The Miracle of Water.

[SkepticThinker]

Just depends on your lens, doesn't it? We each think the other fellow's viewpoint is based on fantasy....but if you examine the evidence carefully, you will see as much faith demonstrated in both camps as each other. But only one admits to their view being based on evidence (different interpretation) as well as faith. The other calls supposition "evidence". The fact is, we are all supposing and we could both be wrong.....I choose faith in God because I see intelligent design everywhere in nature, too many times to be convenient accidents of evolution.

Yeah I guess it depends on whether or not you care about what is actually true or not, or whether you want to believe what you already believe. Myself; I care about what is true.

When all the observable, verifiable, repeatable evidence from almost every field of science points to the same conclusion, I have to think they’re on to something, don’t you? I mean, you accept germ theory, right? Gravitational Theory? The only one you don’t seem to accept is the one that you believe contradicts your pre-existing religious views. Think about that for a minute sometime.

Please stop equating science with religious belief with your assertions about “faith.” They are not equal. The only way I can think that they would be equal were if you could demonstrate the existence of your God, or provide some measurement of this God’s actions in the natural world. You know, something somewhere close to the amount of evidence that exists for evolution.

Evolution is a fact.

You can have faith in science's interpretation of their evidence, but I know what makes logical sense to me.

No, I don’t. You know why? Because I can SEE the evidence, I can examine the evidence, and if I want to, I can repeat the experiments and come up with the same results.

Design requires planning and planning requires intelligence and a concept of the future, with the design achieving a pre-conceived purpose. In human experience, this is always the case.

The problem is that you just declare that everything is designed without actually demonstrating that it is. What would you say if scientists did that?

Only in evolution do we see this departure from what science "knows" to what it "believes" could be true.

Nope.

Please go read an article on gravitational theory. You will see the same language used there that is used when discussing evolution, or germ theory, or anything else in science. You would agree that gravity is real, right?

But it isn't. A fact is provable...macro-evolution is not provable. Adaptation is provable, but there is no way to prove that "micro" can slide right into "macro" with no real evidence that it ever happened.

But it is. Organisms change over time. That’s a fact. There is observable change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. That’s a fact.

What you refer to as adaptation, is simply evolution. Why is it that science deniers always want to make up their own definitions? Is it so you can avoid reality?

Yes they can....but science has only ever observed minor changes in one class of organisms or creatures that never stepped outside their taxonomy. There is no proof that they can.

That is an uncomfortable fact.

You’ve been shown otherwise so many times I’ve lost count.

Yet you’ll continue to tow the same erroneous line, as you’ve demonstrated. That doesn’t sound to me like someone who is interested in the truth.

No, I'm sorry but that is an assumption. The "explanation" is a suggestion about what "might have" happened but retold as if it "must have". Science has nothing substantive.

No, it isn’t. It’s literally the definition of the term. LOL

Gravity is not hard to prove. Using gravity to back up the ToE is actually not telling the truth, but like suggesting that "micro" can become "macro" when there is nothing to back it up. It's a disguised suggestion....and that is called marketing.

It’s the exact same thing.

Gravity is not an entirely settled subject either – yet I don’t see you going on about that. Again, you appear to only have a problem with the one scientific theory that you think contradicts you’re pre-existing religious beliefs. I’ll ask you again to think about that.

Marketing? That’s funny.

You're right....having an Intelligent Designer just makes perfect, uncomplicated sense

Oh wow, look how clever you are, changing the subject like that.

Actually, it doesn’t. Where did this Intelligent Designer come from? HOW did this intelligent designer design and create the universe? It just creates even more questions.

.....but only to those who use their logic based on what science can actually prove. I know the "p" word is inconvenient, but that is what it takes to make something a fact....not demeaning accusations about people's intelligence or education.

Let’s face facts here, you have to deny observable, demonstrable science in order to maintain your religious beliefs. That has become glaringly obvious, and oozes from most of your posts.

Suggestions can't masquerade as facts without challenge. But the challenge is never met with anything but excuses for why there is no "proof"...and why I theory isn't really a theory when science owns it.

You’re just repeating the same thing over and over, almost like a mantra.

Here’s my suggestion then. Write down your challenges to evolutionary theory. Send them to a reputable science journal, where they can be addressed and discussed and hashed out. Do it like a real scientists. Hey, maybe you’ll win a Nobel Prize.

Science's "evidence" is their explanation....not to be confused with truth or facts. Suggesting that something "might have" or "could have" happened, doesn't mean it did.

I find it fascinating that the scientific method has been explained to you so many times and yet you still keep getting it wrong. Again, ask yourself why you have to distort and deny reality in order to maintain your pre-existing religious beliefs.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't recall suggesting that ID be taught in a science classroom. But I did suggest that it be taught for what it is.....suggested possibilities for the explanation of the diversity of life.

ID shouldn't be taught in public schools. It's religion. Teach it to your kids in your homes and churches if you like, but you can't use the state to round up children and indoctrinate them with religious concepts.

And it would be good if scientists were honest enough to say we can't prove macro-evolution ever happened.

