What convinced you that Evolution is the truth?

[Aupmanyav]

I will underline that we are not talking about Intelligence Design, here: we are talking about Darwinian evolution based upon the Darwinian principles like natural selection, etc..etc.

Loads and loads of evidence.

I have attended two humble Bible colleges,.. your attempts will only fuel your own doubts but will not Shake my Faith or any who truly believe the God of the Bible.

What else other than those two?
I do not have any doubts. There are gaps in information which are being filled up each day. God of any kind is a fictitious entity created and believed by superstitious people. OT is Jewish lore to which NT was appended. It is a 3rd Century creation. We have no plan to shake your faith. Time itself will do it.

 

[Sargonski]

Such a conclusion doesn't follow; it's an argument from ignorance.
Before concluding that order arose from magic (Goddidit!), you should consider the non-magical explanations revealed by science.

Running around building strawmen and crying "Non Sequitur" while not stating why the conclusion does not follow .. is definitely an "Argument from ignorance"

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So, even if we say we believe in God, and some explain that we do consider ourselves Christian, that's not good enough for you and imply that we are lying?

Deflecting. You didn’t answer her question.

Does science claim a god did anything? No… natural means / methods are the only explanations.

So, In your view, where does God come into the picture? What did God create? (I guarantee you, somewhere along the line, it will conflict with science.)

Question for @Dan From Smithville , too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please give me one that you pull up and let's talk about them.

Excuse me, I don't understand the request. Pull up what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have attended two humble Bible colleges, but the Bible is not to be understood in the way that you think. The Holy Spirit is the true Author of the Bible and he is the teacher./interpreter of all scripture. If you are simply going to point out dates, and unimportant things, grammar, word contradictions that have nothing to do with the Teachings, doctrines and truths which are the purpose of the Bible then your attempts will only fuel your own doubts but will not Shake my Faith or any who truly believe the God of the Bible.

So you really have not studied the Bible any more than I have and in fact you have probably studied it less.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

When you start out pretending you already have the answers before even asking the question (since you approach the subject from the DOGMATIC position that your bible interpretation is correct), then there is no way you are going to get the answers right. Or that you are even in a position to give the question an honest evaluation.

The answers I’ve accepted & promote, fit far better into the grand scheme of everything, than those you have advanced.

For example, when posters like @George-ananda , @Tinkerpeach , and others present their evidence & experiences with unseen intelligent entities, you’re just like other skeptics on here. You have no explanation and so prefer to claim they’re “mistaken,” rather than examine the rational presentations of their evidence.

Then off you go, content to ignore it.

And you literally make stuff up to "explain away" all the evidence that doesn't fit your a priori beliefs.

If you think I “make stuff up”, prove it.

Actually, my claims & beliefs do fit the facts. (Including the unexplained phenomena.)
Both of us have the same facts / evidence. Our interpretations of the facts is where we differ.

when you say that things only evolve "within" their family, what does that mean exactly?

I think I’m quite clear: that no extant species, or population thereof, can evolve to the point of forming a new Family taxon; certainly not a new Order, much less a new Class or Phylum.

New species, even new Genera, yes. But they’ll still be classified within that Family. (Or Order… that classification system is always in flux.)

Give an example of the type of evolution that this would mean could NOT occur which in your opinion would have to be possible if the theory of evolution from biology is correct.

Alright.

1) The evolution of the genetic code which builds proteins that then are arranged to form the bacterial flagellum, or any of hundreds of other molecular machinery in the cell.

2) The cell itself, and the membrane encasing it.

Etc., etc.

Irreducible complexity has been refuted.

No…. I know you’d like to think so, but no evolutionary mechanisms — even under lab-controlled conditions — have been observed to produce irreducibly-complex systems.

(And the humorous example of turning a mousetrap into a tie-clasp, was no refutation.)

 

[Mock Turtle]

And as for the absolute beauty of God's creation, I praise him for what I see and get to witness every single Day! The awesome wonder of my children and my grandchildren, the beauty of flowers, plants, trees, all the thousands of creatures around us, and the magnificent skies where as every day brings forth a different sunset and sunrise. All of these Scream creation to me, and I worship the One who created all of this for US.

Excuse me for butting in, but I feel the need to make a point whenever anyone says things like this. The above is very myopic in my view, given that life isn't all about the beauty that we often see on the surface, or even deeply when it truly is so, when so much of existence for life is not this way. Even a superficial look at non-human life and the nature of predators and predated, parasites and such will show how life consumes itself in so many ways - so where is the beauty in this? The parts that are not so beautiful are all mainly under the surface. And the same applies to the human form - where so many bacteria and viruses makes up our biology, and without such we wouldn't survive but where they are often also sources of troubles.

