Substitution

[Deeje]

Citation needed.

Citation needed? You mean those vertical lines at the bottom of every graph depicting the branches on the evolutionary tree, that lead nowhere? Where do you think they lead? Where is LUCA? He is always missing, yet the tree cannot exist without him.

Evolution has no accidents.

Genetics experience 'accidents' all the time.....they are called "mutations"....and the vast majority of them are detrimental to the organism and hopefully will not breed their mutation into the next generation. Detrimental mutations almost always cause the line to die out.

Beneficial mutations are supposedly an important part of evolution, but if you Google "beneficial mutations" in humans, see how many they can actually come up with....

Trial and error is probably closer. But not quite there yet.

Trial and error is not really what we see though, is it?......adaptive changes are quite ingenuous actually because they cause the creature, over generations to adapt to new food sources or changes in their environment. This ensures survival of the creatures without outside intervention....a planned, programmed response to external changes.

Isn't this what got Darwin thinking about what he saw on the Galapagos Islands? He saw finches that had beaks that were adapted to their local foods....and iguanas that were adapted for a marine environment and tortoises that were different to their mainland cousins....but in every case, not one of them was becoming anything other than a new species of their own "family"....all clearly recognizable. This is not the kind of "evolution" suggested at the "macro-level" because it never results in a new "kind" or family of organisms.....that is assumed.

In a lab they considered hawthorn flies and stickleback fish and various forms of bacteria, which they saw create new species over generations, but these were only new varieties within their kinds. Even if the various species could not interbreed, they remained part of the same "family".

How do you know that God didn’t set off the domino effect and allowed his creation to unfold?
Did you ask him personally?

Yes, I consulted his instruction manual....every good manufacturer supplies one.

But let me just say.....I don't "know" anything.....this is what this thread is about...."belief".....we all "believe" in something......we all put our "faith" in something, or someone. Most people who are are not spiritually minded, absolutely balk at the notion that they "believe" in anything that they can't see, or can't be provided evidence to confirm......well, that can't be true because we see that what they believe in (evolution) cannot ever be demonstrated on the level that they suggest. It is accepted on "faith"....they "believe" what they have been told.

Calling "adaptation" "evolution" creates a blurring of the line between "micro" and "macro" evolution by suggesting that one proves the other....but that is simply not true in reality, because they can't prove that it ever happened on a "macro" level, they can only suggest that it did......that microscopic amoebas could transform over millions of years to become dinosaurs and everything else that is "alive" on planet Earth....if everything always stays within its own taxonomy, then we are all technically still amoebas...aren't we?

 

[Deeje]

I'm familiar enough with the bible to recognize such terms as "make your mind over" to refer to building a new way of thinking and evolving from the old way of thinking. What could possibly be more spiritual than this self-transformation, except perhaps this individual transformation occurring on a species-wide level. Isn't this the goal of JWs--to have this transformation of the mind occur on a species-wide basis with the "destruction (extinction) of the wicked" and the "good living on forever?"

I'm afraid you have wandered completely away from the topic, crossfire. What you are referring to is character building, not 'evolution' in the sense that is under discussion here. We all have the means to change our minds about a lot of things, given the right circumstances.....the ranks of my brotherhood are filled with such people because they had the ability and the humility to become the kind of person God wanted them to be, rather than hanging on to an old personality that made them angry and miserable.

Here you are considering evolution on a material level rather than a spiritual level. Take a moment to think how an individual would experience such a transformation.

Again "adaptation" is at work here....not "evolution". Inner changes are made because external forces lead a person in a new direction. We all have choices.....and free will.

So god is leaving out the most spiritual part of the living experience--that of transformation and evolving into something more suited to the creatures at hand?
Why?

Who is suggesting this? Only you.....God has been observing human behavior from the beginning.....its what he will base his final evaluation upon....."doing the will of the Father". (Matthew 7:21-23) He knows who is and who isn't.

IMO, the question remains: who made whom?

Since this is a matter for each of us to decide......you can make up your own mind on that one....I know where I stand on that question. What about you?

