The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[tas8831]

ALL OBSERVED CHANGE IN ALL LIFE ON EVERY LEVEL IS SUDDEN.

Then it should be amazingly easy to provide some evidence for it.

Odd that you are 100% incapable of providing a single example.

This is what ALL OF THE OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE, EXPERIMENT, AND LOGIC SUGGESTS.

And yet, you cannot provide a SINGLE example of what EVERYTHING suggests.

Why is it that every sane, rational person finds your position laughable and absurd, but you seem convinced that you totally correct despite not being able to produce a SINGLE bit of actual support?

You are either an exceptionally talented Poe/troll, or....

We merely misinterpret the evidence because very little of it is based on experiment. We see what we expect.

Then why is it impossible for you to present A SINGLE PIERCE OF EVIDENCE and explain how it should be interpreted under your phony baloney middle-school level notion of science?

It should be easy for the world's greatest scientist, which is clearly how you see yourself despite never publishing a thing. Or having a relevant education.

Look and See Science doesn't work.

What's this? Your pretend pejorative doesn't work?

Who are you again, that we should care?

 

[tas8831]

ALL OBSERVED CHANGE IN ALL LIFE ON EVERY LEVEL IS SUDDEN.

Then it should be amazingly easy to provide some evidence for it.

Odd that you are 100% incapable of providing a single example.

ROFL.

...And you know this, how?

Because there is no evidence for such a thing. ROFL.

Your mere say so - your crazy fantasy - means, literally, NOTHING.

 

[tas8831]

ALL OBSERVED CHANGE IN ALL LIFE ON EVERY LEVEL IS SUDDEN.

Then it should be amazingly easy to provide some evidence for it.

Odd that you are 100% incapable of providing a single example.

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?

So you admit to having NOTHING to support your goofy, child-like fantasies, yet want all others to simply accept your empty claims as truth.

You need help, pops.

 

[tas8831]

Biologists are no stupider than I am.

And I have never seen an actual biologist write, repeatedly (even after having been correct a dozen times), "broccas area" and not 'Broca's area', how it is actually spelled.

So maybe someone is stupider than they think....

 

[cladking]

We have considerable understanding of consciousness with new neuroscience studies and it is supported by evolutionary theory.

What then is the definition of "consciousness"? Certainly you'd agree that if a term is undefined then nothing at all is known about it.

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.

What is complicated about the idea that perspective is everything. We have as good of understanding as we possibly can of evolution at this stage of our science and in terms of our metaphysics. I am saying that our perspective and our reductionistic understanding have distorted our interpretation of experiment to a point it is kaleidoscopic. We see what our science "wants" us to see and what our beliefs force us to see preferentially to what exists. Despite the fact that all observed change in life occurs suddenly we see a gradual change and then we attribute it to the bad luck of having bad genes.

There is no such thing as bad luck or bad genes. There are only individuals using consciousness to survive and TO BEHAVE.

 

[cladking]

So maybe someone is stupider than they think....

The limitations of the brain are quite extreme. The limitations of science are far more extreme. The limitations of the acquisition of knowledge is not extreme though there are significant (extreme) limitations to its proper application.

People are merely deluded into believing they are intelligent and only humans are intelligent. The reality is there is not really such a thing as "intelligence" with the definitions we employ. To the degree that intelligence exists we are little smarter than cats and dogs and might not be as smart as some species and individuals. "Intelligence" in nature is not a condition, it is an event. Some people are brighter or quicker but this isn't "intelligence" it merely means they are more likely to experience it.

Repeating things you've learned over and over is not indication of the event I called "intelligence". Anybody can recite. Most people can learn more than they know. Ideas are individual and all "intelligence" is in the form of ideas that were not learned or taught.

I hate to have to break this to you but the animals are laughing at you. They find us amusing when we're not shooting at them.

 

[metis]

Our focus is too scattered and too narrow to see how species change.

Not really as just about everything and anything is under investigation in this area. There are literally thousands of scientists internationally investigating various aspects and ramifications of the evolution of life forms, so no stone gets unturned.

When science has a better idea it will look more like the bible than "Origin of Species".

Ah, I had a feeling that this was your real agenda all along but wasn't sure.

The Bible is not a science book, nor is the ToE a book of faith. We use the "scientific method" to seek objective evidence whereas religion doesn't.

