The Miracle of Water.

[ecco]

FYI, at least in the US the primary reasons behind evolution denialism are (in order of importance): 1) religious beliefs, 2) political affiliation, and 3) knowledge of genetics. CLICK HERE for the relevant study.

I would have thought the primary reasons behind evolution denialism are (in order of importance): 1) religious beliefs, 2) religious beliefs, and 3) religious beliefs.

Political affiliation is strongly correlated with religious beliefs. Lack of knowledge of genetics can be attributed to homeschooling which is big among those with strong religious beliefs.

 

[nPeace]

Sorry but what I meant was I do not know of a single piece of evidence that the ID scientists have supporting their claim of intelligent design. Maybe you can give me a piece of evidence they have that the intelligent designer exists and actually started life on earth and or continued to direct life? Do they recognize the creation story is a myth since it clearly is not supported by any evidence? This may help me in answering your question.

I do not think the devil is a part of the animal kingdom and the analogy of shoving a in the face has nothing to do with this point of biologic fact that humans like our cousins the chimpanzees and gorillas are a part of the animal kingdom thus we are animals. If you cannot accept this simple biological fact, it seems reasonable why there are no biological facts or evidence that you would accept in the theory of evolution.
We belong to the animal kingdom thus we are animals. This is basic biology.

Perhaps you can tell me what ID scientists present as evidence, and their argument. You should be able to manage that, at least.

The person has not said anything about the Devil being a part of the animal kingdom.
The person is presenting what is to them a fact, a truth, which they have come to accept, and they are telling you as it is written in their book of truth - that because you reject truth and reject God, you are a fool, and a child of the Devil.
So, please explain why you don't accept that.

Of course, I assume, you are aware that everyone do not agree on the same philosophy.
People have various beliefs about life, and what it is, as well as many other things.
So to tell someone that they must believe what you believe seems to me the same as shoving a document in their face, and saying, you are this or that, according to what's written here.
Would you attempt to travel to Sentinel Island, and preach your philosophy to the tribes there?

 

[ecco]

Atheist raise children. Evolutionist raise children.
The former does not believe in God, the latter believes in evolution.
So some children grow up not being taught anything about God, and some grow up believing that life evolved from unguided natural processes.

And then there is the vast majority.
Christians raise children. Most of these Christian children grow up and remain Christians.
Muslims raise children. Most of these Muslim children grow up and remain Muslims
Hindus raise children. Most of these Hindu children grow up and remain Hindus.

All of these religions are instilled into children in different ways.

If the introduction is done on a moderate level, then the child will be able to grow and understand nature and science. The proof is that there are people in the fields of biology that have religious beliefs and still accept evolution.

If the indoctrination is severe, if the child is taught to believe Holy Scripture as the absolute word of God, then the child can never accept anything that conflicts with the Scripture. The proof is that there are people in these forums who must deny and denigrate some aspects of science. They feel they must do this or lose their souls.




Do you understand?

 

[ecco]

Perhaps you can tell me what ID scientists present as evidence, and their argument.

One of the most prominent is Michael Behe and his concept of irreducible complexity. Michaels Behe's irreducible complexity has been debunked and refuted multiple times by multiple scientists.

I know of one other scientist (I can't think of his name right now) who has stated that, regardless of the science presented, he will believe the Bible.

 

[Bear Wild]

Perhaps you can tell me what ID scientists present as evidence, and their argument. You should be able to manage that, at least.

The person has not said anything about the Devil being a part of the animal kingdom.
The person is presenting what is to them a fact, a truth, which they have come to accept, and they are telling you as it is written in their book of truth - that because you reject truth and reject God, you are a fool, and a child of the Devil.
So, please explain why you don't accept that.

Of course, I assume, you are aware that everyone do not agree on the same philosophy.
People have various beliefs about life, and what it is, as well as many other things.
So to tell someone that they must believe what you believe seems to me the same as shoving a document in their face, and saying, you are this or that, according to what's written here.
Would you attempt to travel to Sentinel Island, and preach your philosophy to the tribes there?