 

[Deeje]

Thank goodness you have told us this. I feel so relieved now or I would if you can how do you know this outside of a book. No scripture written by us flawed humans thus scripture cannot be trusted but your real source of your knowledge.

You crack me up foxy.....where does your knowledge come from? Surely not books....written by scientists!?

My book...which is the instruction manual that I have used throughout my life, has never once guided me to a wrong decision.....I have never regretted taking notice of its counsel and following through on its recommendations.....I can't say that about any book written or inspired by flawed humans....can you?

 

[Deeje]

Discount my opinions because I am not civil if you will. It will not change them - and from the consistent content of your posts I think that you are so very wrong in your assessments, and on top of that myopic and not very good at all at self-reflection and self-understanding. You can call me "snotty" all you like. You think I don't know that I am? Hahaha... please. Oh boy... how amusing. Call me something I am not (like a "worshipper of atheist gods"), and then you'll raise my hackles. Call me "snotty" and I will ask you to tell me something I don't know.

That was very useful...thank you.....

 

[SomeRandom]

Citation needed? You mean those vertical lines at the bottom of every graph depicting the branches on the evolutionary tree, that lead nowhere? Where do you think they lead? Where is LUCA? He is always missing, yet the tree cannot exist without him.



Genetics experience 'accidents' all the time.....they are called "mutations"....and the vast majority of them are detrimental to the organism and hopefully will not breed their mutation into the next generation. Detrimental mutations almost always cause the line to die out.

Beneficial mutations are supposedly an important part of evolution, but if you Google "beneficial mutations" in humans, see how many they can actually come up with....



Trial and error is not really what we see though, is it?......adaptive changes are quite ingenuous actually because they cause the creature, over generations to adapt to new food sources or changes in their environment. This ensures survival of the creatures without outside intervention....a planned, programmed response to external changes.

Isn't this what got Darwin thinking about what he saw on the Galapagos Islands? He saw finches that had beaks that were adapted to their local foods....and iguanas that were adapted for a marine environment and tortoises that were different to their mainland cousins....but in every case, not one of them was becoming anything other than a new species of their own "family"....all clearly recognizable. This is not the kind of "evolution" suggested at the "macro-level" because it never results in a new "kind" or family of organisms.....that is assumed.

In a lab they considered hawthorn flies and stickleback fish and various forms of bacteria, which they saw create new species over generations, but these were only new varieties within their kinds. Even if the various species could not interbreed, they remained part of the same "family".


Yes, I consulted his instruction manual....every good manufacturer supplies one.

But let me just say.....I don't "know" anything.....this is what this thread is about...."belief".....we all "believe" in something......we all put our "faith" in something, or someone. Most people who are are not spiritually minded, absolutely balk at the notion that they "believe" in anything that they can't see, or can't be provided evidence to confirm......well, that can't be true because we see that what they believe in (evolution) cannot ever be demonstrated on the level that they suggest. It is accepted on "faith"....they "believe" what they have been told.

Calling "adaptation" "evolution" creates a blurring of the line between "micro" and "macro" evolution by suggesting that one proves the other....but that is simply not true in reality, because they can't prove that it ever happened on a "macro" level, they can only suggest that it did......that microscopic amoebas could transform over millions of years to become dinosaurs and everything else that is "alive" on planet Earth....if everything always stays within its own taxonomy, then we are all technically still amoebas...aren't we?

You sound like you have no idea what evolution even is. I mean granted a lot of it flies over my head. I’m more of a literature geek than science based.
Like you are aware that “detrimental” adaptions might actually be beneficial in other ways, right?(Sickle cell anaemia for example.)
You are aware that evolution is gradual af, right? And that it merely means that an adaptation that suits the environment the best is more likely to be successfully bred into the next generation.
You talk about it like it’s supposed to function like a computer program and seem miffed that it doesn’t??
I’m at work so I’ll let others more knowledgeable in the field address this post better.
Hopefully your Saturday is going better than mine lol

 

[Bear Wild]

You crack me up foxy.....where does your knowledge come from? Surely not books....written by scientists!?

