The Miracle of Water.

[Deeje]

You believe what you want to believe.

Don't you?

You are incorrect in that assertion, as science has long since demonstrated. You also make it obvious, every time you post on the subject, that you don’t seem to know what evolution is, or how it works.

Yeah, its terrible that I can tell the difference between science fact and science fiction. I'm really going to trade all I believe for "might have's" and "could have's"......no thanks, not good enough. There is nothing remotely appealing about your dead end theory......this is as good as it gets....may as well go and jump off a cliff when we see what's coming. What kind of world is science leading us into? Look at today's generation and imagine what the future will be in their hands......Its no future I want to be part of....and certainly not what I want for my kids and grandkids. Do humans have the wisdom to control the monsters they create?

Do you vainly believe that humans will ever fix this mess?
They haven't got a good track record have they?

Evolution is a demonstrable, observable fact.

Sorry, "adaptation" is a 'demonstrable, observable fact'. Calling it evolution is very misleading because you use the "micro" as evidence of the "macro". No one has ever observed the branching of species.....no one has ever seen any missing links.....because there aren't any. By rights there should be millions of them. Science can't find them so they fill in the blanks with imagination.

Allele frequencies in populations change over time. In the same way that gravity is a demonstrable fact. When you say it isn’t, you are denying reality. Allele frequencies change over time; organisms change over time. Those are demonstrable facts. Adaptation, as you describe it, is evolution. Again, when you make these claims, you demonstrate that you do not understand evolution.

Organisms change, producing amazing varieties within species.....they will continue to do so. Adaptation is taking place as we speak but none of it proves "evolution" on the scale that science suggests. All creatures are made of the same basic materials. Some even have the same basic framework but are unrelated. Builders use the same fundamental ideas to construct buildings of infinite variety....from a dog house to a mansion.

Many creatures have internal functions that are common across the majority of living things....they require the right amount of oxygen, in just the right mixture with other gases so that every spark will not result in an explosion, but just enough to keep a fire burning. Not necessary for animals, but very convenient for humans....don't you think?

They require food and water, broken down in the body through a similar digestive process, to keep these creatures alive and thriving. Each has its own habitat and food supply that they instinctively seek out.
Each have their own reproductive cycle that ensures the perpetuation of their species.....no instruction manual required as it is programmed very intelligently into their DNA. Each living thing begins as a single cell that unites with the single cell of another to create another life, exactly like its parents.
Life always come from pre-existing life. Science is still trying to prove that it doesn't.

But again, you’re always welcome to challenge evolution to actual scientists who study it anytime you want. Just get something down on paper and submit it to a journal for review. This should be extremely easy to do, if the evidence is as flimsy as you say.

Don’t you ever wonder why someone from your camp hasn’t managed to do that yet, in all this time? That should tell you something that I’m sure you’ll simply ignore.

No one from my camp has to do that. The requirement is yours not ours. We have a faith based belief that fits in nicely with what science "knows"....but we can't swallow what you "believe" any more than you can swallow what we "believe".

 

[Deeje]

You are the one who has been taken in by propaganda. And worse yet, you’re dead set against a science that you don’t even understand in the first place, simply because you believe it interferes with your religious beliefs. Which speaks to a claim I’ve made that those who don’t accept evolution are those who don’t understand it. You’ve demonstrated that very well.

We don't accept the "macro" part of evolution......not because we don't understand it...but because science can't furnish any real evidence that it ever happened. I think it is very important to understand that difference....you never seem to get it.

We can demonstrate our claims. You can’t. I think that says it all.

You know how funny that is from our perspective.....

What can you "demonstrate"....? as opposed to what you can prove? You have no more real evidence for your beliefs than we do.

I have plenty to look forward to. I have a much more positive and optimistic view of life than you apparently do. Stop trying to drag others down into despair along with you.

Well, bully for you. What about those who are struggling in this life with no way to make any of it better? What of those who don't get to live their lives because of accidents or illness striking them down in youth? How does one have a positive and optimistic view of the future when all they have to rely on is unreliable, corrupt humans? That might be good enough for you but its not good enough for me. The promises held out in the Bible and the reasons for why the world is in its present state make sense to me. There is no empty void inside of me screaming, "that's not fair!"

because we’re gathered together in a place to debate such topics, and we have people who don’t even understand it trying to argue against it.

But why does it matter so much to defend something that is a foregone conclusion to you? It appears to be on the same level as a religion when you go toe to toe with a belief system. It makes no sense unless there is no real proof for either. Don't you see, if evolution were a provable fact, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It is one belief system against another....you guys just can't admit it.

I have yet to see any actual evidence for any creator, so I’ll continue to carry on my life as though there isn’t one.

As is your right of choice. I see evidence for a masterful Creator everywhere in nature and its amazing systems that all interact beautifully. You see, I assume that purposeful design is never a fluke and macro-evolution relies on millions of them. That is not very "scientific" in my book.

Evolution is demonstrably, observably true. You have yet to demonstrate the existence of any creator to anyone other than yourself. I see a rather big difference between those two things.

I observe many more people seeing through the illusion that science has created about how living things came to be so diverse on this planet. The scientists have a little that is provable and use it to suggest a lot of things that they can never prove to be true. You are a "believer" in science, just as I am a "believer" in God.

