomplished really? What could those billions of dollars have been spent on to benefit those suffering and starving on earth?....cleaning up the garbage dumped on the land and in the oceans, and now being dumped in space? We should've invested that money into making life better here first....and when we had accomplished that, then to check out space.

"Instant global communication" is wonderful unless it is used for plotting terrorist attacks or cyber bullying. It has also facilitated the sexual abuse of children and pornography so graphic that is staggers the imagination of decent people. Are there many decent people left in the world one wonders?

"Motors"? You mean the kind that pollute the air with toxic gasses whilst the non-polluting ones sit tucked away on a back shelf somewhere, whilst oil companies get richer and the earth is drowned in more poison?

"Light at night"? Humans have always been able to light up their homes at night. They used candles and lamps. They didn't need ugly and dangerous High Tension Power lines to criss cross the nations and power gadgets that made us all lazy. We have all lost the ability to be self-sufficient, making us slaves to the ones upon whom we rely for our very existence. Did we realize what that would mean when we relinquished it?
It seemed like such a good idea at the time.....

And don't get me started about "vaccinations"......The Bible had the solution to the spread of disease and to proper hygeine long before the discovery of microscopes that identified the reasons why epidemics took place.

Cleanliness in the home, good personal hygeine, proper disposal of human waste, and quarantine measures were all commanded in the Laws given to Israel. Those would have stopped the spread of disease more easily and with less deaths than vaccinations ever could. They would not have made anyone rich either.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why do you insist that there is evidence in the fossil record, or in biology, or even in genetic observations to support your theory?

Because there is.

I have no reason to defer to a faith based thinker who has a stake in not seeing that evidence that is plainly visible to me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The "foundation" of evolution was Darwin's observation of the various species he saw on the Galapagos Islands.

Nope. There was much more.

Speciation is what? It is adaptation within a species producing a new variety of that species.

Nope. Try Google if you care.

How many times must I say it....I don't even know who these men are....nor am I interested in anything they have to say.

You don't need to say it even once.

What useful ideas have come from evolution? Please name me some.

Try Google. I'm done bringing answers to you. You never even thank me for making the effort at your request.

"Space travel"? What has that accomplished really? What could those billions of dollars have been spent on to benefit those suffering and starving on earth?....cleaning up the garbage dumped on the land and in the oceans, and now being dumped in space? We should've invested that money into making life better here first....and when we had accomplished that, then to check out space.

"Instant global communication" is wonderful unless it is used for plotting terrorist attacks or cyber bullying. It has also facilitated the sexual abuse of children and pornography so graphic that is staggers the imagination of decent people. Are there many decent people left in the world one wonders?

"Motors"? You mean the kind that pollute the air with toxic gasses whilst the non-polluting ones sit tucked away on a back shelf somewhere, whilst oil companies get richer and the earth is drowned in more poison?

"Light at night"? Humans have always been able to light up their homes at night. They used candles and lamps. They didn't need ugly and dangerous High Tension Power lines to criss cross the nations and power gadgets that made us all lazy. We have all lost the ability to be self-sufficient, making us slaves to the ones uopn whom we rely for our very existence. Did we realize what that would mean when we relinquished it?
It seemed like such a good idea at the time.....

And don't get me started about "vaccinations"......The Bible had the solution to the spread of disease and to proper hygeine long before the discovery of microscopes that identified the reasons why epidemics took place.

These kinds of opinions are in part of what makes me an antitheist - a person that finds organized religion toxic. Sorry, but the world doesn't need an institution that teaches people to think like that, ideas that serve only that institution at the expense of the believer and whoever lives close enough to him to be affected.

 

[Deeje]

Nope. There was much more.

What more? Darwin saw adaptation and started imagining.....science has carried on that imagining ever since...taking it to ridiculous lengths with no real evidence.

Nope. Try Google if you care.

