question for those who reject biological evolution

[Pogo]

My mistake I forgot that you don't accept the testimony of scientists in peer reviewed papers as evidence.... So no I don't have evidence

So you can't understand the papers you claim support you that in fact do not.
Surprise Surprise your testimony is worthless.

Yes same mutations, that is what the article says/implies ...

No that is what you think it says in your ignorance, but they have constructed genetic trees using the Prestin protein amongst the microbats that echolocate. they also constructed trees using the various cetaceans. However here is your problem, they have trees not sticks and if they had the same mutations they wouldn't be trees.
BTW, to find this info, you need to use that number link at the end of the Wikipedia proof text you copied which will take you to the actual paper where they have pictures of the trees with colors and comments to explain why they change when you add different cetacean Prestin protein molecules into the analysis.

Thus ends today's lesson.

 

[leroy]

So you can't understand the papers you claim support you that in fact do not.
Surprise Surprise your testimony is worthless.

No that is what you think it says in your ignorance, but they have constructed genetic trees using the Prestin protein amongst the microbats that echolocate. they also constructed trees using the various cetaceans. However here is your problem, they have trees not sticks and if they had the same mutations they wouldn't be trees.
BTW, to find this info, you need to use that number link at the end of the Wikipedia proof text you copied which will take you to the actual paper where they have pictures of the trees with colors and comments to explain why they change when you add different cetacean Prestin protein molecules into the analysis.

Thus ends today's lesson.

they have trees not sticks and if they had the same mutations they wouldn't be trees.

And are you going to support your claim (in red) ? or should I accept your testimony and just your testimony, as evidence?

 

[Pogo]

And are you going to support your claim (in red) ? or should I accept your testimony and just your testimony, as evidence?

No I am not going to explain to you what genetic trees are, there is a basic level of understanding necessary to hold an intelligent conversation and you don't have it as evidenced by this question.

 

[leroy]

No I am not going to explain to you what genetic trees are, there is a basic level of understanding necessary to hold an intelligent conversation and you don't have it as evidenced by this question.

You were not asked to explain trees, you were asked to support your assertion

 

[Pogo]

You were not asked to explain trees, you were asked to support your assertion

@leroy, it is not an assertion, it is a fundamental fact about trees that you don't know. LOL

 

[leroy]

@leroy, it is not an assertion, it is a fundamental fact about trees that you don't know. LOL

Ok added to the large list of unsupported claims made by you

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nothing, absolutely nothing proves the theory of evolution as touted by Darwinists.

Which "darwinists" are claiming that a scientific theory has been proven?

Bats are still bats, gorillas after all these years are still gorillas

Funny. I just wrote you a post in another thread where I pointed out to you how you keep repeating this nonsense eventhough it has been explained to you countless times how it is in error.

Why do you insist on being wrong?

Nothing proves, shows, or demonstrates the process of evolution as touted by those who believe in it as actual occurrence, evolutionists' theories aside.

Scientific theories are never proven. Only supported.
And in science, evolution is among the best supported, if not THE best supported, theory accross all fields of science.

We know more about evolution then we know about atoms, germs causing desease, gravity, plate tectonics, relativity,,...

So if you are going to argue that the support for evolution is "insufficient" to accept it, then to be consistent you are going to have to reject ALL scientific theories, because none of them is better supported then evolution is.

DNA/RNA, life forms looking similar -- bonobos and chimpanzees swinging from limb to limb do not relate to what is considered by some as the actuality of evolution.

If you think that "bonobos and chimps both swinging from limb to limb" is the extent of the evidence for the theory, or a representative example of the quality of the evidence, then it is no wonder you remain in this state of perpetual ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes? and why don't you believe in God when so many of your friends here who believe in the process of evolution claim to believe in God?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say his disbelief in gods is not related to his acceptance of evolution theory....

 

[Valjean]

My age aside, when I think about what's packed in a cell in the womb, I wonder if you can explain how it happened. Biologically speaking, of course. Which is certainly related to evolution. the theory of.

Yes! That's what science does, it explains each step of a process, it outlines the chain of chemical and physical reactions that led to specific forms and functions.. It arrives at all this by observation and testing, not by faith in mythology.

Science's job is to explain how, not who. Yes, biochemistry is complicated, but there are explanations of the steps to intricacy. Ignorance of these is not evidence of God or intentional design. It's evidence of poor basic education.
You express incredulity at the complexity of biology and of nature. "Goddidit" does not address this complexity. Unlike science it explains nothing.
So why are theists satisfied with it? Why is their incredulity not focused on the supposèd divine "mechanism?"