Humans are probably the most likely to appreciate beauty in nature, although we don't really know this, and there are good reasons for this - we live in a world much fashioned by us, and over a long period of time. That is, we (that which humans have achieved) usually eliminate all the threats to our lives - whether from other animals or threats from disease and such - and cultivate that which gives us comfort and/or pleasure. Long ago in our past we would have been much like so many other species - as to surviving amongst all the threats trying to end our lives. Do you think life was as beautiful then as you seem to think for us now - even when we live in the best circumstances and not still at war with each other?

This is the point - that some just seem to look at our lives now as if this was always meant to be but where we have a long history of struggle to have arrived at this position - and even then we can't really say there is so much beauty in the world when there is also so much conflict and horrors occurring. This is really just a Pollyanna view of life in my view and hardly realistic.

I will grant that the Earth is so often a very beautiful place to live - the only one we actually know of at the moment - and that so much beauty surrounds us and can happen in our lives, but even to effect this, which is what humans have done over the millennia, we have had to destroy so many species and change/ruin the ecology so as to bring this about. And although this is often not done intentionally much is.

 

[Valjean]

Go ahead and tell me what I have already have heard for over the 30 years I have been studying the scriptures.

What you've been "studying" was clearly not from disinterested biblical scholars, linguists or historians.

 

[Valjean]

Please give me one that you pull up and let's talk about them.

OK, how about the Noah's flood, or the Egyptian exodus?
If I cited sources, would you read/watch them?

 

[Valjean]

I have attended two humble Bible colleges, but the Bible is not to be understood in the way that you think. The Holy Spirit is the true Author of the Bible and he is the teacher./interpreter of all scripture. If you are simply going to point out dates, and unimportant things, grammar, word contradictions that have nothing to do with the Teachings, doctrines and truths which are the purpose of the Bible then your attempts will only fuel your own doubts but will not Shake my Faith or any who truly believe the God of the Bible.

Would examples of God's wickedness and injustice be of interest?

 

[Valjean]

Both of us have the same facts / evidence. Our interpretations of the facts is where we differ.

I don't think you have the actual, empirical facts we skeptics are aware of.

I think I’m quite clear: that no extant species, or population thereof, can evolve to the point of forming a new Family taxon; certainly not a new Order, much less a new Class or Phylum.

Why not? How do small changes manage not to accumulate into big changes? How does natural variation know when to stop, so as to avoid transgressing the family or order barrier?
How do you explain the recent speciation we've already observed, or the fossil record, or the genomics?

New species, even new Genera, yes. But they’ll still be classified within that Family. (Or Order… that classification system is always in flux.)

How did Latin 'evolve' into French? At what point did one become the other?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What judgement am I personally bequeathing?

That mankind cannot learn about the world around us from observation using the gifts that I believe come from the Creator. That we must reject what we experience in favor of the personal interpretations of others.

And as for the absolute beauty of God's creation, I praise him for what I see and get to witness every single Day! The awesome wonder of my children and my grandchildren, the beauty of flowers, plants, trees, all the thousands of creatures around us, and the magnificent skies where as every day brings forth a different sunset and sunrise. All of these Scream creation to me, and I worship the One who created all of this for US.

Is it glorifying God to promote false information, misleading information and nonsense offered offered as fact with the confidence of someone trained in science, but not actually knowing or understanding science?

But if what you mean is I don't give credit to anything or anyone else for these Gifts other than God, I am guilty and absolutely see no need to? And to do so would mean I really don't believe in him. That would be similar to saying I love my wife and that she is the only one for me, that I belong to her and she to me, but then seeing another woman, leaving my wife behind and chasing after her.

This has nothing to do with the discussion and I believe what you do in your free time with others is between you and God.

The reason we worship God, and only give him the Glory for this world and all the universe, is because we know he is who he says he is. Creator of everything!
And if that offends you, and others, ALthough I really do not mean or intend to, it doesn't matter ultimately, what matters is my relationship with the one who breathed life into me.

Again, is it giving God the Glory to look at the world and conclude that your personal feelings are the only answer or that you know so much that your personal conclusions should be seen as the "truth". They are your personal feelings and I have no knowledge that they are edicts that must be followed by all even when their personal gifts tell them differently. That seems to be usurping authority that I don't believe Glories God.