My book...which is the instruction manual that I have used throughout my life, has never once guided me to a wrong decision.....I have never regretted taking notice of its counsel and following through on its recommendations.....I can't say that about any book written or inspired by flawed humans....can you?

Now how did you know my knowledge did not come from books. I am impressed. Isn't amazing how scientist are learning to understand it. Slowly yes but we are making progress. I know you appreciate the natural world and the life on our planet which gives me hope that soon you will see the wisdom of evolution. No need to give up your religion, just open up to what we are learning and enjoy the theory of evolution with the rest of us.

 

[Deeje]

You sound like you have no idea what evolution even is. I mean granted a lot of it flies over my head. I’m more of a literature geek than science based.
Like you are aware that “detrimental” adaptions might actually be beneficial in other ways, right?(Sickle cell anaemia for example.)

When we speak of beneficial mutations, they are so rare as to not really be in the conversation. Sickle cell anaemia may help prevent malaria, but is a serious condition all by itself. What about the people who don't live where malaria is a problem?

I have a very good idea about what evolution is supposed to be, and I am also aware that facts are pretty thin on the ground when it comes to supporting their first premise.....that life began microscopically, but they have no idea how, or even when such life "appeared" in the primordial soup...the recipe for which they have tried to copy with no success in reproducing life as we know it. I also know that evolution is quick to divorce itself from abiogenesis, as I guess its a bit embarrassing. Yet how life began is the more important question...isn't it?

You are aware that evolution is gradual af, right? And that it merely means that an adaptation that suits the environment the best is more likely to be successfully bred into the next generation.

Yep, got that......adaptation can take many generations to secure the right 'equipment' in order to get a decent feed and reproduce their species. I do not have a problem with adaptation. What I have a problem with is the assertions and assumptions made without any real concrete evidence that their first premise, upon which their entire edifice is built, is even possible let alone probable. There is no evidence for any of it that is not prefaced with "might have" or "could have". Do you see that "might have" or "could have" does not mean "must have"?

Fossils can't talk....they can only convey the words that 'ventriloquists' put in their bony mouths. Science has a pet theory and nothing will stand in the way of them promoting it.....they need science to be right and God to disappear at all costs.

You talk about it like it’s supposed to function like a computer program and seem miffed that it doesn’t??

All I know is what I see with my own eyes....the universe is not an accident....nature is not an accident.....life is not an accident...all are designed with laws governing everything about them. What laws exist that did not have a lawmaker? For a law to exist it has to have purpose and purpose requires an intelligent mind. This is not rocket science surely? How many flukes does it take to work a million miracles?

I’m at work so I’ll let others more knowledgeable in the field address this post better.

They have tried, believe me....but they cannot furnish any real evidence for their first premise. I am not interested in talking about adaptation since I know how that works......there is a huge gap between that and what they want everyone to swallow going backwards to the primordial soup. Its all hogwash IMO.

Hopefully your Saturday is going better than mine lol

It was overcast and drizzly this morning, but fined up around lunch time....wish I had done my washing.

 

[Deeje]

Now how did you know my knowledge did not come from books. I am impressed. Isn't amazing how scientist are learning to understand it. Slowly yes but we are making progress. I know you appreciate the natural world and the life on our planet which gives me hope that soon you will see the wisdom of evolution. No need to give up your religion, just open up to what we are learning and enjoy the theory of evolution with the rest of us.

Please don't hold your breath...I have no oxygen for you.

Evolution on the macro-scale is more of a fairy story than most atheists think the Bible is. In fact IMO it takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe in an intelligent Creator. Are you afraid of him? I cannot account for the somewhat religious zeal of some atheists in making sure God never becomes part of a scientific conversation....but since God created all that science studies, its a bit insulting to leave him out of consideration, don't you think?

Come up with a solid foundation for your beliefs going back to the soup, and you might have something. But my Creator is not a figment of my imagination.....he is a very solid and important part of my life. I'm sorry you never got to know him..... I do not need to fuse creation with evolution because I have no pressing need to. I see the hand of God in all that he has made. Science offers me nothing that satisfies my soul.....I can't live with that hopeless emptiness....sorry.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I can't say that about any book written or inspired by flawed humans....can you?

