The assumption of evolution can cause problems

[cablescavenger]

Nobody gets his "arguments" here.

It works like this: Creationists make up their own straw man definitions of the word vestigial, pretend that it is THE "scientific" definition, and then blow the straw man down. It works in some Churches, Mosques, etc.

That's what Man of Faith is trying to do here. Unfortunately for him he deals with a lot of educated people on this forum. Man of Faith, it simply won't work here. Lots of people here are educated. :sorry1: Man of Faith. Education is wonderful. You should try it one day!

Thank you.

lol

 

[meogi]

What you call 'wish fulfillment' is simply following the evidence to it's logical conclusion.

If you're following evidence to it's logical conclusion, you're experiencing a bit of tunnel vision.

 

[McBell]

If you're following evidence to it's logical conclusion, you're experiencing a bit of tunnel vision.

It is easy to follow evidence to what ever conclusion you like when you pick and choose what is and what is not evidence...

 

[camanintx]

What you call 'wish fulfillment' is simply following the evidence to it's logical conclusion. "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God." (Hebrews 3:4) Just as a house or even a small portion of a house, such as a door with it's hinges, requires a maker, so the brilliant design and construction of "all things" demands a maker. That's a problem for evolutionists, but not for those who are willing to accept the evidence. (Hebrews 11:1)

This is an even bigger problem for those who propose a God more complex than the universe it created.

 

[Krok]

Despite your attempt at misdirection, …

Pointing at facts ”misdirection”? Maybe for you. For educated people it isn’t.

the point made is that faith in God as the Creator does not hinder brilliant scientists, past and present, …

Newton followed the scientific method. He was a scientist who happened to be Christian. He was not a creation “scientist”. He was a scientist. You lied about him.

…from pursuing scientific truth.

Scientific truth means following the scientific method. Creation “scientists” don’t. All they do is telling untruths.

I am sorry you believe people who believe in creation are stupid.

This thread provides ample evidence for my suspicions.

Your name calling does you no merit.

Pointing out lies and calling people who lied “liars”, while pointing out to people who keep on believing those lies “stupid” is not name-calling. Those are facts.

OK, maybe the people who keep on believing those lies should be called deluded and stupid. Sorry.

 

[outhouse]

the point made is that faith in God as the Creator does not hinder brilliant scientists, past and present, …

faith has a long history of slowing the growth of knowledge.


This statement is severe ignorance in history, nothing more.

 

[outhouse]

I am sorry you believe people who believe in creation are stupid.

there is a direct link to education and ones belief in the myth

 

[Man of Faith]

Vestigitality doesn't necessarily mean useless. So these fins were not thrown away because they were thought vestigial but because they were thought to be useless.

Without the assumption of evolution and the concept of vestigial structures that goes along with it, it wouldn't have necessarily entered the biologists minds that they were useless.

 

[outhouse]

Without the assumption of evolution and the concept of vestigial structures that goes along with it, it wouldn't have necessarily entered the biologists minds that they were useless.

False

its very easy for a real biologost to see what works and doesnt work for a given species

 

[Krok]

False.

Evolution is not an assumption.It is a conclusion derived from and after studying all the available evidence. The conclusion has been confirmed by all the additional evidence gathered after the original conclusion.

If the title of your post is untrue and demonstratively wrong, I expect the rest of the post to be gibberish, wrong and untrue as well.

 

[Krok]

Without the assumption of evolution ...

Wrong. Evolution is a conclusion.

Please familiarize yourself with the words "conclusion" and "assumption". Please ensure you know the difference. A little bit of basic education would do it.

While at it, have a look at the word "evidence" as well. It might take you another year to get the meaning of the word, but it's worth it. Education really is fantastic.

 

[outhouse]

False.

Evolution is not an assumption.It is a conclusion derived from and after studying all the available evidence. The conclusion has been confirmed by all the additional evidence gathered after the original conclusion.

If the title of your post is untrue and demonstratively wrong, I expect the rest of the post to be gibberish, wrong and untrue as well.

might add it is a conclusion based on observed facts, and its been in use for a very long time.

Anyone who discounts evolution is pretty much a hypocrite as they are severly uneducated on how much it is in use in todays modern cultures and the medicine that keeps them alive and healthy.