Every time I Google something, it tells me the same story.....it tells me what science "believes" .....it tells me what science "thinks" it knows but can never prove. Even scientists will tell each other how stupid people are if they don't believe in evolution....but without real evidence, its a just another belief system.

Try Google. I'm done bringing answers to you. You never even thank me for making the effort at your request.

I am not aware that you have ever brought answers to me......what did I miss? As I recall, you are loathe to answer most of my questions......what should I thank you for? Please remind me.....

These kinds of opinions are in part of what makes me an antitheist - a person that finds organized religion toxic. Sorry, but the world doesn't need an institution that teaches people to think like that, ideas that serve only that institution at the expense of the believer and whoever lives close enough to him to be affected.

It seems to me as though your 'scientific' world view has had a 'Disneyland' effect on the people who hold to it.
It isn't my religion that is toxic...its the world we live in....or hadn't you noticed? It isn't my religion that teaches me to see the gross wrongdoing in the world...it is the nightly news. I guess you never watch it....or can you just ignore the events that are unhinging society? Can you just tune out the bad stuff...? What does that leave you with?

It is the Bible that gives me hope for a better world in the future, because heaven knows man has never been able to produce a world where 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' was attainable for all.

If all we have is more of the same, then what can science give us to look forward to? More gadgets but less time to spend actually cultivating real friendships with real people in real time? Working so hard for the almighty dollar and its material benefits that we don't have time to raise our children? Today we have less excuse than we have ever had for the way we live.....for the way we treat those who don't enjoy good schooling and well paying jobs.....for the victims of crime and violence....for the refugees and the homeless.

What is science doing about those things? Last time I looked, it was religions who were trying to address those problems.....

 

[The magical volleyball]

There is a hypothesis called ancestral simulation. This hypothesis assumes that in the near future the human race will be able to create a computer simulation of how the universe was created, how life evolves over time, how societies evolve over time and many more. What is fascinating about this idea is that people being simulated could be programmed brains and free will and could achieve a sense of awareness (artificial intelligence). These people while self aware would not be aware of any world outside the one programmed around them, and to them this world would appear real. Now if this ability to create infinite simulations or infinite universes is achievable, then it would be logical to assume that simulated life would outnumber actual life tremendously. Since from one universe multiple universes could be created. So it is then most logical to assume that of you are self aware and alive then you are in a simulated universe. I would personally like to add that I do not believe I live in a simulated universe not because I don't believe it is possible but because I can't prove its correct and I can't prove that it's incorrect. Therefore it can't aid me in learning any new information or exploring the world I live in therefore it is useless to believe in it. Just like the idea of thinking God created everthing.

 

[The magical volleyball]

I post this because I want to show that the very belief that God has done, can do, or will do anything is a dangerous idea. When we attribute anything to God we are saying that I don't want to find a real answer to the problem before me. We are saying that what God is doing is magic and beyond my comprehension. If humans are to solve the many problems that we face through life and that our children will face then we have stop using magic as a explanation and start applying the scientific method.

 

[The magical volleyball]