Not sure what you want me to accept. I personally accept I am an animal and have no problem with that. I do not believe in the devil so do not understand that reference. I have no plans to travel to Sentinel Island and I am sure the tribes their have their own philosophy with out me intruding. The acceptance of the term animal is basic biology not religion the same as a tree accepting it is a plant. I do not understand why you have such an aversion to the word animal. I suspect it may have to do with a feeling of superiority over other life since I have heard that argument before but that is just a feeling.
What I do not also understand is that if you will not accept basic biologic taxonomy then how would you be able to accept any scientific evidence that could connect you with the rest of this beautiful world thus it is clear why you do not like the word evolution. It indicates a connection with the over living things of this earth and I suppose you want to be special and above all the rest of life.
I still do not know any scientific evidence from science ID specialist since all I have heard from them is quoted scientific evidence from scientists of biology, geology, chemistry and physics and change the presentation to meet their agenda. I have never seen any scientific evidence for ID so I you will help me maybe you can provide me with some original scientific research that demonstrates the intelligent designer. I will be happy to learn.

 

[Jose Fly]

I would have thought the primary reasons behind evolution denialism are (in order of importance): 1) religious beliefs, 2) religious beliefs, and 3) religious beliefs.

LOL.....can't argue with that.

Political affiliation is strongly correlated with religious beliefs. Lack of knowledge of genetics can be attributed to homeschooling which is big among those with strong religious beliefs.

Oh I'm sure there's quite a bit of overlap between the factors, but it's also important to make note of the fact that the US is unique in how one of its major political parties has evolution denialism as a part of its platform. IOW, we don't want to attribute the entirety of this denialism to just religion when there are other factors at play (even though religion is far and away the main driver).

It was funny to read in the article how for some folks, if you just described the processes to them without using the words "evolution" and "natural selection", they tended to agree. But once the labels "evolution" and "natural selection" were included, they suddenly objected. And that gets to my main reason for posting the article in the first place. Some science advocates seem to believe that evolution denialism is mostly driven by ignorance of the science. So they figure the best and most effective way to persuade the denialists is to try and show and explain the data to them. But as the threads at RF show, that just doesn't work. The study I linked to explains why....it's not a matter of how much they do or don't know about the science, it's exactly as you described.....religious beliefs, religious beliefs, religious beliefs.

So in order to get through to them, you have to get to that root issue (religious beliefs). However, very few creationists are secure enough in their faith to even begin going down that road......cough....cough.... @nPeace .....cough, and as soon as you even suggest that maybe, just maybe, their religion is a factor in how they approach this subject, they get outrageously defensive and run away.

 

[Jose Fly]

I know of one other scientist (I can't think of his name right now) who has stated that, regardless of the science presented, he will believe the Bible.

Kurt Wise?

 

[ecco]

,

LOL.....can't argue with that.
Some science advocates seem to believe that evolution denialism is mostly driven by ignorance of the science. So they figure the best and most effective way to persuade the denialists is to try and show and explain the data to them. But as the threads at RF show, that just doesn't work. ...
So in order to get through to them, you have to get to that root issue (religious beliefs). However, very few creationists are secure enough in their faith to even begin going down that road......cough....cough.... @nPeace .....cough, and as soon as you even suggest that maybe, just maybe, their religion is a factor in how they approach this subject, they get outrageously defensive and run away.

I'll just cling to my theory...every theist believes in some parts of their Holy Scripture. Most see parts of Scripture as allegory and parts of Scripture as literal truth.

This creates a line between science and religion. That line can be moved, but only so far. There are Genesis-believing Christians who accept Adam & Eve and the tree and the talking snake as absolute factual truth. Some, those we refer to as YEC's, insist creation took place in six twenty four hour days. Some others have moved the line a little by convincing themselves that the "day" mentioned in scripture may be a length other than 24 hours - it may even be 1/2 billion years.

This rationalization, this actual-vs-allegory, allows the line to be moved (somewhat). Where that line lies is often dependent on the level of indoctrination the person has received and, in many cases, still receives, on a daily basis.

The more moderate folks just shift the actual-vs-allegory line further left. For example, they consider all of Genesis (or even all of the OT) as allegory but insist that every word related to JC is absolute fact.

The more important that religious beliefs are to a person, the less likely is the possibility of moving the line. Barring some traumatic event, I think once a person has reached his/her thirties, that line will never move.

Some years ago, I knew a man who had a sign in his office - God Said It - I Believe It - End of Story. I kind of admire that honesty.

On the other hand, there are people, we see them here, who, for some reason, can not express this honesty. Instead, they will try, feebly, to argue against the science. For the most part, the use variations of the tired old "Ya cain't prove elivution" argument.