Growing up in a fundamentalist Protestant church, learning about the "evils" of evolution, was shattered when I started doing the studying during high school (my parents and I were/are "museum freaks"), and I continued on eventually to get a graduate degree in anthropology. In that process, I finally got to the point of leaving my old church and, eventually, finding one that doesn't see science as some sort of threat, and I've taught theology there and elsewhere for over two decades now.

It simply is terrible theology to see the Bible as a threat to the understanding that life forms change over time, often very significantly so.

 

[rrobs]

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

Don't think so. It's not like they've unlocked the holy grail of evolution in the last 50 years.

 

[rrobs]

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.

Why?

 

[cladking]

Not really as just about everything and anything is under investigation in this area. There are literally thousands of scientists internationally investigating various aspects and ramifications of the evolution of life forms, so no stone gets unturned.

Ah, I had a feeling that this was your real agenda all along but wasn't sure.

The Bible is not a science book, nor is the ToE a book of faith. We use the "scientific method" to seek objective evidence whereas religion doesn't.

Growing up in a fundamentalist Protestant church, learning about the "evils" of evolution, was shattered when I started doing the studying during high school (my parents and I were/are "museum freaks"), and I continued on eventually to get a graduate degree in anthropology. In that process, I finally got to the point of leaving my old church and, eventually, finding one that doesn't see science as some sort of threat, and I've taught theology there and elsewhere for over two decades now.

It simply is terrible theology to see the Bible as a threat to the understanding that life forms change over time, often very significantly so.

I don't recall your having responded in this thread;

Ancient Reality

Models are beliefs derived from the interpretation of experiment and expressed chiefly in language.

Science is "real" but people are extrapolating results that never existed. They don't understand the meaning of results or how they are influenced by language. Once you accept the idea that "species" exist it limits your perspective to something akin to a spectrum of an element. Some things are more readily visible from some perspectives than others. From our perspective it's difficult to even see that ALL OBSERVED CHANGE IN "SPECIES" HAS ALWAYS OCCURRED SUDDENLY AND WAS THE RESULT OF BEHAVIOR. No matter how many times I point at examples of these changes such as pigs and dogs some people can't even see that THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT ALL OBSERVED CHANGE IN "SPECIES" AND IN INDIVIDUALS HAS ALWAYS OCCURRED SUDDENLY AND WAS THE RESULT OF BEHAVIOR or circumstance.

We never see what exists or what is there. We fill in massive gaps with our beliefs. Most scientists are absolutely NO BETTER than most religious people. Meanwhile I believe that the Bible was founded on ancient science that did have a clear understanding of the nature of change in species while Darwin engaged in Look and See Science.

 

[gnostic]

IMO, you are over thinking things.

Well, I think your faith-based belief have prevented you from thinking logically.

For instance...

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.

I agreed with Wild Fox:

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

Everything you have learned rrobs in the 60s, was already outdated by the 80s. Because in your time, biologists have only just started to realize DNA contained genetic information that can be passed on to succeeding generations (of descendants).

But the problem isn’t the advances in our knowledge of biology, but your ineptness at understanding even the most basic concept of evolutionary mechanism - speciation.

Until you jump over the hurdle, you will continue be misinformed, because your own faith have blocked your continuing anything that new.

 

[gnostic]

I don't recall your having responded in this thread;

Ancient Reality

Models are beliefs derived from the interpretation of experiment and expressed chiefly in language.

Science is "real" but people are extrapolating results that never existed. They don't understand the meaning of results or how they are influenced by language. Once you accept the idea that "species" exist it limits your perspective to something akin to a spectrum of an element. Some things are more readily visible from some perspectives than others. From our perspective it's difficult to even see that ALL OBSERVED CHANGE IN "SPECIES" HAS ALWAYS OCCURRED SUDDENLY AND WAS THE RESULT OF BEHAVIOR. No matter how many times I point at examples of these changes such as pigs and dogs some people can't even see that THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT ALL OBSERVED CHANGE IN "SPECIES" AND IN INDIVIDUALS HAS ALWAYS OCCURRED SUDDENLY AND WAS THE RESULT OF BEHAVIOR or circumstance.

We never see what exists or what is there. We fill in massive gaps with our beliefs. Most scientists are absolutely NO BETTER than most religious people. Meanwhile I believe that the Bible was founded on ancient science that did have a clear understanding of the nature of change in species while Darwin engaged in Look and See Science.

Except that religious beliefs are about experiments and evidence.

Religious belief are based on acceptance through faith, and faith alone.

You cannot observe, measure or test God, and you cannot observe measure or test miracles, spirits.