Evolution is the logical culmination of millions of adaptations. We know evolution to be true by hypothesizing what adaptations occurred during the life of a species and imagining what species would have looked like what features they would've had through the course of history. Then going out and finding the fossils and evidence that supports those assumptions. I would even argue that god is a human adaptation to overcome fear and loneliness. I imagine if I was alive a few thousand years ago and I was alone in the wilderness or desert fighting off predators and defending myself against my enemies, then the idea of having someone there with me would be very comforting. Especially if it was someone who was all powerful and all knowing and who loved me. This person even offers a paradise to go to if you die and hell for those who do you wrong. This idea would be much more comforting and give me much more strength to face the day than the idea that I'm alone and if I die that's it. This is why over the course of human history we have created a thousand God's all as diverse as the people who worship them. But just because we are comforted by a lie doesn't make the lie true. There comes a point we have to let go of the lie so we can move onto the truth, because the truth while not always as glamorous can be just as beautiful. I use the example of Santa Claus, Santa Claus is taught to children by there parents to give the child's life some magic and a chance to believe in the unbelievable. And that child will treasure that experience but when the child grows up and learns the truth of how hard their parents worked to make sure their were presents under the tree or how they stayed up 4 hrs putting together a doll house just for them. They are able to appreciate and cherish those memories even more. If the child had never stopped believing in Santa how much worse off would they be for not knowing the truth. We all have to realize that while god was needed at one time we no longer need him to do the job that science does so well. Science does not diminish the awe and wonder of the world it enhances it. It gives a child the ability to look at a bright dot in the sky and imagine stars and planets being created and dying to create more. It gives a geologist the ability to look at a globe and imagine 4.5 billion years of change in mountains and seperation of the continent's. And a biologist the ability to imagine fish turning into birds or apes into humans. But what is most special about this form of imagination is that it's built on a foundation of hard work and accumulated knowledge and evidence.

 

[Deeje]

We know evolution to be true by hypothesizing what adaptations occurred during the life of a species and imagining what species would have looked like what features they would've had through the course of history.

I think this was all discussed several thousand posts ago.....you're just a bit late.

You are new here I see.....its a good idea to read some of the posts before you add a comment...especially one that has this many pages and replies. It will go without saying that the topic is well and truly covered....from every possible angle.

Welcome to RF BTW.

Then going out and finding the fossils and evidence that supports those assumptions.

That has also been 'discussed'

quite a bit. Its also been well established that the fossils do not speak for themselves but are given a voice by scientists...ever see a ventriloquist at work? The fossils speak only their language...how odd. The scientists interpret their evidence to support their assumptions.
The assumptions however, are not supported by any real evidence.

There comes a point we have to let go of the lie so we can move onto the truth, because the truth while not always as glamorous can be just as beautiful. I use the example of Santa Claus, Santa Claus is taught to children by there parents to give the child's life some magic and a chance to believe in the unbelievable. And that child will treasure that experience but when the child grows up and learns the truth of how hard their parents worked to make sure their were presents under the tree or how they stayed up 4 hrs putting together a doll house just for them. They are able to appreciate and cherish those memories even more. If the child had never stopped believing in Santa how much worse off would they be for not knowing the truth.

Santa Claus is a lie. No parent should lie to their children. Once they discover the lie, it sets them up to wonder if God is a lie too.....and just as easily dismissed. The thing is, Santa Claus does not hold the life and death of his believers in his hands. If you stop believing in Santa Claus, what happens? Nothing really, because there never was a jolly old man in a red suit flying all over the world to deliver his payload of goodies in one night. Despite that fact some kids are traumatized by the fact that they were lied to....devastated to learn that they might actually have to thank someone for their numerous gifts in future. Ever examined the "Christmas" story from the Bible? The whole thing is a lie....but that is for another thread.

We all have to realize that while god was needed at one time we no longer need him to do the job that science does so well.

Are we talking about real science here or just the theoretical kind?
Since the 'pot' considers himself a fluke of nature, there is no one to thank for his existence either......no 'potter' to account for the brilliant piece of design that he is, and the purpose he is supposed to serve. We have to just go on marveling about how brilliant all those 'accidental mutations' were in creating every lifeform that has ever existed on this planet.....no thanks to anyone but 'natural selection'.

Not acknowledging the potter of course, doesn't make him disappear. His creations remain to testify to his genius even though ignorant humans wish to discredit him.

Science does not diminish the awe and wonder of the world it enhances it. It gives a child the ability to look at a bright dot in the sky and imagine stars and planets being created and dying to create more.

Yes ....the entire universe is just one gigantic accident......life invented itself....it just happened one day for no apparent reason and nothing caused it. It just 'poofed' itself into existence and transformed amoebas into dinosaurs........and eventually into us.
You can believe that if you like.....I personally think its nonsense.