Evolution is the only scientific theory that adequately accounts for all the available evidence, and explains the diversity of life on Earth.

It might be the "only scientific theory" they have but its certainly NOT the only belief....not by a long shot.
You all treat science as a religion......you have to because there is no way to actually substantiate it as fact. That inconvenient truth that will not go away.

 

[metis]

Evolution is the only scientific theory that adequately accounts for all the available evidence, and explains the diversity of life on Earth.

Life forms change over time, pure & simple, but JW's don't believe in any advanced studying by their own admittance, and there are consequences for operating out of relative ignorance as we see being displayed on this thread and numerous others. If it was all left up to them, we'd still be back in the Dark Ages with medieval superstition trumping objectively-derived evidence. Therefore, appealing to evidence simply will not sway them one bit, sorry to say.

IMO, any religion or denomination that will not accept even the most basic evidence for change over time has to be considered bogus as the Truth cannot be relative.

 

[ecco]

We don't accept the "macro" part of evolution......not because we don't understand it...but because science can't furnish any real evidence that it ever happened. I think it is very important to understand that difference....you never seem to get it.

You don't accept the "macro" part of evolution......not because you don't understand it...but because it conflicts with your deeply held, indoctrinated religious views. It's sad that you cannot admit that to yourself.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If evolution is as certain as you think it is, then why the great need to defend it so vigorously?

If your religion is as true as you think it is, why the need to attack evolution? You're the one with a mission. Our purpose in responding is to correct the errors of creationists.

Propaganda works only when you don't know the truth.

Propaganda works when you decide what is true about the world by faith instead of reason applied to evidence. There is a mountain of evidence that global climate is changing due to increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There is climate denial propaganda being disseminated. Those willing and able to assess evidence won't be taken in. The others who simply believe what they are told repeatedly are at risk of becoming victims of propaganda.

I'm really going to trade all I believe for "might have's" and "could have's"......no thanks, not good enough.

Except that that's all you have. Apparently, you don't realize it.

There is nothing remotely appealing about your dead end theory

The rational skeptic seeks the truth, not what is appealing. We leave that to the faith-based thinker, who creates his world according to what he wishes were true, and then believes it as if it weren't just a wild guess. That's an ineffective way to decide what is true about the world.

Sorry, "adaptation" is a 'demonstrable, observable fact'. Calling it evolution is very misleading because you use the "micro" as evidence of the "macro".

No, pretending that the adaptation of populations to their environments over generations through the twin mechanisms of genetic variation and natural selection is not exactly the same thing as biological evolution is the deceptive language.

No one has ever observed the branching of species

This is the kind of error that identifies that your opinions are uninformed. It is simply incorrect.

no one has ever seen any missing links

This, too. How is it that you are unaware of the thousands of transitional forms that have been uncovered, and why are you pontificating about science you don't understand?

Life always come from pre-existing life.

That argument is easily refuted even from a creationist perspective. Is the creator that you believe exists alive? If you answer yes, then that creator falsifies your claim by being life that did not arise from preexisting life. If your answer is no, that this creator is not living in the sense that material organisms live, i.e., growth, development, metabolism, reproduction, repair, etc., then the life it allegedly created did not come from life.

What about those who are struggling in this life with no way to make any of it better? What of those who don't get to live their lives because of accidents or illness striking them down in youth?

The plight of such people is among the strongest argument against the existence of a beneficent, omnipotent, omnisicient god.

How does one have a positive and optimistic view of the future when all they have to rely on is unreliable, corrupt humans?

Your window of opportunity for understanding that has probably passed. You'd probably have had to have lived life outside of a religious bubble teaching a nihilistic and misanthropic message to understand. The atheists you have been interacting with here all seem to have positive, healthy attitudes about themselves and life, but you apparently can't see that.

That's what I meant by propaganda earlier - the repeated indoctrination of an idea that not only doesn't derive from evidence, but requires ignoring it to believe. The evidence is right in front of you - the unbelievers are happy, well-adjusted people despite the fact that "all they have to rely on is unreliable, corrupt humans"

I have found relying on humanity both necessary, and when done discriminantly, helpful. It was the people who came before me that provided everything that made a long, safe, comfortable, and stimulating existence possible.

It might be the "only scientific theory" they have but its certainly NOT the only belief....not by a long shot.

A belief that contradicts an established scientific theory is incorrect in the sense that it does not conform to the evidence that underlies the scientific theory, and as is always the case when that occurs, yields an idea that can't be used for any legitimate purpose. It can, however, be used as propaganda. The measure of the truth value or correctness of an idea is proportional to its usefulness in predicting outcomes.

The theory of evolution can do that. It has accurately predicted what can and cannot be found in the evidence provided by current and former life, and it has been successfully applied to fields like medicine and agriculture. That wouldn't be possible if the theory wasn't essentially correct.

Creationist hypotheses are uniformly sterile. They predict nothing about life or physical reality, and have no practical application - just like astrology and alchemy. That is the signature of an incorrect idea.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Is that what you imagine I am doing? LOL...I like the imagery.

My intentions are not directed towards those who can't see what is obvious to us. It is to help honest-hearted people to see that this is not a black and white, either/or position. We can see where science can demonstrate many wonderful things, but we can also see the logic of an Intelligent Designer where the complexity of the natural world is concerned. Relying on flukes and unplanned mutations to explain all that diversity is not really a scientific approach...is it?