Gods, spirits, miracles, afterlife, resurrection, reincarnation, Heaven and Hell, are all descriptions of belief and superstitions in the supernatural.

The Bible has nothing to do with science.

All you are doing is just more dishonest conspiracy theory.

In Ancient Reality, you professed that Ancient Science occurred before the Tower of Babel, so if I remember correctly, pre-2000 BCE.

Well, no Hebrew writings about the Bible, like Genesis and Exodus were written before 7th century BCE. So how can the Bible be based on your absurd “Ancient Science”?

Like I have always said, you are nothing more than conspiracy theorist.

Science is about explaining the natural and physical world through natural processes or mechanisms.

Religion and religious beliefs don’t explain anything.

You trying to rebut Evolution, like speciation among species, but where are the explanation about biodiversity in Genesis?

All it used the vague word “kind”?

Like in Genesis 1, it say god created plants on 3rd day, fishes and birds on the 5th day, and land animals that walk or crawl on the 6th. Where are explanations in Genesis of WHAT, HOW or WHY they are diverse?

Lastly it say god created humans, but not how.

The passages are descriptive, but they are not explaining anything. There are nothing scientific in Genesis 1.

Then in Genesis 2, it say god created male human first, then plants, then land animals, and lastly female human. Not only the order in Genesis 2 contradict the order in Genesis 1, but it also say god created from from the ground.

How is possible or natural for lifeless dust to transform into living, breathing adult human male?

It is not only impossible, it is supernatural.

So how can the Bible be based on ancient science, when all I see are just vague descriptions that explain nothing and require to suspend all reality of nature?

Clearly, you don’t understand what science actually explain or do. You are simply spinning more absurd conspiracy theories to justify your religion.

 

[rrobs]

Well, I think your faith-based belief have prevented you from thinking logically.

For instance...

I agreed with Wild Fox:

Everything you have learned rrobs in the 60s, was already outdated by the 80s. Because in your time, biologists have only just started to realize DNA contained genetic information that can be passed on to succeeding generations (of descendants).

But the problem isn’t the advances in our knowledge of biology, but your ineptness at understanding even the most basic concept of evolutionary mechanism - speciation.

Until you jump over the hurdle, you will continue be misinformed, because your own faith have blocked your continuing anything that new.

Have you considered your faith in science has blocked you from seeing the truth in the scriptures? I could easily charge you with ineptness in even the most basic theological doctrines. It's a two way street, you know. In any case, I'm sure you are anything but inept. You sound rather intelligent.

Honestly, I think those who worship science are at least as dogmatic as those who believe the scriptures. Maybe more. Seldom do I see Christians using the same epitaphs against non-believers as visa versa. I don't mean to criticize you personally, but you may want to consider being more understanding of those who don't believe as you. I guess it goes back to the simple saying, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

 

[gnostic]

Have you considered your faith in science has blocked you from seeing the truth in the scriptures?

I have already told you how I had believed in the bible for 19 years before becoming agnostic.

It wasn't science that led me away from Christian teachings, but that I found fault with the New Testament itself, especially how it interpret certain Old Testament.

In 2000, my first doubt is when I re-read both Matthew 1:23 against Isaiah 7 together (whole chapter 7, not just 7:14), when I came to realization that the gospel had taken Isaiah 7:14 OUT-OF-CONTEXT.

It had nothing to do with science or with evolution. It was (gospel) author changing the meaning of Isaiah's original sign, not Evolution or science, that made me doubt the Bible for the first time. In 2000, I didn't know anything about Creationism and Evolution.

Here are 2 translations of Matthew 1:23:

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

23 “Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,”

They are similar, because in the gospel, both translation were translating from the Greek source, instead of the Hebrew source.

But Isaiah wasn't written in Greek, it was written in Hebrew.

Now if you were to compare the same translations used in Isaiah 7, you will get this, but...and I must stressed "BUT"...but I have included the WHOLE sign, not just a single verse, I came to realisation that the sign Matthew (or whoever wrote this gospel) left out the rest of sign, which had nothing to with Mary and Jesus.

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

17 The Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

When I read all 4 verses in Isaiah 7 (7:14-17), I can understand the original context of the sign.

As you can see in my quote from above, the sign had to do with boy reaching age, when the King of Assyria (7:17) will intervene in the war between Judah and the alliance of Israel and Aram.

The word "he" and "child" as used in verses 15 and 16, is the boy Immanuel, not Jesus.