Still with proof? Do you never learn? Let me remind you for the tenth time, we don't require proof. You can wait for it until the cows come home, but scienceis moving on.

The evidence relies on the interpretation....so who is the interpreter?

The scientific community. Nobody else is qualified, even those who happen to agree with the scientific community, and certainly not a religion dependent on science being wrong.

Why should I be confident about the interpretation when it is bound to be skewed towards evolution

It's fine if you don't join us.

And of course it will be skewed toward evolution just as the science of infectious diseases is skewed toward the germ theory, and celestial mechanics is skewed toward gravitation theory. Science is also skewed toward the heliocentirc theory, so you'd probably better be suspicious of that as well.

if the Creator proves himself at some time in the future, then all the science that supports evolution will be flushed down the proverbial toilet.

So will the Christian god, which has actually already happened. One of the many questions you like to evade has been about what becomes of the existing evidence if evolutionary theory is ever falsified? Nothing. It doesn't go away. It merely needs to be reinterpreted in the light of the falsifying finding, and there is no room for a loving god that wants to be known, believed, obeyed, and worshiped. All that would remain is a deceptive creator that went to great lengths to cause us to believe that life evolved. That's not the Christian god.

I know enough and understand enough to identify a clever snow job when I see it.

Um, no you don't. You've fallen for a very big lie.

Falsification cannot be presented because there is nothing real to disprove.

No, falsification of a falsifiable statement isn't possible if the statement is correct.

How do you disprove something that never happened?

Seriously? I can prove that somebody's alleged death never occurred simply by producing the person.

You complain about the intelligence of certain people being criticized, then make a comment like this that shows a lack of understanding of what reason applied to evidence can produce.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I beg to differ. It is not taught as a theory in the true sense of the word, but in the scientific sense

In science classes, the scientific definition of theory is used. Scientists also have specific definitions for words like work and speed that are different from their lay meanings.

You want evolution presented as a guess. It's not. Creationism is the guess.

it means "beyond rational thinking to deny it"

No, that is not what the phrase scientific theory means.

Once again, if you want your intelligence and your offered opinions respected, you need to do better that spout religious apologetics with all of its errors. As long as you keep authoritatively making erroneous pronouncements, you will be called for it. You have no right to expect that your errors be overlooked because you don't like being called uneducated, or that your opinions be respected. All that is respected is your right to hold and express them, not the opinions themselves.

I never have promoted creationism. (i.e. he world and everything in it was created in 7 literal days)

That's young earth creationism. You are a proponent of a different form of creationism.

If you build a skyscraper on a flimsy foundation, its not going to stand for very long. Everyone is looking at the impressive architecture, but no one seems to notice that the foundations are made of matchsticks.

My worldview, secular humanism, is based on reason applied to compassion and evidence, and it has given us science, which has taken man to the moon and back wile ridding the world of smallpox and polio, and the modern liberal, democratic state with limited government and guaranteed personal rights.

Yours is based in wishes and hopes. That's a pretty flimsy foundation for belief.

Since I do not practice alchemy or astrology (both actually forbidden in the Bible) what are you inferring?

I'm inferring exactly what I said. Faith based systems like ID, alchemy and astrology have all been sterile. It doesn't matter that you have rejected two of these.

Is Darwin's theory any more than a premise that goes beyond what science can actually prove?

Still with the proof. Please don't criticize the questioning of your intelligence. You simply cannot learn.

And yes, Darwin's theory goes well beyond a premise. It's settled science. It's an established scientific theory. You can't change that with arguments. You need falsifying evidence.

I just think its a desperate act when certain ones have to attack their opponent with insinuations about questionable intelligence and lack of education just to make themselves appear to be more intelligent and better educated.

See above.

 

[Deeje]

No, that is not what the phrase scientific theory means.

Well I have had more than one 'scientist' here tell me that this is what a scientific theory means. It is supposed to have so much "evidence" (careful not to use the "p" word) supporting it that "it is beyond all rational thinking to deny it"...I believe Dawkins and his cronies say something similar.
You mean that's not true? Isn't that where the accusations about our lack of rational thinking originates?

That's young earth creationism. You are a proponent of a different form of creationism.

Is our version of ID, "creationism"? I prefer to simply call it "Intelligent Design". I don't know that any other religious group believes what we believe about our Intelligent Designer.
"Creationism" is associated with YEC, which is so far removed from what we believe, that we prefer not to call it that. OK with you? You choose what to call yourself, can we not have the same privilege?

My worldview, secular humanism, is based on reason applied to compassion and evidence, and it has given us science, which has taken man to the moon and back wile ridding the world of smallpox and polio, and the modern liberal, democratic state with limited government and guaranteed personal rights.

And you believe all that? You are free to believe it if you wish. I have reservations about a lot of it, personally. You should see what's coming......its going to turn everything you believe on its ear....but hey what do I know? Its just what the Bible says.....but don't say I didn't warn you.

Yours is based in wishes and hopes. That's a pretty flimsy foundation for belief.