It gives a geologist the ability to look at a globe and imagine 4.5 billion years of change in mountains and seperation of the continent's. And a biologist the ability to imagine fish turning into birds or apes into humans. But what is most special about this form of imagination is that it's built on a foundation of hard work and accumulated knowledge and evidence.

Yes, the key word here is "imagine".....it has been well established throughout this thread that the theory of evolution is all based on "imagination"......but imagination is not fact and never will be, because it can never be proven......but you knew that surely....?

 

[Polymath257]

That is a rather large assumption when you think about it. How does any species survive without reproduction?

So you agree with the assumption?

Yes, we understand where that reasoning takes perfectly intelligent people.....we all evolved from that simple cell that accidently appeared out of nowhere and transformed itself into worms then into plants and bananas and then into us apparently.

Amoebas gradually evolving into dinosaurs is quite a stretch in anyone's language. It makes an Intelligent Creator look.......intelligent.

Your cartoon version isn't what is claimed. For example, amoeba's are NOT the common ancestors of plants and animals. They are a specialized single-celled organism. Much closer would be something like Volvox.

Furthermore, nothing is 'turning itself' into anything. The changes happen from mutation and selection. No intelligence required.

Belief in ID, to us means that God could also have used the same raw materials for all his creation. Just as a carpenter can construct many different things from one material and use the same basic structure for many different projects, so the building blocks of life can be used in a similar fashion. Why is that impossible?

It is certainly possible a deity exists and used mutation and natural selection to produce new organisms. it is even possible, though less liekly based on the evidence, that the evolution was directed.

You assume that branching happened.....we assume that a new species was created that may have superceded the last.

So, you require millions of special creations just after similar animals went extinct. This happened for many different species over millions of years in different locations. Often, when the old species went extinct, more than one new species was created to replace it.

Is that close to what you believe? Do you see why reasonable people think that is silly since we *know* that mutation and natural selection will produce the same types of effects using only properties we know happen in life?

The human race are creators too, just like their Maker.....we update and supercede the things we makes as well. Is the Creator not allowed to experiment?
You don't really know and neither do we....we can all assume but neither of us has any proof. You guys just pretend to and hope nobody notices.

Sure, but the pattern seen isn't one of new experiments with wildly different organisms, but with new organisms that are similar to the old ones that went extinct. Why do you assume it is NOT through simple reproduction?

Same material, similar structure, same designer who has decided to stay with a basic structure that works for many different models. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
A potter uses the same clay to make a wide variety of vessels......he has a signature design that identifies him as the artist. So does the Creator.

Not difficult to comprehend, just not what the evidence says. For example, if you look at the fossil record and determine the ways things 'look' to be descended (not all of which is similar) and then look at the genetics and see how the DNA is similar, and then look at protein structures and see how those are similar, you get the same *patterns* of relation.

So, for example, a tiger is rather different than a housecat. In terms of size, where it lives, etc, the two are rather different. But we can look at the structures and see that they are related. The same happens at the level of genes. Now, we can do th same with dogs, wolves, and other canines.

BUT, we can also see from both form and from genetics that these are all similar to, say, seals and that they are all very different than, say, primates.

So, in the 'experiments' you propose that God did, not only do the new species tend to be similar to the old ones, the pattern is such that the remaining species today have genetics that shows similarities that agree with the patterns in the fossil record.

Genetics aside....even the dental structure of many unrealted species is similar. It does not prove anything.
Similarity does not necessarily = relationship.

Are beavers and otters related? If you found just their skeletal remains, and were not aquainted with their anatomy, would you be able to tell the difference?

Yes, easily. Beavers are rodents and otters are carnivores. Their skeletons are quite different.

Otters:
http://imgarcade.com/otter-skeleton.html

Beavers:
http://galleryhip.com/beaver-skeleton.html

And I could say exactly the same about you. You have a belief system, just the same as I do. You have no more proof that your belief system is correct...anymore than I do. You just can't admit it. We marry our faith with the science.....you build your faith on it. One of us is going to be very disappointed one day.