Judging by the arguments from ignorance I see expressed so often, plus the ignorance of basic chemistry and biology I see constantly expressed, chemistry and biology are no longer taught in high school.

 

[Pogo]

Yes! That's what science does, it explains each step of a process, it outlines the chain of chemical and physical reactions that led to specific forms and functions.. It arrives at all this by observation and testing, not by faith in mythology.

Science's job is to explain how, not who. Yes, biochemistry is complicated, but there are explanations of the steps to intricacy. Ignorance of these is not evidence of God or intentional design. It's evidence of poor basic education.
You express incredulity at the complexity of biology and of nature. "Goddidit" does not address this complexity. Unlike science it explains nothing.
So why are theists satisfied with it? Why is their incredulity not focused on the supposèd divine "mechanism?"

Judging by the arguments from ignorance I see expressed so often, plus the ignorance of basic chemistry and biology I see constantly expressed, chemistry and biology are no longer taught in high school.

I think it is more fear of their "world view" and authority structure being challenged.
The silly part is that they complain when society leaves them behind.

 

[anotherneil]

Why should anyone turn down such treatment.

Not useful; you're essentially just responding to my question with my own question.

All that knowledge is from God not evolution.

It is a contradiction to say that knowledge from evolution is not from evolution.

 

[marriedmanoffaith]

In answer to this question, i pose one for you to consider...

given that a great deal of mankinds technology comes from war and mans inhumanity to man, do you suppose that we shouldnt use it? Albert Einstein was a pacifist and yet he pushed the United States to develop nuclear weapons because of a fear that Germany might suceed in their endeavour!

You question above has nothing to do with origins really. Creationists all believe that God created man with intelligence, the difference being, we are supposed to use our minds for the worship of our creator and for helping others...not for the purpose of denying God and others!

The apostle Peter made a very significant statement regarding the literal reading of the books of Moses;

1. Peter states that his personal revelation came directly from the witness of Christs ministry, God in heaven, and the prophets

16For we did not follow cleverly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to Him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”c 18And we ourselves heard this voice from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.​

​

19We also have the word of the prophets as confirmed beyond doubt. And you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation.​

2. Peter states in 2 Peter Ch 2

4For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them deep into hell,a placing them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, among the eight; 6if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction,b reducing them to ashes as an example of what is coming on the ungodly;c 7and if He rescued Lot, a righteous man distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9if all this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.​

​

Theistic evolutionists attempt to claim that we cannot understand Old Testament writings and that Moses writings in Genesis are not to be read literally. However, clearly the apostle Peter dissagrees with such a notion as Peter quite obviously describes the events Moses wrote about, whilst also telling us that the information he is quoting from Moses writings were revealed to Him by not only the writings, but by the Messiah who lived among them and died on the cross!

TEism as a religion doesnt have a leg to stand on. Peter condems those who attempt to claim that the bible does not reveal itself to us and given Peter makes it very plain that Lucifers fall from heaven before creation of this world, the flood, and desctruction of sodom and gomorah are literal. TEism followers are denying Peters writings and therefore denying the revelation of God concerning these things. That is a very damning position for one to find oneself in.

The concept of Theistic Evolution has been accepted by most major Church institutions since at least the 1960s, except for a small group of very loud and aggressively stupid christians in the US. Everyone else agrees that you can't read the bible like you'd read a scientific text because the scientific method didn't exist back then. I don't even understand how this is still a debate -- we have much bigger and more pressing issues to worry about.

 

[Audie]

$The concept of Theistic Evolution has been accepted by most major Church institutions since at least the 1960s, except for a small group of very loud and aggressively stupid christians in the US. Everyone else agrees that you can't read the bible like you'd read a scientific text because the scientific method didn't exist back then. I don't even understand how this is still a debate -- we have much bigger and more pressing issues to worry about.

Peter's writings are second hand "eyewitness".

"Joe there told me he seen a chupacabra."

Proof enough that all tham big academics is wrong.

 

[GardenLady]

You express incredulity at the complexity of biology and of nature. "Goddidit" does not address this complexity. Unlike science it explains nothing.
So why are theists satisfied with it? Why is their incredulity not focused on the supposèd divine "mechanism?"