If I only had 'wishes and hopes' that might be true...but I have so much more than that. How would you know? I guess it depends on what one considers a 'flimsy foundation'? Evolution has nothing real to stand on at all......so I don't think you can get much more flimsy than that. It doesn't seem to bother you though.

I'm inferring exactly what I said. Faith based systems like ID, alchemy and astrology have all been sterile. It doesn't matter that you have rejected two of these.

You can lump them together if you wish.....but they are nothing alike. ID is not even in the same ball park.

Please don't criticize the questioning of your intelligence. You simply cannot learn.

Hmmmm.."cannot learn" or "cannot be convinced without real evidence"? Please show us how and why you have such confidence in something that happened long before Christ walked the earth, and there was no one to record a single thing about any of it? People talk about ancient myths.....I don't think you can get much more ancient than yours.

The fossils are saying nothing unless the scientists put words in their bony mouths. So show us the real substantiated evidence that macro-evolution is not a figment of science's imagination. Show us the evidence that single celled organisms can transform themselves into all the living things we see on this planet.....try doing that without assumption, assertion or suggestion. We have those....and you reject them.

And yes, Darwin's theory goes well beyond a premise. It's settled science. It's an established scientific theory. You can't change that with arguments. You need falsifying evidence.

Its "settled science" to the 'settled scientists' who don't need to prove anything to each other because they all believe the same things for all the same reasons. It is "established scientific theory" because the scientists established it between themselves. Who is going to argue with them? Someone who wants to be made a fool of and laughed out of a job?

How can you falsify something for which there was never any real evidence in the first place? And you guys think we're brainwashed!?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well I have had more than one 'scientist' here tell me that this is what a scientific theory means.

Look it up yourself for an accurate definition.

It is supposed to have so much "evidence" (careful not to use the "p" word) supporting it that "it is beyond all rational thinking to deny it"

Do I see the beginnings of you learning something? Are you learning the difference between proof and evidence, and the roles they play and do not play?

Yes, scientific theories are well-evidenced. Here are different attempts to define the term. Will you read and learn them? :

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge. The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope" -- Scientific theory - Wikipedia

=====

"The four main requirements that a scientific theory must fulfill. 1) A theory must originate from, and be well supported by, experimental evidence. Anecdotal or unsubstantiated reports don't qualify. It must be supported by many strands of evidence, and not just a single foundation. You'll find that most pseudoscience is supported by only a single foundation. 2) A theory must be specific enough to be falsifiable by testing. If it cannot be tested or refuted, it can't qualify as a theory. And if something is truly testable, others must be able to repeat the tests and get the same results. You'll find that this feature is truly rare among pseudosciences; they'll generally claim some excuse or make up a reason why it can't be tested or repeated by others. 3) A theory must make specific, testable predictions about things not yet observed. 4) A theory must allow for changes based on the discovery of new evidence. It must be dynamic, tentative, and correctable. You'll find that most pseudoscience does not allow for changes based on new discoveries. How to Spot Pseudoscience

========

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of obs ervations and experiments. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge." –Wiki

Isn't that where the accusations about our lack of rational thinking originates?

That originates in the choice to believe by faith. There is nothing rational about faith.

Its just what the Bible says.....but don't say I didn't warn you.

I am certain that the Bible is mythology, and its threats empty.

If I only had 'wishes and hopes' that might be true...but I have so much more than that. How would you know?

Because I come from a background of faith-based thinking, and I know what that is.

Evolution has nothing real to stand on at all......so I don't think you can get much more flimsy than that. It doesn't seem to bother you though.

Your judgments of the validity of the scientific theory of biological evolution don't affect mine at all. I consider you wrong.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You can lump them together if you wish.....but they are nothing alike. ID is not even in the same ball park.

ID, alchemy, and astrology each share two qualities that I have enumerated. They're all faith-based, that is, believed without sufficient supporting evidence, and they have all been sterile.

"cannot learn" or "cannot be convinced without real evidence"?

You don't do evidence. You can't see it.

Please show us how and why you have such confidence in something that happened long before Christ walked the earth, and there was no one to record a single thing about any of it?

I've already told you several times:

The theory of evolution is a conceptual framework that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications in areas like medicine and agriculture that have improved the human condition.

If you understood evidence, you would understand that this is all evidence that the theory is correct. This isn't possible with an idea like astrology that is mostly or completely wrong. If the principles of astrology accurately mapped some aspect of reality, they would yield truths rather than meaningless horoscopes.

So show us the real substantiated evidence that macro-evolution is not a figment of science's imagination. Show us the evidence that single celled organisms can transform themselves into all the living things we see on this planet.....try doing that without assumption, assertion or suggestion. We have those....and you reject them.

There is no burden of proof when dealing with a person who decides what is true about the world by faith. I cannot pierce that with mere reason and evidence, so there is no point in trying, and certainly no obligation to succeed.

Teaching and learning are a two (or more) party cooperative effort. The student must bring the skill necessary to follow and judge an argument applied to evidence, as well as a willingness to be convinced by a compelling argument - the definition of open-mindedness. You have already announced more than once that no evidence will ever change you mind, which removes the motivation to present it to you.