Is "close enough" really what you want to bet your life on? That is what we see as the major dilemma in this argument. The Creator is "MY" closest degree of certainty, considering that science's evidence is anything but objective. Did they tell you it was?...and you believed them?



You see what you said here? You have virtually replaced God with science. Instead of God, Science becomes the dictator of all thought processes. It is your only reality...but it has no proof for what it claims. How does that place you on a higher platform to us? Its one belief system against another.

The "burden of proof" is of course, not applicable in this argument simply because there is no "proof" that either side can furnish to convince the other. So we could be making life altering decisions about this issue....whether we believe we are, or not.



Oh dear....who said that life in itself has no meaning or purpose for the atheist? Many have contributed so much to our understanding of so many things and we are grateful for their contribution when we see the benefits of what many in various branches of science have achieved...but equally we have suffered at the hands of those who took their own wants and needs and intelligence and used them to deliberately harm others. The scales are not exactly balanced, if you ask me.

Atheists have no life beyond this one. What if this life has been a terrible disappointment? Perhaps you were born with a severe disability? Or illness took your life too early? Or your own choices had led you to mess everything up? Wouldn't you want the opportunity to get it right? The Bible says we can get that opportunity. Its conditional, but so worth it.



We are not animals...who told you we were? There are no "animals" on the planet who possess the abilities and intellect that we have. Animals do not deliberately poison their own environment, nor do they deliberately do harm unless provoked.

Animals do not compose music, poetry, theater or art. Only humans display a need for planned creativity. We are nothing like animals.



Purpose is what we all need to justify our existence. Its what drives humans to explore their world....to understand it better, and to find their place in it.



No, the Creator provides us with information that helps us to establish what our purpose here really is. I find the whole story rather compelling....you should read the book.....it's better than the movie.



As the story is told, the human race was hijacked by a pretender who conned our first parents out of everlasting life in paradise. (The one we have always wanted) The pretender said he would be a better god and ruler, and that humans would be so much better off making their own decisions about everything.....so the Creator is allowing him to prove himself. He is allowing all of us to pick which god appeals to us......since we all have one...even those who think they don't.

The state of the world is proving every day how bad we are at determining and planning our own future. We apparently have to find this out the hard way. Experience is the better teacher after all.
Telling us didn't help...so showing us is obviously more 'educational'. That is logical.



LOL....you can't even see how that applies to yourselves. You have "beliefs" that you have to accommodate too. It never occurs to you, such is the success of the con job and who we believe is behind it. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)



The "story" is a very satisfying way of explaining our predicament. (the human condition)
There were no children in Eden.
I see science trying their best to maintain their credibility when the foundations of their belief system are exposed as MIA. Insults and insinuations about intelligence and education always follow. (believers being equated with children and peasant farmers) If you need to attack in such a childish way, then it means you have no real defense.

BTW, since you mentioned all of those things, (things that are the driving force behind our human condition) its funny how the video you posted was simply a valiant attempt to explain away why we humans are 'spiritual' beings by nature. Animals are not spiritual....only we are. Only we care about a purpose in life, and only we have an inbuilt need to worship a higher power. Its is strange that these needs had to 'evolve' in the first place, don't you think? It only works if evolution is true.

Animals, unless raised with human contact, have a natural fear of us. What gave them that fear? How is it that animals who are natural enemies in the wild can become the best of friends when hand raised together? Natural instincts can be overcome if the right circumstances are provided. We can be talked into...or out of....anything if the right words or illustrations are used. We just have to be careful whose words and illustrations we accept.



I have never been cornered by science.....they have nothing with which to back me into a corner. I have been debating this topic for decades and I have never been threatened by science once. Are you threatened and backed into a corner? Are you not digging your heels in? I have as much reason and logic for my "beliefs" as you do for yours.



Again, this made me laugh out loud.....my mind has never been averse to scientific reasoning because I always believe what I see and evaluate is true.
Macro-evolution is not provable and you know it. Science gets away without "proof" because it substitutes the word "evidence"....as if it means the same thing. People need to wake up to how science uses its language. Its terminology can be purposely, very misleading.

Is "close enough" really what you want to bet your life on? That is what we see as the major dilemma in this argument. The Creator is "MY" closest degree of certainty, considering that science's evidence is anything but objective. Did they tell you it was?...and you believed them?

Had you any understanding of science, you'd know that because our sense organs do not represent the true reality, that "close enough is good enough" is evolutionally valid for survival. I suppose that an invisible created father figure is far more easier to digest and accept, than the mountain of evidence that supports and explains all natural phenomena, including Macroevolution. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent . The problem is not with the evidence that deductively and inductively confirms, and supports Macroevolution. The problem is, that you have insulated yourself from accepting anything that clearly challenges your belief. Do you have any idea what would happen to all of biology if Evolution were somehow falsified? All because a non-scientist still wants to keep believing in talking animals, a mythical creation, miracles, fables, and in other cultural superstitions. There is no amount of Scientific investigation, that can confirm or deny if mental fantasies and superstitions are real or false. Because of the brain's ability to compartmentalize data, people are vulnerable to all manner of cultists beliefs. You defend make-believe as though it really does exist. You dismiss factually consistent data, as though it was make-believe. Your logic will always be belief is evidence, and evidence is belief. Why is your creation story true, and thousands of others false?

