The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[tas8831]

Most change occurs as the result of population bottlenecks arising from events that favor specific behavior.

Please provide a single example of a single actual biologist that has provided evidence for this - I won't ask you for evidence, you seem to think merely writing the same assertion over and over constitutes evidence (it doesn't).

 

[rrobs]

Inspiration isn’t a reliable indicator of what is true, rrobs.

Inspiration are the main sources for writing fictional stories or writing myths.

Genesis creation and flood are myths, not facts. Stories that have talking serpent or donkey are called fable or myth, or even fairytale.

The only times I seeing talking animals today, are found in children’s fictions, in comics and cartoons, and in movies and tv. These are modern fables.

And btw, parrots only mimic what people say, but they don’t actually understand what people say.

Having studied the scriptures for yourself, I'm surprised you haven't called me out on using the word "inspiration." The actual Greek word in 2 Tim 3:16 is theopneustos which means "God breathed." So it is not at all proper to be discussing inspiration. God breathed is much more to the point, and there is nothing else that can be God breathed except that which God breathed, i.e. the scriptures.

 

[rrobs]

None on biology, it is obvious.

But no dictionary?

Yes biology, including evolution. That was before I was Christian and I still thought it nonsense. I wasn't the professor's favorite student although he did have to give me a "B" in the class. I suppose you could say I missed everything or I would have gotten an "A" in the class. We'll never know, but in those days (late 60s) you really had to earn the grade. I've been back to college later in life and found that not to be so much the case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's wrong with God inspiring men to write what other men said?

Nothing. But it does not mean that that work is inerrant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

True about not judging if you don't want to be judged. Perhaps you got judged because you first judged, "Either creationists are stubbornly ignorant, or they are inherently dishonest...or it could be both."

BTW, crap all you want on me. I've been judged righteous by God Himself (Rom 3:22), so man's crap matters very little; actually not at all. It is those who are not confident in their own beliefs that get offended. And I wasn't even particularly speaking about you. I was just talking about the general trend and I stand by my statement.

That is not so much of a judgement against creationists, it is more of an observation. I am ever optimistic that I will run into an honest creationist and I just can't seem to find one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Having studied the scriptures for yourself, I'm surprised you haven't called me out on using the word "inspiration." The actual Greek word in 2 Tim 3:16 is theopneustos which means "God breathed." So it is not at all proper to be discussing inspiration. God breathed is much more to the point, and there is nothing else that can be God breathed except that which God breathed, i.e. the scriptures.

It means essentially the same thing and is no guarantee of accuracy of the scriptures. Which are not even properly defined. The Bible does not say that they are true, it only says that they are "God breathed and useful in instruction".

 

[cladking]

Please provide a single example of a single actual biologist that has provided evidence for this - I won't ask you for evidence, you seem to think merely writing the same assertion over and over constitutes evidence (it doesn't).

This is what ALL OF THE OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE, EXPERIMENT, AND LOGIC SUGGESTS. We merely misinterpret the evidence because very little of it is based on experiment. We see what we expect. Look and See Science doesn't work.

 

[cladking]

No such thing as Homo Omnisciencis.

ROFL.

...And you know this, how?

 

[cladking]

"Yes! And almost all major changes in almost everything and in all life forms on the individual or species basis are "sudden".

You can't step into the same river twice but when it changes its course it is always sudden. There is no significant gradual change in species caused by "survival of the fittest" that wasn't engineered in the lab. We see sudden change when we see it at all."

Incredible!!! You want me to defend the simple observbation that everything is always in a state of flux.

Do you want me to prove the sky is blue as well?

 

[cladking]

There are three main processes at work, namely mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift. But now we also know that within many living organisms some internal chemicals can alter d.n.a. when influenced by external factors.

For example, one my close friends has identical twins who were d.n.a. tested shortly after birth. However, somewhere along their life, there was a d.n.a. alteration of one of the twins, who now is visibly different and also with a different personality. The doctors believe one of them may have caught a virus that altered her d.n.a.

Thus, even though we have long known about the main three influences of evolution I mentioned above in my first paragraph, this does not imply that there can't be other factors at stake.

BTW, "Scientific American" has run numerous articles about how d.n.a. can be affected in a living organism by outside factors in the last couple of years.

Yes, I've read this type of thing as long as 30 years ago.