And we know the pregnant woman wasn't "Mary", but Isaiah's wife, because a similar sign was given in the next chapter, which also related to the war in Judah:

8 Moreover the Lord said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz.

2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.

3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

8 The Lord said to me, “Get a large sheet of paper. Write ‘Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz’ on it with a pen.” 2 So I sent for Zechariah and Uriah the priest. Zechariah is the son of Jeberekiah. Zechariah and Uriah were witnesses for me whom I could trust. 3 Then I went and slept with my wife, who was a prophet. She became pregnant and had a baby boy. The Lord said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 The king of Assyria will carry off the wealth of Damascus. He will also carry away the goods that were taken from Samaria. That will happen before the boy knows how to say ‘My father’ or ‘My mother.’ ”

Because both signs related to the war and to the King of Assyria, so Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz must be Immanuel, which mean the prophetess (in Isaiah 8) is the unnamed "young woman" (in Isaiah 7).

And if you were any good at understanding what you read in the bible, you would know notice that immanuel was mentioned again in 8:8 -

6 “I am like the gently flowing stream of Siloam.
But the people of Judah have turned their backs on me.
They are filled with joy because of the fall of Rezin
and the son of Remaliah.
7 So I am about to bring against these people
the king of Assyria and his whole army.
The Assyrians will be like the mighty Euphrates River
when it is flooding.
They will run over everything in their path.
8 They will sweep on into Judah like a flood.
They will pass through Judah and reach all the way to Jerusalem.
Immanuel, they will attack your land like an eagle.
Their wings will spread out and cover it.”

As you can see, the author of the gospel of Matthew, left out a lot from Isaiah's sign. Matthew 1:23 is simply just a propaganda, because if you were to honestly read and understand the sign, it had nothing to do with Mary and Jesus.

No, rrobs. I read things clearly, more clearer when I was a teenager, inexperienced in verifying what I read.

I don't need science to see that Matthew 1:22-23 is wrong.

 

[Bear Wild]

Don't think so. It's not like they've unlocked the holy grail of evolution in the last 50 years.

Here is your problem and you could not make it much clearer "It's not like they've unlocked the holy grail of evolution in the last 50 years." The science of evolution has made astounding findings over the last 50 years! There are new insights all of the time. There will not be a holy grail in the science of evolution, that is your religious expectations being transposed on science. That is why you cannot debate well on this subject. You do not have sufficient understanding of what is known in evolution.

 

[Bear Wild]

Have you considered your faith in science has blocked you from seeing the truth in the scriptures? I could easily charge you with ineptness in even the most basic theological doctrines. It's a two way street, you know. In any case, I'm sure you are anything but inept. You sound rather intelligent.

Honestly, I think those who worship science are at least as dogmatic as those who believe the scriptures. Maybe more. Seldom do I see Christians using the same epitaphs against non-believers as visa versa. I don't mean to criticize you personally, but you may want to consider being more understanding of those who don't believe as you. I guess it goes back to the simple saying, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

Again you show your total lack of understanding of science when you say "those who worship science". You are so blinded by your desire to believe your view is absolute that you cannot comprehend that science is not a religion. It is not bounded by anyone faith. Any religious group can accept science because it is about describing the natural and not the supernatural. Science has evidence that can be questioned, demonstrated and tested. On top of that you are arrogant about what you know. Gnostic is clearly not inept in theological doctrines. So I will simply say "If you don't have any good evidence present about the theory of evolution then don't present anything at all."

 

[Valjean]

Have you considered your faith in science has blocked you from seeing the truth in the scriptures? I could easily charge you with ineptness in even the most basic theological doctrines. It's a two way street, you know. In any case, I'm sure you are anything but inept. You sound rather intelligent.

Faith in science? Isn't that an oxymoron? The whole point of the scientific method is to eliminate the need for faith.
The scriptures, on the other hand, are unevidenced, untestable and unfalsifiable. They're folklore. I don't understand where you're finding this "truth."

Honestly, I think those who worship science are at least as dogmatic as those who believe the scriptures. Maybe more. Seldom do I see Christians using the same epitaphs against non-believers as visa versa. I don't mean to criticize you personally, but you may want to consider being more understanding of those who don't believe as you. I guess it goes back to the simple saying, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

Nobody worships science. We use science, as a tool. We formulate hypotheses, then try to disprove them. Science investigates. There is nothing comparable in religion.