You can keep hiding behind your false equivocations straw man if you want. But, sooner or later, you will have to back up your own narrative(other than proselytizing and self-serving rhetoric). You can't keep parroting that both are beliefs. Both lack evidence. Both can't be proven absolutely. You can however admit that this is only your belief or hope. That you are not certain if your belief is true, but you believe that it is. That you have absolutely no evidence to justify if your belief is rational or factual, but you hope that it is. There is no harm in being honest.

Atheists have no life beyond this one. What if this life has been a terrible disappointment? Perhaps you were born with a severe disability? Or illness took your life too early? Or your own choices had led you to mess everything up? Wouldn't you want the opportunity to get it right? The Bible says we can get that opportunity. Its conditional, but so worth it.

I sincerely hope that you are right. That an afterlife does exist where all past mistakes will be forgiven. That all sicknesses, birth defects, or disabilities will not exist. And, unfortunately, a place where all Atheist's will voluntarily chose to burn for eternity, because of their lack of faith. I suppose if a man-made, man-edited, man-compiled, and man-contracted middle eastern book of fables and superstitions says so, I guess it must be so. Maybe you can deposit any evidence of the supernatural, the paranormal, a miracle, a resurrection, or just an example of a violation of the laws of physics? Anything will do, including fallacy-free logic.

We are not animals...who told you we were? There are no "animals" on the planet who possess the abilities and intellect that we have. Animals do not deliberately poison their own environment, nor do they deliberately do harm unless provoked.
Animals do not compose music, poetry, theater or art. Only humans display a need for planned creativity. We are nothing like animals.

If you are not part of the animal kingdom, then what are you? Why are you so similar to other animals? Is the Neanderthal human or animal? Why do you share the same physiology, biochemistry, anatomy, genetics, and even behavioral similarities, with all other animal life on this planet? Can you breath under water? Can you fly? Can you spot a mouse at 5000 feet? Can you run faster than a horse? Have you seen the memory experiments comparing humans to chimps? Lets just say that our physical abilities and intellect, compared with other animals, are relative at best. Shall we?

You are certainly threatened by science. You have absolutely no scientific reason or logic for your belief. Hence, why all the false bravado, avoidance, misrepresentations, arrogance, and flippant responses. The idea behind your belief is simply to sell it, not to prove it. I think that it is YOU that should wake up, open your eyes, and uncover your ears. Before you criticise the science that you depend on for your survival everyday, it might be best that you understand it first.

 

[ecco]

Atheists have no life beyond this one.

Atheists accept that no one has any life beyond this one.

What if this life has been a terrible disappointment? Perhaps you were born with a severe disability? Or illness took your life too early? Or your own choices had led you to mess everything up? Wouldn't you want the opportunity to get it right?

But you are not taking an opportunity to get things right. You are just muddling along expecting the next time will be better.

 

[Deeje]

You don't accept the "macro" part of evolution......not because you don't understand it...but because it conflicts with your deeply held, indoctrinated religious views. It's sad that you cannot admit that to yourself.

Ecco, do you do anything on these threads that actually substantiates or contributes to the beliefs you hold....? Or is sniping all you can do?

 

[MonkeyFire]

In my religion water is the element of the the wish to be, Gabriella the archangel.

 

[Deeje]

If your religion is as true as you think it is, why the need to attack evolution? You're the one with a mission. Our purpose in responding is to correct the errors of creationists.

Well, I see a lot of people divided on this issue. I see those like yourself who tried God on, but he didn't fit, so you chose to throw him away. That's fine...we are all supposed to try God on and make decisions about the possibilities of his existence. Its all part of the deal in this life. I believe that we are deciding our own future.

Propaganda works when you decide what is true about the world by faith instead of reason applied to evidence.

That is not quite true. Propaganda works with anything we want to believe.....politics...science...religion....health.....the "evidence" for any of these things is believable to those who want it to be true. Your science is not at all unique.....nor is it immune to propaganda. Agendas hide in strange places.

There is a mountain of evidence that global climate is changing due to increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There is climate denial propaganda being disseminated. Those willing and able to assess evidence won't be taken in. The others who simply believe what they are told repeatedly are at risk of becoming victims of propaganda.

The problem with evidence for climate change is that we must rely on humans to tell the truth about it. Everyone it seems has an agenda and will posit all manner of "proofs" to show that their position is the correct one. I hate being placed in that position because, if I was to only rely on humans, then I am forced to choose between one liar and another. It boils down to whose lies are more convincing. But then what good does it do if everyone is arguing about who is right, and no one is really doing anything about it. Do we all go out and buy floaties?...or head for the hills?

Except that that's all you have. Apparently, you don't realize it.

That's not true either. I have evidence for my Creator that is beyond your experience to know, and beyond science's ability to test....so I know things about his existence that you cannot even imagine. The Bible is an amazing book when you drop your evidence-based thinking to entertain "evidence" that is right under your nose, but brushed aside.
Perhaps if you'd bother to find out more about him, and the things written in the Bible, you would not so easily dismiss him.

The rational skeptic seeks the truth, not what is appealing. We leave that to the faith-based thinker, who creates his world according to what he wishes were true, and then believes it as if it weren't just a wild guess. That's an ineffective way to decide what is true about the world.