We still grossly overweight the importance of "survival of the fittest" though. I believe there are categories and types of forces that cause change in species and "survival of the fittest is secondary or tertiary in all of them. You're right that biology has come a long way since Darwin but until they quit seeing "adaptability" "survival of the fittest" etc everywhere they look there will be a misunderstanding. Frankly I doubt that until we understand consciousness and look at these questions from the individual perspective we will understand how animals change or animals themselves. Our focus is too scattered and too narrow to see how species change. When science has a better idea it will look more like the bible than "Origin of Species".

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is what ALL OF THE OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE, EXPERIMENT, AND LOGIC SUGGESTS. We merely misinterpret the evidence because very little of it is based on experiment. We see what we expect. Look and See Science doesn't work.

What? No. You do not understand the scientific method. When you use such phrases as "Look and See Science" you refute yourself.

You may think that you understand the scientific method, but to anyone that does it is clear that you do not. Are you ready to discuss it? First you need to understand the scientific method and then you can try to refute evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I've read this type of thing as long as 30 years ago.

We still grossly overweight the importance of "survival of the fittest" though. I believe there are categories and types of forces that cause change ion species and "survival of the fittest is secondary or tertiary in all of them. Your right that biology has come a long way since Darwin but until they quit seeing "adaptability" "survival of the fittest etc everywhere they look there will be a misunderstanding. Frankly I doubt that until we understand consciousness and look at these questions from the individual perspective we will understand how animals change or animals themselves. Our focus is too scattered and too narrow to see how species change. When science has a better idea it will look more like the bible than "Origin of Species".

Really? How are you going to support this claim? So far all that you seem to be able to post is denial and you continually display a lack of knowledge of what science is and how it works. Basics first, more complex ideas later is always a good way to approach a problem.

 

[gnostic]

Having studied the scriptures for yourself, I'm surprised you haven't called me out on using the word "inspiration." The actual Greek word in 2 Tim 3:16 is theopneustos which means "God breathed." So it is not at all proper to be discussing inspiration. God breathed is much more to the point, and there is nothing else that can be God breathed except that which God breathed, i.e. the scriptures.

Which mean nothing.

These are not Jesus’ words.

2 Timothy may have been attributed to Paul, but it was written by someone else after his death.

So I don’t give much credence to whoever wrote 2 Timothy.

But leaving the epistle’s authorship aside for now.

Inspiration don’t mean whatever written or said is true or accurate, regardless of the author calling inspiration, “God breathed”.

If I followed your absurd logic, then everything written by Homer - The Iliad and The Odyssey - which were inspired by Muses - then both of his works would be considered accurate and true.

The Muses were goddesses who supposed were responsible for inspirations to song, music, dance and literature. If you are not going to accept what Homer wrote as divine inspiration, why would you think anyone else accept 2 Timothy’s claim of divine inspiration?

And coming back to the authorship problem with the epistle.

How do expect me to take the author seriously about any NT gospels or epistles been accurate and true, when the author lied about this letter being written by Paul?

Someone pretending to be Paul, wouldn’t inspire me the truthfulness of the letter.

 

[gnostic]

What? No. You do not understand the scientific method. When you use such phrases as "Look and See Science" you refute yourself.

You may think that you understand the scientific method, but to anyone that does it is clear that you do not. Are you ready to discuss it? First you need to understand the scientific method and then you can try to refute evolution.

In the past I often accuse cladking of conspiracy theory.

And here, again more conspiracy theory.

Either biologists are so stupid or so incompetent in science that they all can’t can’t tell what are evidence for or against evolution.

Biologists, all around the world have misinterpreted evidence for natural selection or mutation or genetic drift?

No. It is just more absurd conspiracies, the latest from cladking.

 

[gnostic]

This is what ALL OF THE OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE, EXPERIMENT, AND LOGIC SUGGESTS. We merely misinterpret the evidence because very little of it is based on experiment. We see what we expect. Look and See Science doesn't work.

There are objective evidence outside in the real world then inside the lab.

Experiments are just one methodology of observation. Being out in the fields, discovering evidence in the fields, actually give expanded understanding and experience of the real world.

Ideally, observable objective evidence could be found in both environments. In science, you don’t ignore evidence based on personal preference.

 

[rrobs]

Which mean nothing.

These are not Jesus’ words.