Can we substitute "creationist" or "YEC" for "theist" here? The belief that God was and is a creative force in the universe does not have to deny all the science supporting the Big Bang, the age of the universe, abiogenesis, or evolution. Many theists accept all this science. It is a relatively small (though highly vocal) group, mostly American evangelicals or fundamentalists, who take the view you describe. Let's not throw all theists into that bucket.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can we substitute "creationist" or "YEC" for "theist" here? The belief that God was and is a creative force in the universe does not have to deny all the science supporting the Big Bang, the age of the universe, abiogenesis, or evolution. Many theists accept all this science. It is a relatively small (though highly vocal) group, mostly American evangelicals or fundamentalists, who take the view you describe. Let's not throw all theists into that bucket.

True.

Although then one can certainly ask, if that is the view one takes, then what is actually meant by saying that "god is a creative force in the universe" when there is no such factor in any of the scientific explanations for anything.

It's like saying my cat was the creative force behind Jimi Hendrix's music, eventhough he wrote it, his technicians recorded it, he and his band played it, his label produced it, .... So what did my cat really do?

 

[GardenLady]

what is actually meant by saying that "god is a creative force in the universe" when there is no such factor in any of the scientific explanations for anything.

Why would anyone expect a god factor in scientific explanations? The role of science is to examine the physical universe. It cannot account for anything outside that. That's not a criticism of science, just a recognition of what it is and is not. I know this invites the "God of the gaps" claim, but that's not what I mean. Many us recognize that science tell us what and how (including the gaps not yet closed, such as abiogenesis) and faith tell us God is who. Science cannot address the later.

 

[Pogo]

Why would anyone expect a god factor in scientific explanations? The role of science is to examine the physical universe. It cannot account for anything outside that. That's not a criticism of science, just a recognition of what it is and is not. I know this invites the "God of the gaps" claim, but that's not what I mean. Many us recognize that science tell us what and how (including the gaps not yet closed, such as abiogenesis) and faith tell us God is who. Science cannot address the later.

I think part of the difference is the strength of faith as opposed to the desire to have a champion. Many have turned faith into a cartoon battle between an all powerful who is supposed to be on their side because they believe and the "others"
If you take this attitude, you look for "evidence" in "earthly" things while missing the grandeur of the entirety.
That is my take as an agnostic atheist looking at my garden such as the weeds have left me.

 

[ppp]

Why would anyone expect a god factor in scientific explanations? The role of science is to examine the physical universe. It cannot account for anything outside that. That's not a criticism of science, just a recognition of what it is and is not. I know this invites the "God of the gaps" claim, but that's not what I mean. Many us recognize that science tell us what and how (including the gaps not yet closed, such as abiogenesis) and faith tell us God is who. Science cannot address the later.

Is there some method to reliably account for some thing outside the bounds of the material universe? It's all well and good to acknowledge that science is a methodology for examination of the physical world. But that acknowledgement does not change the fact that there is no demonstrably reliable methodology for any thing else.

 

[Pogo]

Is there some method to reliably account for some thing outside the bounds of the material universe? It's all well and good to acknowledge that science is a methodology for examination of the physical world. But that acknowledgement does not change the fact that there is no demonstrably reliable methodology for any thing else.

No, and that is why science leaves it as we don't know which you are welcome to fill with faith, but do not confuse the two. The confusion is both bad theology and bad science.
Addendum, science does not claim to know everything in the universe, but it does not posit supernaturality, only we don't know for unknowns.

 

[Wes Bailey]

One of the purposes of science is to provide the steppingstones for finding solutions to problems, such as treatments for illnesses.

Scientific knowledge derived from the observations and discoveries pertaining to evolution has actually served practical and beneficial purposes, such as genomic medicine, dealing with resistance to antibiotics, development of vaccines, discovery of drugs and treatments for cancer, infectious diseases, etc. It has even been useful in agriculture for dealing with resistance to insecticides and herbicides.

What I would like to know, from those who reject biological evolution, is this: would you turn down a treatment for an illness that was only possible to develop using scientific knowledge from biological evolution? Why or why not?

please just watch the videos on https://www.reddit.com/r/dragoNgiants/top/?t=all it will show you if you choose to keep your eyes open while watching that evolution isn't a real thing... the amount of time it would take me to find everything you said as evolution and show you its already been debunked would take well weeks maybe... possibly more the internet likes to drowned facts in all the make believe.. It is a Fact oxygen and pressure change things in size and we can observe and reproduce this in lab conditions. evolution simply cannot


Edit: long story short i don't make believe evolution because i have actual facts showing other wise