It seems to me a strange thing indeed that the average person wishes to live in the world that God created for Adam and his wife. Is there a possibility that we are programmed to do so...or else how do you explain why we collectively want to experience our own idea of paradise.....even for a vacation?

We instinctively know when something is not fair.....why? Why do we have an inbuilt sense of justice that is so offended when we see injustice being carried out? Even small children have this sense....it is inborn? If it is, why is it there?

Monogamy is another strange aspect of human living. We see many species of birds and other creatures who mate for life. Why are we consumed with jealousy when we see someone make a move on the one that "belongs" to us? How does evolution explain emotions.....love, hate, jealousy, anger, sadness.....or what survival advantage is there in art, poetry, literature, music or our unique creativity?

pretending that the adaptation of populations to their environments over generations through the twin mechanisms of genetic variation and natural selection is not exactly the same thing as biological evolution is the deceptive language.

No, its not deceptive to point out that what science can prove is what it uses to suggest the rest. Why does science lie about the bulk of their theory being based on suggestions, but presented as facts? There are no facts because you cannot prove that macro-evolution ever happened. (sorry there's that inconvenient "p" word again.)

his is the kind of error that identifies that your opinions are uninformed. It is simply incorrect.

So show us evidence of "branching" that does not require suggestion, assumption or guesswork....please.

 

[Deeje]

How is it that you are unaware of the thousands of transitional forms that have been uncovered, and why are you pontificating about science you don't understand?

Please show them to us. I keep hearing about them, but all I have ever seen are diagrams or drawings with suggestions about the possibility of certain creatures being in some kind of evolutionary chain that seems to branch off for no apparent reason, but has so many 'links' missing that you couldn't really call it a chain at all. How do you tell a transitional fossil? How do you establish relationship when these creatures are long extinct? Its guesswork

That argument is easily refuted even from a creationist perspective. Is the creator that you believe exists alive? If you answer yes, then that creator falsifies your claim by being life that did not arise from preexisting life. If your answer is no, that this creator is not living in the sense that material organisms live, i.e., growth, development, metabolism, reproduction, repair, etc., then the life it allegedly created did not come from life.

Since science is restricted to material creation and does not consider any other form of life to be real (because they have never seen or experienced it, nor is there any scientific test for it) could it be that the Creator is a "what" rather than a "he"? He presents himself to humankind as a father figure but in reality, no one knows "what" the Creator is....we only know from his written word, "who" he is. There is so much still to learn. I am looking forward to that education.

The plight of such people is among the strongest argument against the existence of a beneficent, omnipotent, omnisicient god.

Is it? Or could there be a reasonable explanation for why there is so much suffering on this earth at present?
It seems to me that our desire for superheroes is simply an expressions of our collective need to be rescued form the perils of this life. Jesus is the real superhero to us. He just got replaced by crude imitations.

You'd probably have had to have lived life outside of a religious bubble teaching a nihilistic and misanthropic message to understand. The atheists you have been interacting with here all seem to have positive, healthy attitudes about themselves and life, but you apparently can't see that.

I did live outside the bubble of belief for a time in my youth, and I found it intolerable to accept that this life is all there is and is as good as it gets. I am programmed for a much better life.....as are many other people who can't swallow the hopelessness of relying solely on humans for our future. You can if you like....but I have great hopes for this planet that doesn't rely on humans for any of it.

That's what I meant by propaganda earlier - the repeated indoctrination of an idea that not only doesn't derive from evidence, but requires ignoring it to believe. The evidence is right in front of you - the unbelievers are happy, well-adjusted people despite the fact that "all they have to rely on is unreliable, corrupt humans"

I think they call that delusion.....you can't seem to see that evolutionists suffer from it as much as anyone. How much 'repeated indoctrination' does it take to convince school children that there is no God? By the time they reach university, they are fully convinced and don't question. That is sad because what God offers is so in sync with everything humans desire.

A belief that contradicts an established scientific theory is incorrect in the sense that it does not conform to the evidence that underlies the scientific theory, and as is always the case when that occurs, yields an idea that can't be used for any legitimate purpose. It can, however, be used as propaganda. The measure of the truth value or correctness of an idea is proportional to its usefulness in predicting outcomes.

If the "evidence" for said theory is based on nothing but assumption then how did it ever reach the status it has in the minds of so many? Good marketing I suspect. Science is your religion if you have to "believe" what cannot be proven. How useful is it when the predicted outcome is not worth knowing?

The theory of evolution can do that. It has accurately predicted what can and cannot be found in the evidence provided by current and former life, and it has been successfully applied to fields like medicine and agriculture.

When science tries to apply evolution across other fields, it uses what it knows and finds applications in agriculture and medicine.....please tell us how evolution is beneficial in those areas. How does evolution help? Or is it adaptation that is providing the useful information?

That wouldn't be possible if the theory wasn't essentially correct.

Yes it could...it just has to have enough of a good story to be more convincing in the minds of those who find belief in God to be inconvenient. We can all make things go away if we don't want them in our lives anymore. But some things keep coming back.

Creationist hypotheses are uniformly sterile. They predict nothing about life or physical reality, and have no practical application - just like astrology and alchemy. That is the signature of an incorrect idea.