I rarely debate science with these people anymore. It's futile. They will not - they can not, accept science where it conflicts with their ingrained religious beliefs.

 

[ecco]

Kurt Wise?

Yep. Thanks.

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate

​

I'd really like to see what psychiatrists and psychologists have to say about this. It's almost a form of Dissociative Identity Disorder.

 

[tas8831]

Animal
noun, plural: animals

A living organism belonging to Kingdom Animalia that possess several characteristics that set them apart from other living things, such as:

(1) being eukaryotic (i.e. the cell contains a membrane-bound nucleus) and usually multicellular (unlike bacteria and most protists, an animal is composed of several cells performing specific functions) (
2) being heterotrophic (unlike plants and algae that are autotrophic, an animal depends on another organism for sustenance) and generally digesting food in an internal chamber (such as a digestive tract)
(3) lacking cell wall (unlike plants, algae and some fungi that possess cell walls)
(4) being generally motile, that is being able to move voluntarily
(5) embryos passing through a blastula stage
(6) possessing specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment
Animal - Biology-Online Dictionary | Biology-Online Dictionary


You are an animal.

My gosh, the PHILOSOPHY of it all!

 

[tas8831]

One of the most prominent is Michael Behe and his concept of irreducible complexity. Michaels Behe's irreducible complexity has been debunked and refuted multiple times by multiple scientists.

Not to mention that Behe claimed at the Dover trial that it is not up to him to support his own claims!

He also published a paper declaring that evolution cannot produce a specific series of 2-mutations, therefore , the Designer did it. Problem was, he basically misrepresented evolution, since, evolution does not seek to produce specific mutations. Weird, of coourse, that he tried to show a problem with 'Darwinism' as opposed to testing his own claims.

 

[tas8831]

And then there is the vast majority.
Christians raise children. Most of these Christian children grow up and remain Christians.
Muslims raise children. Most of these Muslim children grow up and remain Muslims
Hindus raise children. Most of these Hindu children grow up and remain Hindus.

All of these religions are instilled into children in different ways.

If the introduction is done on a moderate level, then the child will be able to grow and understand nature and science. The proof is that there are people in the fields of biology that have religious beliefs and still accept evolution.

If the indoctrination is severe, if the child is taught to believe Holy Scripture as the absolute word of God, then the child can never accept anything that conflicts with the Scripture. The proof is that there are people in these forums who must deny and denigrate some aspects of science. They feel they must do this or lose their souls.




Do you understand?

Funny thing - I never 'taught' my kids evolution or atheism. My oldest used to attend church services with her friend for over a year when she was pretty young. She came to her own conclusions about religion. My youngest figured it all out on his own.

But while my daughter was attending those church services as a kid, her little friend used to say some pretty disturbing things, like "If you don't believe in God, you will die." She was told that in her church. Talk about indoctrination. Fear is a powerful brainwashing tool, and the religious wield it like a cudgel.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I've heard it before. There is no need to keep repeating myself.

So you knew when you said, "There is no real evidence that supports the evolution theory, if you are referring to changes on a large scale, that is, but good science does support ID, and as I said, I believe in good science," but you posited it anyway?

Good science does not support ID. That's why ID is not a scientific theory. There is only one scientific theory that adequately explains the biodiversity we see on earth. That's evolution, which contrary to your claim, is the most well-evidenced scientific theory in existence.

You mean after I reasoned with @Wild Fox about what he is doing, you come after and repeat.
Consider this.
Someone walks up to you, shoves a Bible in your face...
Reads...
Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt; their acts are vile. There is no one who does good.
Then says...
You are a fool.

Or they read this one...
John 8:42-47
...and then says, "You are a child of the Devil."

Would you accept that? Why not?

Nobody says you have to accept anything. You're free to believe any old thing you want.
But in a conversation about science and how science categorizes life on earth, you are in fact, both an animal and a human. You're also a mammal.

 

[metis]

Unmitigated hypocrisy? Name calling again? Is this a favorite thing with you?

"Hypocrisy" is not a name I called you as it refers to an action. Your dishonesty seems to quite pervasive with you as you just keep twisting things to suit your fancy.

Trying to marry direct creation with evolution is like straddling two horses going in opposite directions.....you have to pick one.