Besides, it's all on the Internet. If you ever take an interest in evidence, you can find it there yourself.

How can you falsify something for which there was never any real evidence in the first place? And you guys think we're brainwashed!?

Yes, indoctrinated and undereducated. If you understood what falsifiability and falsification were, you wouldn't ask that question. It's like asking how astrology can be falsified if there was never really any evidence in support of it. That exactly the kind of idea that, if wrong, can often be shown to be wrong.

Or consider a false and unsupported claim that a certain suspect killed a certain victim. A solid alibi falsifies the claim.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Well I have had more than one 'scientist' here tell me that this is what a scientific theory means. It is supposed to have so much "evidence" (careful not to use the "p" word) supporting it that "it is beyond all rational thinking to deny it"...I believe Dawkins and his cronies say something similar.
You mean that's not true? Isn't that where the accusations about our lack of rational thinking originates?



Is our version of ID, "creationism"? I prefer to simply call it "Intelligent Design". I don't know that any other religious group believes what we believe about our Intelligent Designer.
"Creationism" is associated with YEC, which is so far removed from what we believe, that we prefer not to call it that. OK with you? You choose what to call yourself, can we not have the same privilege?



And you believe all that? You are free to believe it if you wish. I have reservations about a lot of it, personally. You should see what's coming......its going to turn everything you believe on its ear....but hey what do I know? Its just what the Bible says.....but don't say I didn't warn you.



If I only had 'wishes and hopes' that might be true...but I have so much more than that. How would you know? I guess it depends on what one considers a 'flimsy foundation'? Evolution has nothing real to stand on at all......so I don't think you can get much more flimsy than that. It doesn't seem to bother you though.



You can lump them together if you wish.....but they are nothing alike. ID is not even in the same ball park.



Hmmmm.."cannot learn" or "cannot be convinced without real evidence"? Please show us how and why you have such confidence in something that happened long before Christ walked the earth, and there was no one to record a single thing about any of it? People talk about ancient myths.....I don't think you can get much more ancient than yours.

The fossils are saying nothing unless the scientists put words in their bony mouths. So show us the real substantiated evidence that macro-evolution is not a figment of science's imagination. Show us the evidence that single celled organisms can transform themselves into all the living things we see on this planet.....try doing that without assumption, assertion or suggestion. We have those....and you reject them.



Its "settled science" to the 'settled scientists' who don't need to prove anything to each other because they all believe the same things for all the same reasons. It is "established scientific theory" because the scientists established it between themselves. Who is going to argue with them? Someone who wants to be made a fool of and laughed out of a job?

How can you falsify something for which there was never any real evidence in the first place? And you guys think we're brainwashed!?

"Intelligent design is a type of creationism. It believes that the universe is so complex that it must have been designed by a higher intelligent being. This theory is that life did not evolve by natural selection. Creationists use intelligent design as an explanation of how life was formed.". Both are mutually inclusive.

Please show us how and why you have such confidence in something that happened long before Christ walked the earth, and there was no one to record a single thing about any of it?

How do we know what we had for dinner a week ago? By using our inductive and deductive reasoning ability. You can always maintain your presuppositions by ignoring and dismissing scientific evidence, but you must use evidence to make a rational argument. By making uninformed criticisms of science, only exposes your ignorance of the science. Hence, you will always remain on the periphery of knowledge, ignored and eventually forgotten. So please, explain why every possible natural explanation of the origin of the Universe, and the creation of all life, should all be discarded, and only YOUR creation myth be accepted?

The fossils are saying nothing unless the scientists put words in their bony mouths. So show us the real substantiated evidence that macro-evolution is not a figment of science's imagination. Show us the evidence that single celled organisms can transform themselves into all the living things we see on this planet.....try doing that without assumption, assertion or suggestion. We have those....and you reject them.

Macro-Evolution is the result of many tiny Micro-Evolutions over time. So stop parroting this nonsense. Especially since there are no living earlier species of man still around to explain to you personally what the difference is. Also, no one can live long enough to see the results of Macro Evolution, while it is occurring. But you don't need to sit through the whole game, to know who won. What makes you think that cells transform into living things? Cells ARE living things. Cells are the structural and functional building blocks of all life. Lose enough of these and you will no longer be among the living. All organisms are composed of these living units, which become differentiated(specialized), multicellular, organs, systems, and the total organism. You see an example of this every time you look into the mirror. In short, you are literally the product of your environment and the Universe. We do not need to make any assertions, assumptions, or suggestions, about anything that we clearly understand. But why stop at the cell? Why not ask how quarks form the atoms, and how the atoms form molecules? And finally, how molecules transform themselves into "all the living things we see on this planet"? I guess if oxygen and hydrogen are gasses, then water must also be a gas, right?

So show me the sacred blueprints that your imaginary designer used to design the Universe, and all of life? Demonstrate how this design became reality? Was it poofed into reality(like creationist believe), or were there lesser Gods tasked with different assignments? What was the mechanism that they used? I expect the same level of evidence that you expect of science. It would be much more honest if you just admit, that this is your belief and you won't let facts and evidence get in the way of your truth. At least this way, you can avoid exposing how little you do know about the science you are criticizing.