 

[More In Common]

To the original post, and sorry if this has already been mentioned...

I believe the example you gave illustrates more that every action has a consequence. Anytime we alter the anatomy of any animal, no matter how slightly, there are going to be a broad range of implications.

 

[outhouse]

To the original post, and sorry if this has already been mentioned...

I believe the example you gave illustrates more that every action has a consequence. Anytime we alter the anatomy of any animal, no matter how slightly, there are going to be a broad range of implications.

how so?

 

[Me Myself]

Working on the assumption that evolution happened the biologist are predisposed to assume that there are non-needed vestigial structures in creatures.

the biologist should never be predisposed to anything. Else, they fail at science.

Just because the fish evolved doesn´t mean his evolution has vestigial structures that are not needed. It is very important to note that vestigial doesn´t mean it is 100% unnecesary, it can still be used, even if not as much as in it´s previous state of evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

Wow. I think you have to believe in evolution to understand what you just said.

Then you missed the point entirely. I would think you have to be totally, blindly opposed to evolution to not understand.

wa:do

 

[idav]

Then you missed the point entirely. I would think you have to be totally, blindly opposed to evolution to not understand.

wa:do

Haha, for those types there is no such thing as "junk" DNA.

 

[jasonwill2]

The point is in the article. The fins were considered vestigial and not needed, so they were cut off, and then they were found out to be needed or useful. I'm not making that up, that really happened. If you are saying that vestigial doesn't necessarily mean not needed or used for a purpose then that goes against the reality of the article. And if a structure is used then it being "vestigial", whatever that means now, isn't necessarily evidence for evolution. If a structure is used then it could have been designed with a purpose by a designer.

Could that creator be the Universe itself? (sorry I'm a pantheist, hehe).

But really guys, think about it, if the Universe had a kind of rudimentary consciousness, couldn't it calibrate the laws of physics right before it kicked off the big bang? I would imagine such a thing might die in order to create such a structured system with all the correct values, but it seems to me then we got a chicken and the egg scenario of where the consciousness came from in the first place. Though if this concioussness IS the Universe, then at least we know where god is... he's the dirt and sun.

Unless he died to create us and is no longer around, but that is pandeism, not pantheism. Also did anyone ever consider that aliens made life? Or that non corporeal entities did? Wait, that last one sounds vaugely religious.

Just saying that ID does not indicate a monetheistic creationism Chrisitan God. There is more options then Christianity and materialism.

Though I agree that ID is more of a hunch or conjecture than a hypothesis that we can test right now, however it is at least a possibility we might want to consider in the future. I think in a couple hundred years we might hit a wall where we will find that our materalistic sciences will have to have metaphysical implications. I mean, materialism isn't any more objective then any kind of metaphysics.

Luckily a person's "worldview" is not considered in science.The scientific method is. We need evidence.

That's why ID is not science. They think "worldviews" count and start with their "worldviews".

Lol. I love how objective science is.

the biologist should never be predisposed to anything. Else, they fail at science.

Exactly; though I will say that this should extend into materialism vs metaphysics as well, but that is often not the case.

A universal negative can't be proven, so we can't scientifically say "there are no gods or spirits" but rather "we do not have any evidence of such a thing with our current understanding of the cosmos"

 

[rusra02]

This is an even bigger problem for those who propose a God more complex than the universe it created.

Why? God is the ultimate Source of life. He has supplied ample evidence of his existence, his almighty power, and unfathomable wisdom, both in the things he created and in his written communication to mankind. As Romans 1:20 says: "For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."
Men claim to follow the 'scientific' method, and yet choose to ignore the evidence for God that a child can discern. (Hebrews 11:1) For example, the precise physical laws governing the universe are the effect that begs a Cause. (Psalm 19:1)
So what do these men and women do? They resort to mental bullying, claiming that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is (fill in the word from the uncomplimentary list evolutionists use). Unfortunately, with many people such propaganda tactics work.

​

​

 

[Krok]

...

What a long story. With no empirical, verifiable evidence. Just a long word salad.

One part of a sentence stood out, though.

.... if the Universe had a kind of rudimentary consciousness,...

...if the sun were made out of cheese, we could call it the cheese god.

What's your point?