As has been explained many times to you by others and myself, that simply is not true. It's a matter of "interpretation", and you can't get it through your head that there can be and are other interpretations besides that which your JW masters have brainwashed you to believe. Common sense and experience studying scripture should tell you that people can read the same thing and view it differently, and yet you keep coming back with the same canard as with the above.

I have provided my arguments for the genetic barriers that exist in all creatures, quite a few times in various threads....sorry you missed them.

Again, I have not seen it, and I've seen others besides you make the same claim and yet there is nothing that you put forth by any of you as to exactly how "micro..." stops before "macro..." genetically from a scientific perspective. All that you do is resort back to your literalistic interpretation if the Creation accounts.

Can science show us solid evidence that branching ever took place except in their imagination?

Ya, it's called "the fossil record" and "genetic testing", which your literalistic interpretation simply cannot explain. If God stopped creating at the end of the 6th day, then how is it that these life forms keep changing? How is it that the genetic testing shows these transitions if there was nothing changed after day 6?

So, instead of using the Bible as a source of inspiration, your JW masters have convinced you to use it in a way to form blinders to both reality and Truth. The ToE does not take God out of Creation but helps to explain how God ultimately created all over billions of year of time.

Your position not only misrepresents my position, but then you go further to judge me, which violates what Jesus commanded you not to do. Over and over again this is what you do to those who dare to disagree with your interpretations. This is the wrong that your JW masters have convinced you as being right and moral. It's not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes. It is an answer, but apparently you don't get it, so I will try again to explain.

You said, "Why are you equating atheists with "evolutionists?" They're not one in the same."

I tried to explain that I was not equating atheists with "evolutionists, and I knew the difference. So I used the definition of "and".

There was an example "bread and butter".

If someone said bread and butter, they are not equating bread with butter, but you are saying that because I say atheists and evolutionists, that that automatically means that I am equating atheists with evolutionists - which I am not.

Atheist raise children. Evolutionist raise children.

The former does not believe in God, the latter believes in evolution.

So some children grow up not being taught anything about God, and some grow up believing that life evolved from unguided natural processes.

But you are still equating atheist with “evolutionist” when you suggest that atheists teach their children evolution in the home.

Someone can grow up being taught about God and then learn about natural processes in science class - and that's usually how it goes, because we all learn science in science classrooms (unless we’re home schooled). There are many people who accept science and also believe in God(s).

What you also seem to be implying is that people who don't believe in God teach evolution to their children as some sort of replacement for God beliefs. As though children growing up in households where their parents don't believe in God are being taught evolution at home. I don't know where you come up with that.

Do you understand?

No, I don't. You don't really think that atheists teach evolution to their children in place of God(s), do you?

Hence why I included people who should understand it, like biologist, chemist, and other ists.

Most biologists and chemists understand and accept evolution.

What point was that?

From post #602:

Also, you've failed to address the point about people from other ancient religions having "knowledge" that their religions were true as well. Well, they can't all be true. But they could all be false.

You asked me this... What kind of atheist brainwashing was Hitler involved in? Did you not?

Why do you have this idea that everything I say, I am equating one thing with another?

Because that’s what you have been doing.

People teaching people to worship the state and it's leader as a God are pushing a version of religion, they are not pushing atheism.

Atheism is lack of belief in God(s). There are no tenets, no principles, no beliefs. Nothing to be taught.

 

[tas8831]

Where in the Bible will I see a reference to God beginning the process of evolution?

Right next to where the bible explains where Cain and Abel's wives came from.

Where in the bible is there an explanation for the transmutation of silicates into bio-organic molecules as would be required to make a man from dust?

I have provided my arguments for the genetic barriers that exist in all creatures, quite a few times in various threads....sorry you missed them.

Me too - where are they? Were they devoid of jargon and scientific terminology and science, as you require?

Oh yes..."speciation"...it seems to me that we have had this conversation a few times too many. Speciation is what science has observed in a lab.....they experimented with fruit flies and stickleback fish and lo and behold.....a new "species" resulted.....what is a new species metis? Is it a new creature? NO! it is a new variety of the same creature. Creatures stay the same reproductively until there is an environmental change.....only then will they adapt to perpetuate their "kind". They do not become a new "kind" because reproductive programming will ensure that they remain in their own classification.

So scientific, so insightful.

Tell me about this "reproductive programming".

Don't we see the same thing with bacteria? They adapted to antibiotics by making themselves immune to them.