It is not a question of faith. It is a question of not making unnecessary assumptions when looking at the evidence. The assumption of a deity being involved is not even close to being required to explain the evidence we have.

This is what you have been told....and don't look now, but humans have fiddled with history too....I assumed that you knew this?

All that "overwhelming evidence"....but when you really examine it without the rose colored glasses, you discover that there is no real evidence at all that does not rely on inference.....implication.....supposition and suggestion. Show us the evidence that does not rely on those things. I have not seen any to date.

No, when you look at the evidence without the rose colored glasses afforded by religious bias, you see that the evidence is overwhelming.[/QUOTE]

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am not aware that you have ever brought answers to me.

Of course you aren't. You just bat them away.

The "foundation" of evolution was Darwin's observation of the various species he saw on the Galapagos Islands.

Nope. There was much more.

What more? Darwin saw adaptation and started imagining.....science has carried on that imagining ever since...taking it to ridiculous lengths with no real evidence.

As I said, it is pointless to answer your questions. You have no interest in the answers you ask for. You simply call it all speculation. But because of the circumstances, I will provide an answer that I need only copy-and-paste just to see how you handle it. The following is from the notes I prepared for a talk I presented this past spring to our local Freethinkers group:

Types of evidence for evolution

We’ll begin with the kind of evidence available to Darwin

[1] Fossil evidence - Darwin had seen extinct transitional forms document change in traits through time. For example, Darwin found the larger fossils of extinct sloths in the same region as present-day smaller sloths.

Since Darwin’s time, many more transitional forms have been uncovered such as Tiktaalic, an extinct fish-amphibian intermediate, Archeopteryx, an extinct dinosaur-bird intermediate, Proconsul, and extinct monkey-ape intermediate, and multiple hominan fossils of extinct forms leading to man.

We have also examined much of the geologic column, and find the fossils stratified, that is, older ones are deeper and the more recent forms are above them, including more complex forms not found in deeper strata.

[2] Vestigial features in animals - These include tiny, useless leg bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes, and unused eyes in blind cave fish. Darwin was the first to describe and interpret these traits. They’re evolving away.

[3] Biogeographical data. Darwin observed the variation in the Galapagos finches, especially their beaks, that varied according to island and food source. Darwin reasoned that they shared a common ancestor, and had transformed over time to optimally exploit their local food sources.

He was also aware of how the marsupials of Australia seemed to have the forms and behaviors of the placental mammals on other continents, and surmised that these two groups of animals evolved to fill corresponding niches.

Today, we can add ring species, such as the salamanders of California’s central San Joaquin valley that gradually transform as they migrate around some natural barrier. Neighboring variants are still able to mate, but eventually, as the ring closes, the variants on the two ends cannot reproduce and are therefore considered separate species.

Likewise with the Larus gulls of the arctic, who don’t get further north than a certain latitude, and created a similar pattern around the northernmost circle available to them – neighbors are variants that can breed, but by the time the ring was closed, it was now two different species of gulls meeting.

[4] Structural homologies - Darwin pointed out that if all mammals descended from a common ancestor, and if that ancestor had a limb with the same basic arrangement, then it would be logical to observe that its descendants had a modified form of the same arrangement. Darwin was aware that the same bones in the same relative positions occur in primate hands, bat wings, and bird wings, which suggested common descent.

[5] Comparative embryology - Darwin was not only aware of the vestigial bones in some adult forms, but their more pronounced appearance in their embryos such as legs on dolphin and snake embryos, and tails and gill folds on human embryos. Today, man has a vestigial tailbone, the coccyx, but as an embryo, he has a full tail.

Based on all of those observations, Darwin suggested that all life descended from a common ancestor in the manner described in the definition of evolution above.
​

Batter up!