George Carlin was a great influence amd role model for me.
Einstein has also offered insights and wisdom that I have taken strongly to (especially when it comes to religion stuff).

 

[Deeje]

George Carlin was a great influence amd role model for me.
Einstein has also offered insights and wisdom that I have taken strongly to (especially when it comes to religion stuff).

I am sure that human wisdom has been imparted by many humans in one way or another...but the Bible imparts wisdom to me in every way. There is not a single problem that I could encounter that the Bible does not address, either directly or in principle.

When you have advice that never fails, to ignore it is not demonstrating wisdom...is it?

 

[PearlSeeker]

The RCC changed his nature from the monotheistic God of Israel, into the three headed god of Catholicism. There is no trinity in Judaism, so where did the idea for this three headed god come from? Paganism.....

False. Analogy is not homology. You have to prove the (unlikely) connection.

More likely is the connection with hellenistic Judaism and visions of resurrected Christ ... Divinity of Jesus (christology) was believed by Christians very shortly after Jesus' death (and resurrection). Or to quote Martin Hengel: “there was more development in christology during the period from the crucifixion of Jesus to the writing of St Paul’s letter to the Philippians, than in the following seven centuries of the development of patristic dogma”.

BTW: to me the christology/Trinity doctrine is questionable but for other reasons...

The veneration of Mary is not scriptural, but the veneration of mother goddesses was common in paganism...

See first answer.

Idolatry was forbidden as one of the Ten Commandments. They were not to "make" images of anyone or anything, and yet we see them in every Catholic building. (

See first answer and what John of Damascus wrote about icons. This is not identical to idolatry (although I admit sometimes there is a thin line).

There is no "heaven or hell" as opposite destinations in the Bible.
The only options before mankind were "life or death". (Deuteronomy 30:19)
The only spirits who inhabit the spirit realm are angels or demons....not the spirits of the dead.

We already had this discussion...

Do you think this points to the body having a spirit that goes beyond death?

... but all of the above is irrelevant here.

RCC believes in God/Creator and also acknowledges scientific facts. There is no contradiction.

 

[crossfire]

I'm afraid you have wandered completely away from the topic, crossfire. What you are referring to is character building, not 'evolution' in the sense that is under discussion here. We all have the means to change our minds about a lot of things, given the right circumstances.....the ranks of my brotherhood are filled with such people because they had the ability and the humility to become the kind of person God wanted them to be, rather than hanging on to an old personality that made them angry and miserable.

So my presentation of a real-life example of a person's beliefs (mine) refuting your "belief substitution" hypothesis in a debate thread and your claim that belief in evolution is "non-spiritual" is "wandering away from the topic?" Unbelieveable.
Is Samkhaya, where Puruṣa interacts with Prakṛti and Prakṛti evolves as a result non-spiritual? (I don't necessarily subscribe to Samkhaya, but that is another example which refutes your hypothesis.)

 

[Deeje]

You have to prove the (unlikely) connection.

The connection is obvious since there was no trinity in Judaism and Jesus was Jewish. He never once claimed equality with his Father and there is not one statement from either Jehovah or Christ that Jesus was anything other than the son of God.

More likely is the connection with hellenistic Judaism and visions of resurrected Christ ... Divinity of Jesus (christology) was believed by Christians very shortly after Jesus' death (and resurrection).

Divinity: "of or like God or a god."
Jesus was "from God" and he was "like God"...but he was NOT Almighty God.

BTW: to me the christology/Trinity doctrine is questionable but for other reasons...

That's good to know....

See first answer.

Why? Adoration of Mary is exclusively Catholic.....it is not Christian, and finds no support in the Bible at all.
All the titles given to Mary were titles already used for other mother goddesses.

See first answer and what John of Damascus wrote about icons. This is not identical to idolatry (although I admit sometimes there is a thin line).

Since the command from God was not the even "Make" images to be used in worship, I would beg to differ.
Don't make them, and don't bow down to them....its wasn't a difficult command to understand surely?

RCC believes in God/Creator and also acknowledges scientific facts. There is no contradiction.