 

[rrobs]

It wasn't science that led me away from Christian teachings, but that I found fault with the New Testament itself, especially how it interpret certain Old Testament.

You've made some very good observations. It appears they are pretty well cemented in your mind, so I'm not at all trying to convince you of anything. Instead I'll simply tell you what's cemented in my mind. Really, it would take much more time and research to discuss the matter to it's complete end. Therefore I'll just give a brief summary, with a strong emphasis on brevity.

First of all, the scriptures say that the OT was all about Jesus. The first mention of Jesus was in Genesis 3:15 when God promised a seed that would bruise the devil's head. From the point on the subject of the scriptures was Jesus.

John 5:39,

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.​

John 1:45,

Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.​

Luke 24:27,

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.​

Jesus was a man, not a god-man, but a man just like you and I. What did you know when you made your grand appearance into this world? Pretty much nothing. Like every other man, that's what Jesus knew when he was first born.

Jesus learned little by little who he was by reading the OT. He learned what he must do to redeem people from sin and death. God gave people, including Jesus free will. The logos of John 1:1 is not speaking of Jesus at all, but of God's plan. In order to carry out that plan He had to rely on people who would believe the things He said in the scriptures. He couldn't force or control people to do that. It had to be by their own choice. I think it a rather brilliant plan that He could inform people and then hope they would follow through. That is why it took 4,000 years for Jesus to appear.

I would guess Mary read Isaiah and understood that she would be just like the virgin mentioned in Isaiah. It would be ludicrous for her to have thought she was actually the woman spoken of in Isaiah. Isaiah gave her enough of a clue as to her part in God's plan. That is why she said, "be it done unto me according to thy word."

The same basic pattern was followed by Jesus. Again, it would be ludicrous for Jesus to think he was actually the Emmanuel spoken of in Isaiah. After all, Rome was the Syria du jour of his time, so that alone precluded an exact reenactment. Instead, he read Isaiah and put it together with what he actually experienced. It was clearly enough for him to come to a realization of who he was.

Of course Isaiah is not the only scripture mentioned in the NT. But none of the fulfilled prophecies in the NT were exact replicas of what happened in the verses of the OT. That would be quite impossible. Nonetheless, they were apparently close enough for Jesus to have learned his mission and carry it out to perfection.

I'm not sure why you expect an exact reenactment of the OT in the NT, but it certainly is your prerogative to do so.

As I said, I think it incredibly brilliant on God's part to record just the right events in the OT to give Jesus enough to realize what he needed to do to carry out God's plan, the logos. But that's just me. I've noticed there are two sides to the equation; those who believe and those who don't. I expect that will be the case as long as people inhabit this planet. I don't bother myself with who's who. I just speak the word and let the chips fall where they may. That is all God expects. He is the one that gives the increase, not me.

Anyway, all of this may or not make any sense to you. As I said, it deserves way more discussion than I can do here. I suppose if we met face to face for some time we could come to a deeper understanding of each other's mind, but that is not in the cards (at least as far as I know now).

Take care and thanks for your thoughtful replies.

 

[rrobs]

Again you show your total lack of understanding of science when you say "those who worship science". You are so blinded by your desire to believe your view is absolute that you cannot comprehend that science is not a religion. It is not bounded by anyone faith. Any religious group can accept science because it is about describing the natural and not the supernatural. Science has evidence that can be questioned, demonstrated and tested. On top of that you are arrogant about what you know. Gnostic is clearly not inept in theological doctrines. So I will simply say "If you don't have any good evidence present about the theory of evolution then don't present anything at all."

Interesting you bring up blindness. The scriptures have their own take on blindness.

Eph 4:18,

Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
​

Hmmm, do I believe your take on blindness or that of the scriptures? I'll choose the latter any day of the week.

And you speak of arrogance as though you are not. However much or little I know of science, I think it fair to say you know nothing about the scriptures. I'm talking to a wall. But I don't mind.

 

[rrobs]

Again you show your total lack of understanding of science when you say "those who worship science". You are so blinded by your desire to believe your view is absolute that you cannot comprehend that science is not a religion. It is not bounded by anyone faith. Any religious group can accept science because it is about describing the natural and not the supernatural. Science has evidence that can be questioned, demonstrated and tested. On top of that you are arrogant about what you know. Gnostic is clearly not inept in theological doctrines. So I will simply say "If you don't have any good evidence present about the theory of evolution then don't present anything at all."

Over time, most science has been proven wrong. What makes you think that, thanks to science, we have finally figured it all out?