How can you falsify something for which there was never any real evidence in the first place? And you guys think we're brainwashed!?

After asking such a silly question, Absolutely.

 

[Jose Fly]

There is no burden of proof when dealing with a person who decides what is true about the world by faith. I cannot pierce that with mere reason and evidence, so there is no point in trying.

I just wanted to pull this segment out of your post and give you kudos. Very well put, and very, very true!

 

[ecco]

It is supposed to have so much "evidence" (careful not to use the "p" word)

Congratulations.

 

[ecco]

"Creationism" is associated with YEC,

No. Creationism was called creationism because people believed and preached God created everything. When they got into trouble for referring to God, they changed the wording to Intelligent Design. If you want evidence for this read up on
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

 

[ecco]

Its "settled science" to the 'settled scientists' who don't need to prove anything to each other because they all believe the same things for all the same reasons. It is "established scientific theory" because the scientists established it between themselves. Who is going to argue with them? Someone who wants to be made a fool of and laughed out of a job?

You are under the mistaken impression that scientists like to agree with the status quo. Every young scientist would like nothing better than to come up with something that turns the establishment on their heads. But it has to be a real something. There has to be evidence to support it. Like Continental Drift.


If not, then someone will deservedly, be made a fool of and laughed out of a job.

If a JW preacher stood up and argued, without evidence, that Charles Taze Russell was really a woman, wouldn't he deserve to be laughed at and (probably) excommunicated?

 

[Deeje]

Do I see the beginnings of you learning something? Are you learning the difference between proof and evidence, and the roles they play and do not play?

Yes...I have always known the difference between something you can "prove" and something you can't. I think everyone should be able to make that distinction....don't you?

Guesses and assumptions based on pre-conceived ideas, and then postulated through leading suggestions should never be presented as facts...should they?

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

Let's break this down....."A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method." So who was it that invented the scientific method by which all these conclusions are reached?......Scientists.

"using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results." Can you tell me how something that supposedly took place billions of years ago can be "observed"?....measured?.....verified? Oh yes...using the "scientific method".....which was formulated by....scientists.....no possible bias in their interpretation or anything.

Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning.

So what do we have real evidence for in evolution? Adaptation.
Controlled experiments can "prove" that adaptive mechanisms are invoked when a species is forced into a new environment or forced to eat a different food. Its a survival mechanism that perpetuates an organism or creature whilst maintaining its taxonomic family classification. So when science takes that mechanism to suggest something that cannot be observed or tested in a lab, then "abductive reasoning" comes into play.

What is abductive reasoning?
"Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference, or retroduction) is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations." (Wiki)

Abductive reasoning: taking your best shot
Abductive reasoning typically begins with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the set. Abductive reasoning yields the kind of daily decision-making that does its best with the information at hand, which often is incomplete."

Deductive, Inductive and Abductive Reasoning - TIP Sheet - Butte College

Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

"Established scientific theories"....who established them? Whose rigorous scrutiny were these pieces of evidence getting? And who formulated the "scientific knowledge" upon which their conclusions were drawn?

I don't worship science, so therefore I give it about as much credence in the big scheme of things as you do my Intelligent Creator. You actually require more faith to accept what science is teaching than anyone who believes in an Intelligent Designer. You believe in the intelligence of the scientist....we believe in the intelligence of the one who created what science seeks to study. I know what seems more reasonable and logical to me.

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.

Yes, its amazing how a word can come to mean the exact opposite of what it was originally intended to mean.....if enough people accept that it has to.

In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid.

Again..."tested"?.....how do you test something that happened supposedly billions of years ago?
"Widely accepted"....by whom? The people who gave it their best shot at guessing what might have happened when no one was around to record any of it?
They took something testable and talked it way past anything that they can substantiate, and we are supposed to believe them? You can if you like.

These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope" -- Scientific theory - Wikipedia

So another word comes to have an opposite meaning in science to what it does in the original language usage? "Prediction".....not the same as "prediction" which means..."to say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something." Which one is which again?

 

[Deeje]

"The four main requirements that a scientific theory must fulfill. 1) A theory must originate from, and be well supported by, experimental evidence. Anecdotal or unsubstantiated reports don't qualify. It must be supported by many strands of evidence, and not just a single foundation. You'll find that most pseudoscience is supported by only a single foundation.

Again, lets break them down......

1) How is 'macro-evolution' well supported by experimental evidence? There is none. Macro-evolution is an invention of science's imagination based on what they assume "might" happen if adaptation was to go above species level.....they have never seen it do that. They have suggestions and assumptions about it.....that's all.

2) A theory must be specific enough to be falsifiable by testing. If it cannot be tested or refuted, it can't qualify as a theory.

Well, there you go.....it "must be specific enough to be falsifiable by testing." There is no testing possible. "If it cannot be tested or refuted, it can't qualify as a theory." So by science's own definition, macro-evolution does not qualify as a theory. It cannot be tested, and you cannot falsify something that was not true in the first place.