Sterile? I find them to be anything but. Science is sterile concentrating on the dead past, abusing the troubled present and giving us no future that is worth looking forward to.....sorry, you can have that if you find it appealing. I would rather have a future that gives me hope, rather than simply to endure more of the same, till some idiot pushes the red button.

I don't like where humans are taking us, so its comforting to think my future is not dependent on them.

I think everyone living will believe in God one day....probably the way those in Noah's day finally believed. Do you hope I'm wrong? Which way would you rather the world end? By its own hand, or God's?

 

[ecco]

ecco:
You don't accept the "macro" part of evolution......not because you don't understand it...but because it conflicts with your deeply held, indoctrinated religious views. It's sad that you cannot admit that to yourself.​

Ecco, do you do anything on these threads that actually substantiates or contributes to the beliefs you hold....?

Substantiate my beliefs...to you? Why would I even attempt that? As I have noted repeatedly, you dismiss any and all evidence that conflicts with your deeply held, indoctrinated religious views.

Or is sniping all you can do?

Pointing out facts is not sniping. All you do is repeat things like "macroevolution cannot work". That's not based on any scientific knowledge, That's based entirely on your deeply held, indoctrinated religious views. And that's a fact.

 

[ecco]

I did live outside the bubble of belief for a time in my youth, and I found it intolerable to accept that this life is all there is and is as good as it gets. I am programmed for a much better life.....as are many other people who can't swallow the hopelessness of relying solely on humans for our future.

I don't think you could do much better than the above in admitting how deeply, and how early, you have been indoctrinated.

Of course, I don't think you were aware when you wrote that. Even now, I know you will not truly understand what you wrote.

 

[ecco]

How much 'repeated indoctrination' does it take to convince school children that there is no God?

Please show some factual evidence that children are repeatedly indoctrinated to convince them that there is no god.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I don't think you could do much better than the above in admitting how deeply, and how early, you have been indoctrinated.

Of course, I don't think you were aware when you wrote that. Even now, I know you will not truly understand what you wrote.

Well said.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Bible is an amazing book when you drop your evidence-based thinking

Well, that's not going to happen. Rational skepticism and empiricism are my only methods for determining what is true about the world. I'm simply not going to accept anything in the Bible or anywhere else on faith. The rational skeptic needs a reason to believe, and that reason must be in the form of reason applied to the relevant evidence.

If I were willing to toss all that out and pick up a book of unsupported claims and believe them, why would it be your book? I'd more likely write my own book.

You say that the Bible is an amazing book. I find the opposite to be true. It's not even a good book. An amazing book would be one that is so good and useful, that few or no people could improve upon it. Just about any educated person could improve on the Bible.

What does it say when almost anyone can improve on the Bible, but very few can improve on a book by Newton? It says that the Bible was written by human beings, the same species that you recently called all liars and not worthy of being trusted or relied upon.

Perhaps if you'd bother to find out more about him, and the things written in the Bible, you would not so easily dismiss him.

You are apparently unaware of how difficult the process of tunneling out of Christianity was. There was nothing easy about it. I had been conditioned in a way that made walking away from religion difficult. Quitting it was harder than quitting smoking. There were lingering doubts of damnation for quite a while.

And there really is nothing more to discover about the god of the Christian Bible. I have no doubt that it doesn't exist. It can't. It is described as having mutually exclusive qualities simultaneously, like the storied married bachelor. I don't have to do any investigating at all to know that no such thing exists. It is enough to know what married and bachelor mean. Likewise with the perfect god that creates humanity, regrets it, and attempts to drown almost all of it. Sorry. There may in fact be a god or gods, and it or they may be perfect or fallible, but what I know for certain is that there is nothing that is both at the same time. No other investigation is necessary.

That is not quite true. Propaganda works with anything we want to believe.....politics...science...religion....health.....the "evidence" for any of these things is believable to those who want it to be true.

I think that you just agreed with me. I wrote, "Propaganda works when you decide what is true about the world by faith instead of reason applied to evidence." The defense against propaganda is resisting faith-based thought, that is, believing what you are told without sufficient supporting evidence. People willing to think like that will end up believing what they want to be true. A more disciplined way of processing information ignores what we want to be true and seeks to discover what is actually the case about the world. Do that, and you are not susceptible to propaganda.

I have evidence for my Creator that is beyond your experience to know

You don't seem to be aware of what evidence is. One feature of evidence is that it is evident.

Furthermore, you have no special senses or mental faculties that allow you to experience a god not available to us all to experience. I know what you are experiencing and calling God. It's your own mind. Remember, I've been there. I also allowed myself at one time to believe that the thoughts going through my head were coming from without - from an external source communicating with me, that was referred to in church as the still, small voice of God. We were also taught to think that internal dissent and doubt were the voice of the Great Deceiver. These two were allegedly trying to reach and affect me by speaking into the private parts of my mind.

But I eventually realized that it was all me - all due to my mind generating ideas and me misunderstanding their source.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There are no facts because you cannot prove that macro-evolution ever happened. (sorry there's that inconvenient "p" word again.)

Then you know my answer to that, and why your comment is considered irrelevant. Proof is unavailable and unnecessary in this area as in many others. Compelling evidence is sufficient.

You have no proof that the next bite of food you eat wasn't poisoned, but you don't need it, do you? You have good evidence based on experience that your food is very unlikely to have been poisoned, and that is good enough because it has to be, unless you care to hire a food taster to test your every meal before you do, and even then, maybe the taster poisoned your food after tasting it.