Except that there are no scientific facts in macro-evolution. All their facts pertain to adaptation....adaptation does not prove macro-evolution at all. There is a line between the two that does not allow adaptation to go further than providing a new variety within a specific family of creatures. True science is backed up by experimentation and observation, neither of which can apply to things that occurred before recorded history. Anything that happened prehistorically, can be assumed but not proven. An assumption is not a fact.

If the Catholic church wants to sell out to science, then they can join a bunch of other "believers" whose faith is as weak as dishwater. If you have to ditch God or lessen his role in his own creation, to prop up a man made theory, then that is up to them. God might not be so keen on that idea.

 

[Deeje]

So my presentation of a real-life example of a person's beliefs (mine) refuting your "belief substitution" hypothesis in a debate thread and your claim that belief in evolution is "non-spiritual" is "wandering away from the topic?" Unbelieveable.
Is Samkhaya, where Puruṣa interacts with Prakṛti and Prakṛti evolves as a result non-spiritual? (I don't necessarily subscribe to Samkhaya, but that is another example which refutes your hypothesis.)

What????

 

[SomeRandom]

When we speak of beneficial mutations, they are so rare as to not really be in the conversation. Sickle cell anaemia may help prevent malaria, but is a serious condition all by itself. What about the people who don't live where malaria is a problem?

Well they don’t often die to my knowledge. So that’s a definite plus. Just saying

I have a very good idea about what evolution is supposed to be, and I am also aware that facts are pretty thin on the ground when it comes to supporting their first premise.....that life began microscopically, but they have no idea how, or even when such life "appeared" in the primordial soup...the recipe for which they have tried to copy with no success in reproducing life as we know it. I also know that evolution is quick to divorce itself from abiogenesis, as I guess its a bit embarrassing. Yet how life began is the more important question...isn't it?

Evolution says nothing about origin of life. That’s why its seperate to abiogenesis as it’s another subject in science. This is grade 8 level stuff. So, please forgive me but no you sound uneducated. And I freely admit to being an idiot on the matter.

Yep, got that......adaptation can take many generations to secure the right 'equipment' in order to get a decent feed and reproduce their species. I do not have a problem with adaptation. What I have a problem with is the assertions and assumptions made without any real concrete evidence that their first premise, upon which their entire edifice is built, is even possible let alone probable. There is no evidence for any of it that is not prefaced with "might have" or "could have". Do you see that "might have" or "could have" does not mean "must have"?

Generations encounter differing pressures. Due to changing environments. Evolution is acting exactly as predicted.

Fossils can't talk....they can only convey the words that 'ventriloquists' put in their bony mouths. Science has a pet theory and nothing will stand in the way of them promoting it.....they need science to be right and God to disappear at all costs.

I know this is anecdotal, but one of my friend’s anthropology professors once professed that the fossil record seemed God ordained. As it’s so complete, despite the horrifically unfair conditions in which fossilisation occurs, that it must be God showing us a sign. Interesting fellow.

All I know is what I see with my own eyes....the universe is not an accident....nature is not an accident.....life is not an accident...all are designed with laws governing everything about them. What laws exist that did not have a lawmaker? For a law to exist it has to have purpose and purpose requires an intelligent mind. This is not rocket science surely? How many flukes does it take to work a million miracles?

Laws that specifically exclude evolution?
I’m still failing to see the mutual exclusion.

They have tried, believe me....but they cannot furnish any real evidence for their first premise. I am not interested in talking about adaptation since I know how that works......there is a huge gap between that and what they want everyone to swallow going backwards to the primordial soup. Its all hogwash IMO.

So.......what qualifications do you have in biology, specifically?

It was overcast and drizzly this morning, but fined up around lunch time....wish I had done my washing.

Lol I did my washing before work. Got home only for it to pour down buckets as I’m driving in.
Oh well, at least there’ll be no liquid on my clothes now lol!!

 

[Martin]

This thread is about substituting one belief system for another.....whether that pertains to religion, politics or any other choice between things that pertain to 'natural' human behavior. Picking a 'side' seems to be what we naturally do....but 'why' is interesting to me.