And if something is truly testable, others must be able to repeat the tests and get the same results. You'll find that this feature is truly rare among pseudosciences; they'll generally claim some excuse or make up a reason why it can't be tested or repeated by others.

You are forgetting that our beliefs do not require science to back them up, although I have to say that so far, our beliefs are looking pretty good compared to yours. We at least have an intelligent source for the amazing complexity of life on this planet. Accidents of nature do not produce brilliant design.
Design requires planning...nature doesn't plan....or does it?

Ask the creatures who store food away for the winter why they do that? Is it because they are aware that food may become scarce and they better get the pantry stocked? Or is it instinct? What is instinct? Might we compare it to a computer program? Do those programs require a programmer? Isn't it possible that the program was written in their DNA so that they could survive the winter, well fed? Sounds designed to me.

3) A theory must make specific, testable predictions about things not yet observed. 4) A theory must allow for changes based on the discovery of new evidence. It must be dynamic, tentative, and correctable. You'll find that most pseudoscience does not allow for changes based on new discoveries. How to Spot Pseudoscience

Oh yes....we must be wary of pseudo science.....the one that makes predictions based on things that they cannot test or verify. Which one are we talking about?

And this science can never be exact because the foundation upon which it is built doesn't exist in reality.....only in the imagination of the scientists who must be ready at all times to change their opinion, based on what other scientists might say to turn the whole concept upside down.....but make sure you teach it as a fact and ridicule anyone who disagrees with what science cannot verify.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge." –Wiki

Yep...that's what they say.....not many of those words really apply if we are being completely truthful, but you are taught to think they do.

You are welcome to them

 

[Deeje]

"Intelligent design is a type of creationism. It believes that the universe is so complex that it must have been designed by a higher intelligent being. This theory is that life did not evolve by natural selection. Creationists use intelligent design as an explanation of how life was formed.". Both are mutually inclusive.

But definitions given by man don't always sum up the beliefs of others correctly. Our view of Intelligent Design does not necessarily follow what other ID proponents may believe. Our view of Christianity may not be what others classify as "Christian" either. The differences are important I think.
No point in being 'different' unless you can explain the differences. Our beliefs are quite specific; they align with what science "knows" and are reasonable and logical IMV.

By making uninformed criticisms of science, only exposes your ignorance of the science.

I have no beef with science per se...in fact I love science.....its just that one branch that seems so intent on spreading its godlessness all over Earth's population that bothers me. Its not taught as a tentative theory that could be changed tomorrow, but as undeniable fact....and to children!

The undeniable fact is that none of it is "provable". I know how much that word is despised in evolutionary circles......but its the truth.

Hence, you will always remain on the periphery of knowledge, ignored and eventually forgotten. So please, explain why every possible natural explanation of the origin of the Universe, and the creation of all life, should all be discarded, and only YOUR creation myth be accepted?

I have been here a good while and still getting responses....those ignoring me are of no consequence in the big picture.....this is just an internet discussion forum after all......sometimes it seems more like a gladiatorial contest. The atheists here are just as passionate about their "beliefs" as we are.

Macro-Evolution is the result of many tiny Micro-Evolutions over time.

Can you provide real evidence for that statement? How does science know this when it has never observed it? It can't be tested so it has to be based on assumption.

there are no living earlier species of man still around to explain to you personally what the difference is.

What did "earlier species of man" look like? And if science couldn't tell a ape skull from a human initially, then where do you think these images came from?

Take your pick.....

You see, the thing is....when science first started to teach evolution to school children the following image was presented very differently. They portrayed early man as stooped and ape-like. But as you can see their findings made them correct their images to reflect something that became apparent...early man was not stooped, but walked upright like we do. But instead of correcting the imagery to reflect a more upright human, the illustrations featured instead an upright walking ape. Its a sneaky bit of illusion. There is no evidence of upright walking apes who evolved in to us.

There is no evidence that all humans were ape-like or even primitive either. Even in today's world, there are still primitive people. Some have features that are very different to the humans we are used to looking at.

 

[Deeje]

Also, no one can live long enough to see the results of Macro Evolution, while it is occurring. But you don't need to sit through the whole game, to know who won.

Yes but it helps to see them playing. When only one team is on the field, its not much of a game really, and who cares about the winner if there are no others allowed on the field?

What makes you think that cells transform into living things? Cells ARE living things. Cells are the structural and functional building blocks of all life.

Is that what I said? Doesn't evolution teach that single celled organisms were the first to exist and then somehow they saw the need to replicate themselves and evolve into multi-cellular life? Those tiny microscopic things just kept on evolving until dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Guess those clever little cells just didn't know when to stop!

If I see a stack of bricks built into a wall, the one thing I am sure of, is that someone made those bricks. They didn't just "poof" themselves into existence, yet this is what I see science suggesting. No one provided the bricks and there was no bricklayer. That is totally illogical.

All organisms are composed of these living units, which become differentiated(specialized), multicellular, organs, systems, and the total organism.

Yes, isn't it amazing!? Those cells are programmed to become hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys, bones and brains......no one programmed them to do that....it just magically happens, like a computer that nobody programmed. Do you have one of those?......me neither.