So much fact-based science! Totally not a human interpretation! Explain please.

This adaptive process did not change the bacteria into a new organism, but gave it the ability to survive...it was still a bacteria, just like the fruit flies were still fruit flies and the fish were still fish.

Why would acquiring antibiotic resistance change it to a new organism?

You just don't see the problem, do you? Adaptation does not change taxonomy. No creature will ever become the start of a new family of creatures by minor adaptive changes. They will adapt to survive, just like the finches and the iguanas did on the Galapagos Islands when Darwin observed them. He still saw finches and iguanas...didn't he?

Yes - different enough from each other that they warranted new taxonomic classifications.

Can science show us solid evidence that branching ever took place except in their imagination? What conclusive evidence is there for common ancestry? Diagrams they have...but real evidence is in very short supply.

You say stupid things like that because, by your own admission, you cannot understand the science behind those "diagrams." You rant about the condescension of atheists - look at you!

AGAIN, I present you with science that you asked for then dismissed because I didn't dumb it down for you:

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "​

You see, all of this is premised on just a couple of basic observations:
1.mutations happen
2. mutations occur randomly
3. offspring possess mutations that their parents do not have
3a. these unique mutations can be passed on to offspring
4. patterns of shared, unique mutations are indicative of descent

Very simple, very elegant, very true. Very frightening to religious people pretending to know more about science than they really do, who regardless put their fallible human interpretations of ancient middle eastern tall tales above all else...

 

[SkepticThinker]

Don't you say, that because people back then had no understand of certain phenomenon, they got terrified and attributed these to gods? Or am I mistaken? If I am, forgive me, please.

I say what I just said. Which was, "I have no reason to believe that people living in ancient times had access to any special kind of knowledge that we don't have access to today. In fact, all evidence points to them having far less knowledge about the world around them than we do today."

Again?

Yep again. If you're going to demand evidence from others you'd better be ready to provide some yourself.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In the simplest terms, as science already knows with certainty..."all life comes from pre-existing life". This well known and well documented fact cuts evolution down at its very beginnings. Unless science can produce evidence to correct Genesis 1:1, then it is all built on the flimsiest of foundations.

Evolution doesn't say that all life doesn't come from pre-existing life. So what point are you trying to make?

I have learned, after many years of debating with evolutionists, that the impressive edifice they have constructed has no real foundations. You guys come unstuck at the very beginning......where did life originate and how did do so? The complexity of even a single cell is mind boggling and yet science presents it as if it could just pop up out of nowhere, by "natural" means. That is where your own 'fairy tale' begins. It is swept under the rug as if it was inconsequential...it isn't. Answer that question and you have an answer for everything that science is scratching its head about.

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life any more than gravitational theory or germ theory explains the origin of life. It's not supposed to. Of course, you already know this, having been told about it numerous times.

You make assumptions about creation that are not true. If there is a sole Creator of life in all its diversity, then the structure of biological life and the materials used would of necessity be the same. He is the Creator of matter, something science has only come to terms with relatively recently (taking the age of the earth and the universe into account.)

The evidence that the God you believe in created matter is .... ?

I see science as something the Creator gave us to 'play' with....to challenge our natural curiosity and need for answers about everything. But due to the nature of fallen humanity, they ended up using it to eliminate the very one to whom they owe their existence. Like toddlers refusing the hand of a parent and falling down repeatedly. I guess they figure that they will learn to walk by themselves eventually. They haven't made it yet...by a long shot.

Evidence?

Evolution is the best suggestion if one is determined to eliminate an Intelligent Designer who started the process through stages of carefully planned creative activity over millions of Earth years. Unconstrained by time, the "days" in Genesis may well have been millions of years in length leaving him to experiment with lifeforms of infinite variety. Some were 'keepers' and some were obviously not. Ask any artist if they are satisfied with every work they have created. Each of the creative "days" in Genesis was concluded with a declaration of the Creator's satisfaction with what he had accomplished in that allotted period. That tells us believers that when the time allotted concluded, that his refinements within that period were completed to his satisfaction.

Evolution is the scientific theory that best fits all available evidence from multiple fields of science. Period. Designers and creators are not included because their existence is completely lacking in evidence. You can't include things in scientific theories that can't be explained. That removes God(s) from the equation.

If you assert that the specific God you believe in experimented with lifeforms to give us all we see today, then you need to provide evidence for that assertion. As in , you need to provide the same thing that you demand of others.