Certain things are ingrained in the human psyche and whether we understand that or not, there are certain things that we expect in life and these expectations influence our choices. I see it as a kind of psychological 'programming' that determines what we individually seek in life......basically the same things, but in different settings, with different expressions.

One very clear substitution, I believe, is seen in the atheist verses religion debate. Evolution seems to be the main divider to determine where a person's beliefs will land them....and which 'side' they will take.
I think that there are certain 'natural' inclinations that will determine the choice. Some people are naturally spiritual and others are not....no one seems to know why.

Now in this subject, there has to be a "belief" to start with....either there is a God who created all things, or there isn't. Neither can be proven, so each in itself is a 'belief'. Then that belief follows a natural pattern.....it requires input from a trusted source.....the Bible for a believer, and 'scientific' studies for the atheist. So each has their "scripture" or writings that are accepted as absolute truth. Upset is caused if you reject either one and the reasons are hotly debated.

They have their 'gods' who inspire these writings and believe in them as much as the religious do in their Creator.

Secondly they have to have places of 'worship', where they learn more about their 'scriptures' and the 'gods' that have produced them, thereby reinforcing and strengthening their beliefs. These would be their figurative "temples"........but if you put it like that, they would scoff at you.

They must preach their message as fervently as the religious do....sometimes with great intensity and zeal.

We see this behavior even in sport as a substitute for religion. They have their idols and their 'temples' where they come to worship them, usually running round on some grass with a ball of various shapes and sizes. Their clashes as important as any contest in life.

They have images of their idols hanging on their walls and they often wear certain colors to identify which 'side' they are supporting when competition is fierce. Fights can even break out over which team is the best.
Others try to emulate the way they speak or dress and to copy their behaviors and lifestyles.

Idols are also seen in other parts of the entertainment industry...rock stars and film icons also have their temples where gatherings take place for 'worship'.

Political 'sides' also tell us about people, by who they support and who they idolize and why......who they accept as telling the truth.....and who is lying to the masses in their 'preaching tours'. They too come together to rally support for their beliefs....colors often depicting whose side is supported here too.

So the common denominators appear to be....'beliefs', 'gods', 'scripture' temples' and 'preaching'.
Figuratively speaking, we all fit the profile in some manner, shape or form.....even when we take religion out of the equation....the behaviors are basically the same.

So we humans are more predictable in our 'programmed' behaviors than we are aware of.....don't you think?
I wonder why?...and who the 'programmer' is...?

My beliefs and attitudes have continually evolved, sometimes in unexpected directions. But the idea of substitution sounds contrived, almost desperate.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The connection is obvious since there was no trinity in Judaism and Jesus was Jewish.

Right. Trinity is not from Judaism. Neither is it from India or any other three gods with no connection to Christianity. So no, the connection is not obvious.

Why? Adoration of Mary is exclusively Catholic.....it is not Christian, and finds no support in the Bible at all.
All the titles given to Mary were titles already used for other mother goddesses.

Also not from other religions. Just a different interpretation of Bible.

Since the command from God was not the even "Make" images to be used in worship, I would beg to differ.
Don't make them, and don't bow down to them....its wasn't a difficult command to understand surely?

"Today, Jews do not venerate any holy relics or man-made symbols. But in the history of the Jewish people, there was one exception to this rule. One man-made object was considered intrinsically holy - the Ark of the Covenant." (Jewish Virtual Library)

True science is backed up by experimentation and observation, neither of which can apply to things that occurred before recorded history. Anything that happened prehistorically, can be assumed but not proven. An assumption is not a fact.

Do you think that only written sources count?? We know what happened because of material historical sources.

. If you have to ditch God or lessen his role in his own creation, to prop up a man made theory, then that is up to them. God might not be so keen on that idea.

Science of nature doesn't lessen God's role. It's not in its scope. It can't investigate purpose and cause beyond physical. God can make things happen in world so that in timespace they appear as coincidental or natural and science can explain things without involving God.

 

[danieldemol]

Whilst I agree with your point, I'm going to have to ask you to stop commenting about the colour of my hair.