We do not need to make any assertions, assumptions, or suggestions, about anything that we clearly understand. But why stop at the cell? Why not ask how quarks form the atoms, and how the atoms form molecules? And finally, how molecules transform themselves into "all the living things we see on this planet"? I guess if oxygen and hydrogen are gasses, then water must also be a gas, right?

I don't think I need to go there to explain about my Creator. All I need to know is that no living thing appeared on this planet who had no air to breathe, no food to eat, and no water to drink. They had a home prepared for them before they arrived, fully equipped to sustain them. What an amazing coincidence all of that is. Not to mention that these living creatures just happen to have the ability to reproduce replicas of themselves. They never stray outside their own kind to find a mate, and no one had to teach them how to survive or how to find food. They instinctively know what to eat and their habitat provides it.

We will leave the assertions, assumptions and suggestions to the experts.....who keep telling us they have no "proof" for anything they believe, but that their suggestions are facts. Sorry, I don't buy it.

So show me the sacred blueprints that your imaginary designer used to design the Universe, and all of life?

I'm sure he would if you hang around long enough to be educated to a level where you could comprehend them. You do realize that this time last century, scientists were still wondering about whether washing their hands was a good idea to stop the spread of disease. How did science get so smart in such a short space of time? Precocity perhaps? Too big for their britches?

As for the blueprints for living organisms...they are right there in the DNA.
How long has science known about DNA? In the big scheme...about 5 seconds.

Demonstrate how this design became reality?

Science already knows how the designs become reality.....they just don't believe that there was a Designer who accomplished it all. And lets face it.....its trendy to bury God. No one is getting beaten with a big stick so that must mean he isn't there. Or could there be another reason?

Was it poofed into reality(like creationist believe), or were there lesser Gods tasked with different assignments?

Excuse me, but we don't believe that the Creator "poofed" anything into existence....that is what science believes about the first living organism. How else do you explain something for which science has found no demonstrable explanation? But we can't talk about abiogenesis because that raises questions that science can't answer....we know what a sore point that is for y'all.

They are totally unrelated branches of science. I think we know why.

What was the mechanism that they used? I expect the same level of evidence that you expect of science.

Science already knows the mechanisms....they know about natural selection and adaptation so that endless varieties of living things can be produced. ...or at least they should...they have been studying them for long enough. You see science knows what it can test.....I have no issues with that. It's what they can't test and start to assume that bothers me. Fantasy is not fact and belief, no matter how sincerely held, will not make something true.

I have all the evidence I need in the natural world and my powers of deduction are as good as anyone's. Why do scientists think that they have the high ground in this issue? Until you can prove your theory, it remains in the same category as the Creator......no real testable proof.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Abductive reasoning...

Yeah...that’s how much a person is worth, if they’re kidnapped.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

But definitions given by man don't always sum up the beliefs of others correctly. Our view of Intelligent Design does not necessarily follow what other ID proponents may believe. Our view of Christianity may not be what others classify as "Christian" either. The differences are important I think.
No point in being 'different' unless you can explain the differences. Our beliefs are quite specific; they align with what science "knows" and are reasonable and logical IMV.


I have no beef with science per se...in fact I love science.....its just that one branch that seems so intent on spreading its godlessness all over Earth's population that bothers me. Its not taught as a tentative theory that could be changed tomorrow, but as undeniable fact....and to children!

The undeniable fact is that none of it is "provable". I know how much that word is despised in evolutionary circles......but its the truth.



I have been here a good while and still getting responses....those ignoring me are of no consequence in the big picture.....this is just an internet discussion forum after all......sometimes it seems more like a gladiatorial contest. The atheists here are just as passionate about their "beliefs" as we are.



Can you provide real evidence for that statement? How does science know this when it has never observed it? It can't be tested so it has to be based on assumption.



What did "earlier species of man" look like? And if science couldn't tell a ape skull from a human initially, then where do you think these images came from?

Take your pick.....

You see, the thing is....when science first started to teach evolution to school children the following image was presented very differently. They portrayed early man as stooped and ape-like. But as you can see their findings made them correct their images to reflect something that became apparent...early man was not stooped, but walked upright like we do. But instead of correcting the imagery to reflect a more upright human, the illustrations featured instead an upright walking ape. Its a sneaky bit of illusion. There is no evidence of upright walking apes who evolved in to us.

There is no evidence that all humans were ape-like or even primitive either. Even in today's world, there are still primitive people. Some have features that are very different to the humans we are used to looking at.

I have been here a good while and still getting responses....those ignoring me are of no consequence in the big picture.....this is just an internet discussion forum after all......sometimes it seems more like a gladiatorial contest. The atheists here are just as passionate about their "beliefs" as we are.