The "default" position of science is colored by their own prejudices....it must at all costs (credibility included) EXCLUDE the need for a Creator.....a "bogey man" to science. I blame the YEC for a lot of this. Their scenario is just as ridiculous.
The "best explanation" for science is accepted only within their own definition.

Let us know when you have evidence for the specific creator you believe in.

Those who believe in a powerful Creator do not need to dissect him and question his work, his authority, or his accomplishments. They have an actual relationship with this Being that atheists will never comprehend because you need the faculty of spirituality to even entertain it. That faculty is ridiculed by science because it isn't something that can show up on a lab test......although medical science is actually making headway on that score with the ability to map the brain to see where humans differ on their approach to things. It may well have implications that we need to understand. I believe that a scary future awaits the human race if its "science" is not reigned in.

Wow, what a great way to learn new things about the universe! Don't dissect it, don't question it or the authority of God - just believe.
We'd never learn anything if we all behaved in such an ignorant manner.

Science is a wonderful thing IMO...a gift from the Creator to allow us to delve into his creation and discover what is deliberately not obvious. He planned it that way...but when things went wrong and humans wanted to map their own course...he allowed them to see where it would take them.....do you like the direction that science is taking us, when they have eliminated the one entity who can warn them of the outcome? I see them continuing on in their merry way....gods unto themselves.

More claims completely lacking in evidence. Ho hum.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes. Evolution is all around us, and when we see it, it is so beautiful.

Fact : a thing that is indisputably the case.

Evolution on a large scale is not a fact. It requires hundreds, or thousands of miracles. It never happened.
I believe God's works are miraculous, do you?

I'm starting to wonder if you actually know what evolution is.

Evolution is a fact of life. The theory of evolution is the explanation describing that fact of life.

I don't believe in God(s). Why should I?
Even scientists who do believe in God don't feel the need to include "him" in their scientific explanations of the natural world. See: Francis Collins.

 

[metis]

Everyone knows that macroEvolution takes millions of years for anyone to be able to observe its effects directly. Unless you plan on seeing what humans will become in the next few million years, it is a very safe position to hide behind. Of course it ignores the convergence of all the physical, chemical, genetic, archeological, paleontological, anatomical, and radiological evidence, that actually justifies the models used to form rational and consistent conclusions(inductive and deductive reasoning).

Where is the evidence for the exact moment when your child stops being an infant, and becomes a toddler? Where is the evidence for the exact moment when the adolescents becomes an adults? Like all biological growths, macroEvolution is the result of a series of micro-Evolutions. Asking where one stops and where one begins, is a nonsense question. Like asking what was before time? Or, asking for evidence of the exact moment when a dinosaur became a bird(ignoring the many transitional species). This is also a nonsense question. But this is another safe claim because no single definitive species could possibly exist, because that is not how evolution works. Evolution is the smallest of gradual changes occurring over time. Many times one or two genetic mutations over hundreds of thousands of years.

Since you seem to believe in kinds, you should fair better than this guy in the "phylogeny challenge".

To understand this challenge better see below.

In case Aron goes a bit too fast, let me help. In the most simplest terms, show me any KIND of life(plant or animal), that does not belong to an even larger KIND of life, both morphologically and genetically? For example, a whale and a pine tree are genetically and morphologically related. If they are different and separate kinds, then they both must have their own ancestral kind, which can't be related to each other in any way.This of course this is not the case. In fact, at some evolutionary/ancestral level, all life is genetically, morphologically, and physically related to each other. Therefore there is only one KIND of life, and it is called LIFE. But there are many different types of life. These can be categorized, based on the simplest to the most complex features, and from the many similar features to the least similar features. What this means is that one KIND can never become another KIND. You can never outgrow your ancestors, no matter how many times you differentiate.

Even if science couldn't produce any evidence that demonstrates that Evolution is clearly the best explanation of how life evolved, your evidence must stand on its own merits. It wouldn't be simply correct by default. That would still be an argument from ignorance. So what is the creationist's research undertaken? What is the science behind the knowledge claims? Surely, you can present the same level of evidence against Evolution, as scientist can present for Evolution?

For some reason you have me taking the opposite viewpoint from that which I actually have. In reality, I'm a retired anthropologist who taught about human evolution, and the ToE in general, for about 30 years.