Of course there are facts. Perhaps you don't know what a fact is, either.

And I'd bet the farm that you never opened the Talk Origins link on the evidence supporting what creationists call macroevolution, yet repeat that there is no evidence for that process occurring. You'll never know if you never look.

So show us evidence of "branching" that does not require suggestion, assumption or guesswork....please.

Evidence isn't how you decide matters, evidence wasn't part of how you came to your present beliefs, and faith is refractory to evidence. If you're ever serious about wanting to see the evidence, you have access to the Internet, book stores, and formal education in places like community colleges.

Please show them to us. I keep hearing about them, but all I have ever seen are diagrams or drawings with suggestions about the possibility of certain creatures being in some kind of evolutionary chain that seems to branch off for no apparent reason,

Same answer. If you ever decide that you want to learn the science, do it like the rest of us did.

could there be a reasonable explanation for why there is so much suffering on this earth at present?

Yes. There is no omnibeneficent, omniscient, omnipotent god watching over us. If there are gods, they are not protecting us from accident, disease, violence, etc..

Much of the world is more easily explained if we remove god concepts from our thinking. Suffering is to be expected in a godless world.

I have great hopes for this planet that doesn't rely on humans for any of it.

Yes, I know.

But I have no reason to believe that, and so don't. Remember, that is the main difference between a faith-based thinker and a reason-applied-to-evidence thinker. The latter needs an objective reason to believe.

How much 'repeated indoctrination' does it take to convince school children that there is no God?

None, to my knowledge. I grew up in a house with no religion and no god beliefs, but don't recall ever being told that there was no God, although at some point I must have heard my parents tell me that they didn't believe in God. Absent religious instruction, I would have no reason to believe in any gods. That came much later - close to age 20 - and lasted about a decade, after which I returned to atheism.The indoctrination came during the first half of that decade, and as I indicated, had a powerful effect on my thinking and made escape from religious belief much more difficult

agriculture and medicine.....please tell us how evolution is beneficial in those areas.

Feel free to Google the matter. I'd present you with a link, but I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't open it. If I'm wrong, then you'll be able to go find such links yourself.

 

[ecco]

The Bible is an amazing book when you drop your evidence-based thinking

Yep. If you drop your evidence-based thinking. On the other hand, if you apply a little skepticism to both the old and new testaments, you find that they are nothing more than stories created by man's imaginings.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Don't you?

Well, no. I do my best not to. I do my best to believe things which are evidently true. I would hope that others would do the same.

As I’ve said to you before, I’d love to believe that my deceased loved ones are just off in some paradise, waiting for me to show up, maybe visiting me on occasion to look out for me. I’d love to believe that. The problem is, I’ve got no evidence indicating that any of it is true and so I can’t believe it.

I’d also love to believe that I’m going to win the lottery someday, but that’s probably not going to happen either.

Yeah, its terrible that I can tell the difference between science fact and science fiction.

Apparently you cannot.

I'm really going to trade all I believe for "might have's" and "could have's"......no thanks, not good enough.

Give up all you believe? Why would you have to do that? There are many Christians in the world who accept evolution and still believe in God. And why do you think that your God isn’t intelligent enough to have designed evolution?

There is nothing remotely appealing about your dead end theory......this is as good as it gets....may as well go and jump off a cliff when we see what's coming.

Dead end theory? What on earth are you talking about? The theory of evolution is just a description about how biodiversity occurs on Earth. What about it makes you want to jump off a cliff? And why don’t you feel that way about say, germ theory?

Besides, it’s not about whether it’s “appealing” or not. It’s about whether it is true or not. But thanks for illuminating one of the huge differences between your way of thinking and mine. You’ve demonstrated again that you believe what you want to believe.

What kind of world is science leading us into? Look at today's generation and imagine what the future will be in their hands......Its no future I want to be part of....and certainly not what I want for my kids and grandkids. Do humans have the wisdom to control the monsters they create?

A world with less poverty. A world with less hunger. A world where human beings live longer than they ever have. A world where humans make it through childhood without dying of smallpox. A world where we can explore outer space, for goodness sakes!

I think today’s generation will do just fine. They are bright, and they’ve got so much science and technology available to them – so much more than anyone has ever had in the history of humankind.

I don’t agree with this kind of mentality anyway. People were saying that about the last generation, and the one before that, and on and on.

Do you vainly believe that humans will ever fix this mess?

They haven't got a good track record have they?

What’s vain about wanting to make the world a better place?

Science has an amazing track record. The scientific method is the reason we know everything that we currently know about the world we inhabit. Religion and ancient texts didn’t give us that and never could.

Sorry, "adaptation" is a 'demonstrable, observable fact'. Calling it evolution is very misleading because you use the "micro" as evidence of the "macro". No one has ever observed the branching of species.....no one has ever seen any missing links.....because there aren't any. By rights there should be millions of them. Science can't find them so they fill in the blanks with imagination.

Adaptation, as I’ve seen you describe it, IS EVOLUTION. And the only difference between “microevolution” and “macroevolution” is time. It’s all the same process.