You are no gladiator. You are no different then those in subways claiming to be Napoleon. A gladiator would at least bring a sword and a shield to the contest. All you bring is denial, arrogance, convoluted logic, and parroted nonsense. The only argument that you think gives you credibility, is that science can't prove anything with absolute certainty. No one is saying that science can, so move on. Proofs are only used in Mathematics. In math, unlike science or any other field, we CAN prove that what we do is absolutely right. That's because math is not dependent on partially known physical laws or unpredictable human behavior, but simply on our ability to reason normally. For some reason you seem to think that by equating proof or absolutes to Evolution, it will give you some sense of intellectual superiority or just attention. Unfortunately, it only demonstrates just how poorly you understand how science works. This has nothing to do with passion. It is about knowledge and reason. You bring none to these to the table
.

I have no beef with science per se...in fact I love science.....its just that one branch that seems so intent on spreading its godlessness all over Earth's population that bothers me. Its not taught as a tentative theory that could be changed tomorrow, but as undeniable fact....and to children!

The undeniable fact is that none of it is "provable". I know how much that word is despised in evolutionary circles......but its the truth.

What exactly is "godlessness"? If Evolution is false, then every single biological principle is wrong. The principles governing all biochemical and biophysical processes are wrong. The functions of genes and alleles are all wrong. Causality itself does not exist, and its effects are not linked. The scientific method of inquiry, and our ability reason are all irrelevant. Why shouldn't we teach inquisitive minds, about anything that we can demonstrate is the best possible explanation for natural phenomena? What alternative explanation can you posit, to explain all biological phenomena? Or are you again just insinuating? Since you are asserting your denial of Evolution, it is not an undeniable fact, is it? It is simply a fact. There will always be people that will believe that the earth is undeniably flat. History is full of people that will deny reality itself, if it challenges their indoctrinated beliefs. Their logic will always be top-down.

Regarding Macro vs, Microevolution, this is the easiest 1 min(or so) analogy I could find. Although evidence has no relevance to people in denial.

Maybe you can give it a go, and provide a better image of what early homo sapiens looked like, based on the evidence? It takes zero intelligence to simply dismiss and deny any evidence that is presented to you. But it does take some intelligence to provide evidence to support an alternative explanation. Since you are not an authority of the scientific method of inquiry, what is your justification for dismissing the convergence of evidence(genetic, anatomical, chemical markers, biophysical, archaeological, radiometry, or cellular), supporting Evolution? Why do you think that humans were never ape-like or primitive? What evidence can you posit to support this claim. Remember the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But definitions given by man don't always sum up the beliefs of others correctly. Our view of Intelligent Design does not necessarily follow what other ID proponents may believe. Our view of Christianity may not be what others classify as "Christian" either. The differences are important I think.
No point in being 'different' unless you can explain the differences. Our beliefs are quite specific; they align with what science "knows" and are reasonable and logical IMV.

This is just gibberish. How do we know which of man's definitions we should pick and choose to use?​

 

[metis]

One of the most nonsensical teachings of the JW's is that if one accepts the ToE then they are somehow "Godless", thus ignoring the fact that a great many Christians, including a majority of Christian theologians, believe in theistic evolution (God-guided evolution). Therefore, they use the issue of evolution as a sort of "litmus test" to determine who the "true believers" are and, of course, they think they're the only "true believers".

 

[Milton Platt]

The physical laws are...
Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them.

Humans wrote the laws. They are descriptive of how the universe works, they do not dictate how it works.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can you tell me how something that supposedly took place billions of years ago can be "observed"?....measured?.....verified?

You don't understand what is being referred to there - what needs to be observable. There is no requirement to witness the past.

I don't worship science, so therefore I give it about as much credence in the big scheme of things as you do my Intelligent Creator.

I don't worship anything, and I have no reason to believe that an intelligent creator exists or ever existed.

You actually require more faith to accept what science is teaching than anyone who believes in an Intelligent Designer.

No faith is required to accept the gifts of science. Just enjoy them as you are right now.

Yes, its amazing how a word can come to mean the exact opposite of what it was originally intended to mean

There are dozens of examples of contranyms, or words with two (or more) definitions that have opposite meanings, such as cleave, which can mean separate or hold fast, as when an infant cleaves its mother's breast, or the verb dust, which can mean to remove the dust from, as when dusting furniture, or put dust on, as when dusting for fingerprints.

how do you test something that happened supposedly billions of years ago?

It's been done repeatedly. One way is to confirm high quality predictions that would be the case if the event in question occurred, but not otherwise. It's really not difficult, nor is it meaningful that somebody so divorced from evidence and its interpretation doesn't understand how scientists use it.

How is 'macro-evolution' well supported by experimental evidence?

Google it.

Or, go to an educational site like TalkOrigens.com .

Or just continue to know no science and post as if you do - as if the opinions on what science can and cannot do are equally valid coming from people that assiduously avoid learning the science as those of somebody who is informed in the sciences.

Well, there you go.....it "must be specific enough to be falsifiable by testing." There is no testing possible

Yes there is.

You are forgetting that our beliefs do not require science to back them up

I never forget that. Your beliefs require no support.

I have to say that so far, our beliefs are looking pretty good compared to yours.

Your beliefs have no value to the world. Mine do.

Oh yes....we must be wary of pseudo science.....the one that makes predictions based on things that they cannot test or verify.

You also don't seem to know what pseudoscience is.