2 Timothy may have been attributed to Paul, but it was written by someone else after his death.

So I don’t give much credence to whoever wrote 2 Timothy.

But leaving the epistle’s authorship aside for now.

Inspiration don’t mean whatever written or said is true or accurate, regardless of the author calling inspiration, “God breathed”.

If I followed your absurd logic, then everything written by Homer - The Iliad and The Odyssey - which were inspired by Muses - then both of his works would be considered accurate and true.

The Muses were goddesses who supposed were responsible for inspirations to song, music, dance and literature. If you are not going to accept what Homer wrote as divine inspiration, why would you think anyone else accept 2 Timothy’s claim of divine inspiration?

And coming back to the authorship problem with the epistle.

How do expect me to take the author seriously about any NT gospels or epistles been accurate and true, when the author lied about this letter being written by Paul?

Someone pretending to be Paul, wouldn’t inspire me the truthfulness of the letter.

IMO, you are over thinking things.

 

[cladking]

In the past I often accuse cladking of conspiracy theory.

And here, again more conspiracy theory.

Either biologists are so stupid or so incompetent in science that they all can’t can’t tell what are evidence for or against evolution.

Biologists, all around the world have misinterpreted evidence for natural selection or mutation or genetic drift?

No. It is just more absurd conspiracies, the latest from cladking.

Conspiracy by definition requires intention unless you are using some other definition of the word. There is no intention in anybody to misinterpret evidence therefore there is NO CONSPIRACY. I could maintain that you intend to use some nonstandard definition of "conspiracy" or refuse to use my definition for "metaphysics" but this is intent and not conspiracy. You are not working with others to intentionally misunderstand and misinterpret my argument, facts, and logic.

Biologists are no stupider than I am. Indeed, I'm confident I'm less clever than large numbers of biologists. But being less stupid never made anyone right.

People don't plan to assume the conclusion; they just do. It is as automatic as a rabbit running from a hunting fox. Rabbits don't talk amongst themselves before they run. Nobody is immune. It's what we do. Rabbits run, we see what we believe. Look and See Science is really Look and Believe Science which is not science at all.

Observation is great for gathering information for designing experiment or interpreting results. But "deductions" are dependent on things that have nothing to do with science and nothing to do with logic.

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes, I've read this type of thing as long as 30 years ago.

We still grossly overweight the importance of "survival of the fittest" though. I believe there are categories and types of forces that cause change ion species and "survival of the fittest is secondary or tertiary in all of them. Your right that biology has come a long way since Darwin but until they quit seeing "adaptability" "survival of the fittest etc everywhere they look there will be a misunderstanding. Frankly I doubt that until we understand consciousness and look at these questions from the individual perspective we will understand how animals change or animals themselves. Our focus is too scattered and too narrow to see how species change. When science has a better idea it will look more like the bible than "Origin of Species".

We have considerable understanding of consciousness with new neuroscience studies and it is supported by evolutionary theory. Evolution is more complex than just the "survival of the fittest" although only organisms that survive can pass on genetic material. Hopefully that is not such a complicated concept. The genetic material passed on contains far more material than just the phenotypic characteristics that made that organism survive. Thus dna with potential phenotypic characteristics can be passed on that were not responsible for the survival of the organism. Thus "survival of the fittest" is only one aspect in a much more complex system. There are also non survival selection also going on in evolution. Our focus in evolution is not narrow at all if you are keeping up with all of the evidence found and is supporting the "origin of species" with modifications with nothing supporting the "bible".

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes biology, including evolution. That was before I was Christian and I still thought it nonsense. I wasn't the professor's favorite student although he did have to give me a "B" in the class. I suppose you could say I missed everything or I would have gotten an "A" in the class. We'll never know, but in those days (late 60s) you really had to earn the grade. I've been back to college later in life and found that not to be so much the case.

So your understanding of biology stopped in the late 60's. That explains some of your posting.

 

[tas8831]

Yes biology, including evolution. That was before I was Christian and I still thought it nonsense. I wasn't the professor's favorite student although he did have to give me a "B" in the class. I suppose you could say I missed everything or I would have gotten an "A" in the class. We'll never know, but in those days (late 60s) you really had to earn the grade. I've been back to college later in life and found that not to be so much the case.

And yet you indicated that an inference is basically a guess, and you've written "Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step.".

I cannot reconcile those facts with your claimed educational experiences.