There are tons of “missing links,” otherwise known as “transitional fossils.” There’s another falsehood you can’t seem to stop repeating. Sorry, but you don’t get to just make things up. To be sure, you’re the one making things up, not scientists. Scientists don’t get to make things up. And if they do, they end up being shunned from the scientific community, and rightfully so.

Organisms change, producing amazing varieties within species.....they will continue to do so. Adaptation is taking place as we speak but none of it proves "evolution" on the scale that science suggests. All creatures are made of the same basic materials. Some even have the same basic framework but are unrelated. Builders use the same fundamental ideas to construct buildings of infinite variety....from a dog house to a mansion.

I think it’s bizarre that you’ve never actually studied any organism with any kind of depth whatsoever, but still think you know more about science than people who spend their entire lives training and investigating and studying this stuff. Didn’t you just try to tell me I’m vain?

Many creatures have internal functions that are common across the majority of living things....they require the right amount of oxygen, in just the right mixture with other gases so that every spark will not result in an explosion, but just enough to keep a fire burning. Not necessary for animals, but very convenient for humans....don't you think?

Yes, that’s because evolution is a fact of life. And that is exactly what we would expect to find, if evolution were true. Which it is.

They require food and water, broken down in the body through a similar digestive process, to keep these creatures alive and thriving. Each has its own habitat and food supply that they instinctively seek out.

Each have their own reproductive cycle that ensures the perpetuation of their species.....no instruction manual required as it is programmed very intelligently into their DNA. Each living thing begins as a single cell that unites with the single cell of another to create another life, exactly like its parents.

Life always come from pre-existing life. Science is still trying to prove that it doesn't.

No one from my camp has to do that. The requirement is yours not ours. We have a faith based belief that fits in nicely with what science "knows"....but we can't swallow what you "believe" any more than you can swallow what we "believe".

It’s not a belief. It’s demonstrable fact. Science doesn’t make faith-based assertions. It can only speak to the evidence. You have beliefs that you pass off as fact. Perhaps that is why you don’t understand science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We don't accept the "macro" part of evolution......not because we don't understand it...but because science can't furnish any real evidence that it ever happened. I think it is very important to understand that difference....you never seem to get it.

If you think they’re different processes, then no, you don’t understand evolution.

What can you "demonstrate"....? as opposed to what you can prove? You have no more real evidence for your beliefs than we do.

All the claims of evolution are demonstrable. Demonstrating something is essentially proving that something.

Science has so much more evidence for their claims than you do for yours, it’s not even a contest.

Well, bully for you. What about those who are struggling in this life with no way to make any of it better? What of those who don't get to live their lives because of accidents or illness striking them down in youth? How does one have a positive and optimistic view of the future when all they have to rely on is unreliable, corrupt humans? That might be good enough for you but its not good enough for me. The promises held out in the Bible and the reasons for why the world is in its present state make sense to me. There is no empty void inside of me screaming, "that's not fair!"

What about them? I would try to help them.

You’ve just told me that you believe what you want to believe, because you want to believe it. I don’t ever want to hear you say otherwise, ever again.

I don’t have any empty void inside of me yelling anything. Perhaps you should seek psychiatric attention, because that doesn’t sound good.

What does any of that have to do with evolution being true or not? The question is, does it actually describe what is going on in the natural world, or not? The question isn’t, what do we want to believe.

But why does it matter so much to defend something that is a foregone conclusion to you? It appears to be on the same level as a religion when you go toe to toe with a belief system. It makes no sense unless there is no real proof for either. Don't you see, if evolution were a provable fact, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It is one belief system against another....you guys just can't admit it.

Because, again, this is a discussion board. We are discussing evolution. You are making claims about evolution that are inaccurate, and so I correct them, and will continue to do so as long as you make them.[/quote]

Nope. I’m not going to let you do that thing that creationists do where they try to equate religious belief with the scientific method. Sorry, they are not even remotely similar. Evolution has nothing to say about God(s). It has nothing to say about who or what to worship, how the universe came into existence, or what happens when we die.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution provides explanation for that fact. Talking about the reality of evolution does not in any way indicate that it isn’t true. What a silly assertion.

As is your right of choice. I see evidence for a masterful Creator everywhere in nature and its amazing systems that all interact beautifully. You see, I assume that purposeful design is never a fluke and macro-evolution relies on millions of them. That is not very "scientific" in my book.

Good for you. We both know you can’t demonstrate anything about your God.

You make assumptions. You believe what you want to believe. You follow a religion that won’t allow you to believe in demonstrable facts about the world. Stop projecting that onto me.

I observe many more people seeing through the illusion that science has created about how living things came to be so diverse on this planet. The scientists have a little that is provable and use it to suggest a lot of things that they can never prove to be true. You are a "believer" in science, just as I am a "believer" in God.-

If science has created an illusion, that it is easily falsifiable. Go ahead and falsify it already. Funny how nobody from your camp has ever been able to do so, given that evolution is so obviously false and all.

Everything you’ve said about science here is nonsense. Science does not operate like your religion does.

It might be the "only scientific theory" they have but its certainly NOT the only belief....not by a long shot.

You all treat science as a religion......you have to because there is no way to actually substantiate it as fact. That inconvenient truth that will not go away.

Beliefs are a dime a dozen. Put up some evidence, or get out of the way.

Nobody treats science as a religion, except for creationists who have to compare it to religion to make themselves feel better about their own lack of evidence, I guess.