But @sunrise didn't mention white

 

[Deeje]

Evolution says nothing about origin of life. That’s why its seperate to abiogenesis as it’s another subject in science. This is grade 8 level stuff. So, please forgive me but no you sound uneducated. And I freely admit to being an idiot on the matter.

LOL....I know this is what people are told, but its meant to deflect attention away from the fact that its actually embarrassing that science can't figure it out.

Please tell me why it doesn't matter how life began, since it is life that teems on this planet in myriad variety....and forms the basis for all the biological sciences. Don't you see that if that life came from an outside source, and that outside source left us an instruction manual whilst stepping back to allow his intelligent creatures to work out how to drive their free will for the good of all, that there might be a purpose to all of this? Are we doing well in harnessing our free will? Or are we destroying the planet and threading our very existence by our selfishness?

Does anyone really know "what" the Creator is exactly, so that they can reject him out of hand? Does science really know what it is that they are rejecting? I personally believe that they are rejecting what certain religious people want to project about God.....the vision of a great wizard in the sky, poofing things into existence in 7 literal days......that is not the picture Genesis paints at all....far from it, in fact.

Generations encounter differing pressures. Due to changing environments. Evolution is acting exactly as predicted.

Well, adaptation is acting exactly as it was programmed to do.....science, in predicting something, comes from observation....a lot of its predictions regarding evolution require more imagination than real science. The pre-conceived conclusion drives the interpretation of the evidence, rather than the other way around...IMO.

I know this is anecdotal, but one of my friend’s anthropology professors once professed that the fossil record seemed God ordained. As it’s so complete, despite the horrifically unfair conditions in which fossilisation occurs, that it must be God showing us a sign. Interesting fellow.

Don't tell me, let me guess....the professor was a theistic evolutionist reinforcing that notion to his students. I have no respect for the "foot in both camps' "Christians". Fossils cannot speak unless the ventriloquists put word in their mouths.

They can do you a chart or a graph with a lot of suggestion to fill in the blanks, but they can’t really prove that it ever happened.

We really have no idea of the power of suggestion until we understand that the world is ruled by it.....its just clever marketing.....lies dressed up as truth.....it’s like selling ice to Eskimos by convincing them that they need it and should have it. (The frozen water kind that is.)

Laws that specifically exclude evolution?
I’m still failing to see the mutual exclusion.

I do not believe that God created the process of evolution. There is not the slightest hint that creation was not direct and deliberate with every creature designed and created for the specific environment that God provided for them. When environments change, so do the creatures that inhabit them, but it never changes what they are....it just gives them the means to survive in changed circumstances.

A Creator, creates....it involves planning and expertise and executing a model to work on and to tweak if necessary. Sometimes it means eliminating some as no longer necessary.
Most of all of that took place long before the creation of man. We arrived last, as science well knows.

So.......what qualifications do you have in biology, specifically?

No formal qualifications at all, but I can read and I have all the knowledge that I need at the click of a mouse.

I like Berkeley.edu for my information because it is designed for students and it is presented without unnecessary jargon. It is when you see the simple explanations that you realise how much suggestion is actually used to lead the reader to accept a foregone conclusion.....rather than actual scientific evidence. Interpretation is everything....just like it is with everything else.

 

[SomeRandom]

LOL....I know this is what people are told, but its meant to deflect attention away from the fact that its actually embarrassing that science can't figure it out..

Yes, because the origin of literally all life is a seperate subject of inquiry than all the aftermath. Like what? Literature and music are both arts, but they are different subjects in academia. You are aware of this, right?

Please tell me why it doesn't matter how life began, since it is life that teems on this planet in myriad variety....and forms the basis for all the biological sciences. Don't you see that if that life came from an outside source, and that outside source left us an instruction manual whilst stepping back to allow his intelligent creatures to work out how to drive their free will for the good of all, that there might be a purpose to all of this? Are we doing well in harnessing our free will? Or are we destroying the planet and threading our very existence by our selfishness?.

I’m ambivalent about humanity on a good day. Has nothing to do with my scientific knowledge or rather lack thereof.
Free will is the subject of philosophy, it’s not that relevant in the field of biology. Beyond the scientific method (or is it just science as a whole?) being classified as a philosophy.
Which is fine, you want to learn biology, you study biology. If you wish to learn philosophy, you learn philosophy.
We have seperate disciplines for a reason.

Does anyone really know "what" the Creator is exactly, so that they can reject him out of hand? Does science really know what it is that they are rejecting? I personally believe that they are rejecting what certain religious people want to project about God.....the vision of a great wizard in the sky, poofing things into existence in 7 literal days......that is not the picture Genesis paints at all....far from it, in fact..

I don’t think science cares. It’s Switzerland on the issue. If you wish to accept science it’s not like they’re going to demand you hand in your faith card at the door. There’s certainly scientists out there who consider their study in biology or archeology or whatever only strengthens their faith and allows them to truly appreciate creation to the fullest.

Well, adaptation is acting exactly as it was programmed to do.....science, in predicting something, comes from observation....a lot of its predictions regarding evolution require more imagination than real science. The pre-conceived conclusion drives the interpretation of the evidence, rather than the other way around...IMO.
.

I don’t see how. Deductive reasoning is literally one of the most fundamental aspects of education and learning how to think critically. Has been since the days of Plato, as far as I’m aware.

Don't tell me, let me guess....the professor was a theistic evolutionist reinforcing that notion to his students. I have no respect for the "foot in both camps' "Christians". Fossils cannot speak unless the ventriloquists put word in their mouths.
.

Isn’t that like illegal or something? Pretty sure you can’t do that in even High School. Neutral places because they’re government sponsored and all that.
No, I just know the guy through my cousin who happens to be an English teacher. And my apologies his field is archeology, not anthropology. Darn autocorrect. We’ve had a couple of drinking sessions. His views are rather nuanced and complex even after some Brandy. Wish I was as half as educated

They can do you a chart or a graph with a lot of suggestion to fill in the blanks, but they can’t really prove that it ever happened.
.

Yeah in science when collecting data they tend to use graphs as an easy way to organise it. Are you against organisation or something?
Like they observe and record and follow the correct process to figure out the minutiae of it all. That’s what all academics do in literally all fields (although the arts might leave out the graphs lol)
I’m not seeing this great leap of logic you keep subtly (and not so subtly) referring to in the sciences. Argument from incredulity is a known logical fallacy. Even I know that much

We really have no idea of the power of suggestion until we understand that the world is ruled by it.....its just clever marketing.....lies dressed up as truth.....it’s like selling ice to Eskimos by convincing them that they need it and should have it. (The frozen water kind that is.)
.

So.....like religious preachers selling three brand of morality? That includes JWs by the way.

I do not believe that God created the process of evolution. There is not the slightest hint that creation was not direct and deliberate with every creature designed and created for the specific environment that God provided for them. When environments change, so do the creatures that inhabit them, but it never changes what they are....it just gives them the means to survive in changed circumstances..

Well you’re entitled to your opinions. No matter how uneducated.
Isn’t freedom grand?

A Creator, creates....it involves planning and expertise and executing a model to work on and to tweak if necessary. Sometimes it means eliminating some as no longer necessary.
Most of all of that took place long before the creation of man. We arrived last, as science well knows.
.

Yeah so? We’re a young stupid species. So what?

No formal qualifications at all, but I can read and I have all the knowledge that I need at the click of a mouse.
.

So you’re pontificating about science without any formal training?
Why should I trust you over an actual legitimate accredited expert in the field exactly?
I could look up the Big Bang Theory. Read it over and over again. Doesn’t mean I know more than an astrophysicist on the subject. I could read all I want, I’d still be the same uneducated dumbass I was before I started and said astrophysicist could still school me thoroughly.

I like Berkeley.edu for my information because it is designed for students and it is presented without unnecessary jargon. It is when you see the simple explanations that you realise how much suggestion is actually used to lead the reader to accept a foregone conclusion.....rather than actual scientific evidence. Interpretation is everything....just like it is with everything else.

Hmm. Picking our sources based on their conclusions, are we? Interesting