 

[wellwisher]

Of course this question is addressed both to theists and to atheists. Both to those who believe in evolution and those who believe it's untrue.
Explain why you, through your intelligence, reason and mind developped the awareness and the conviction that Evolution is the historical truth.

If you are a theist, please explain the theological implications, as well.

I will underline that we are not talking about Intelligence Design, here: we are talking about Darwinian evolution based upon the Darwinian principles like natural selection, etc..etc...
Thank you for participating-

Most people believe in Evolution or Creation, based on the prestige of others. Prestige of others is based on their social placement of the source of information, within the social pecking order. This is the main source of what we are taught, learn and accept, by reading and listening. This knowledge is not due to our own direct experiences. It is more like memorize and repeat and then depend on the prestige of others, to pretend and support our conviction.

There are pitfalls to this, such as the Trump and Russian collusion scam, where half the people in the USA relied too heavily on the prestige of so-called experts in politics and fake news. Direct experience and some critical thinking skills would have made it easier to avoid the pitfalls of placing prestige, first. Ironically, those who believed in the collusion, also push evolution the hardest. How did this paradox appear? Again, it is about using the social prestige of others, as your evidence, instead of your own experiences or your own critical thinking. Prestige style thinking can bind a bigger army, who can bludgeon the smaller army into submission, unless hard data gets in the way.

I have had dogs and cats my entire life, some of which have had puppies or kittens of various colors. This direct experience tells me some things about genetics and even species breeding with their own kind. However, that direct data and genetic understanding could apply to either evolution or creation, since I am less than a 5000 years old and all these litters each happened within the span of less than a year. Even those connected to early Creation; say 5000 years ago, knew about animal husbandry and breeding livestock, and how humans can choose desired traits and outcomes, with man made selections; breed a stronger bull. This could prove both.

If you disregard what you were taught or read, based on social prestige, but had to depend on only your own direct experience and critical thinking inference and deductions, based on your own expertise, you opinion is not as clear cut. It is mostly based on others thinking for you and then you pretending to be an expert, using the leverage of expert prestige; consensus of science, as a hammer.

When science is looking for life on other planets, they look for signs of water, but not signs of organics. Yet the current model of evolution and biology is organic centric. Why isn't astral science looking for organics on planets? Why does it not assume the foundation of a planet, that may be ripe for life and evolution with be an organic? Something does not add up. This is how critical thinking finds flaws.

In my experience, and my common sense as a Chemistry and Chemical Engineer major; semi-expert in Chemistry, since there are 100 times more water molecules in any cell, than all the organic molecules combined, and with water touching all the organics, and allowing for its own integrated or 3-D effect; life is also an integrated effect, water should be first. The Astral Physicists look way back for life.

In Chemistry, we can start with water and no organics, just N2 and CO2; more like primal universe, and make all the amino acids, like we can do in the chemistry lab, by tweaking reaction conditions. However, without the prestige effect, very few can see the reality of water as foundational since this is not the big social hammer of prestige, even of based on common sense.

Chemistry is centered on water; acids, bases, reduction and oxidation. It is the most investigated substance in science and is the platform ob which Chemistry was built. Synthesis and metabolism in cells occur in water and with enzymes, and will not occur without water. Enzymes are designed to work with water and only water. Creation, at least separated the waters from the waters; phases of water above and below the crust, and life in water appears, first, with the organics secondary; Miller Experiments. Water makes abiogenesis possible.

How did organics win the battle of science prestige? My guess is the medical and drugs industries. Both show practical results even if both are still called practices and does not have a sign that says, "opening night". It has to do with casino math and casino science; fuzzy dice. If you can use fuzzy dice, then theory does not have to be spot on or fully rational. The analogy between rational and empirical science is rational is like building an expensive piece of furniture ,with no glue and no fasteners. It all stays together, tightly, with precision tongue and grove joints, that fit tightly together. With casino math you get use big fuzzy globs of velcro, to hold together the ill fitting pieces; practice building. If prestige says this is good enough the mob will wield that hammer, without direct experience and thought. We have good drugs for heart disease and cancer but we also have side effects due to the velcro joint.

I believe in the spirit of evolution, but not the casino math and velcro explanation for how it works. Creation, on the other hand is really talking about a modern aspect of evolution connected to the modern human mind; will and choice. This is connected to the ego secondary center of consciousness appearing about 5-10k years ago, leading to advanced persistent civilization that continues to expand even today. Both can be attributed to water; cell biology and the cerebral spinal fluid. CSF is very dilute nearly pure water, with variable traces of chemicals, so the water effect remains dominant; top of the water food chain impacting the brain and secondary center.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The answers I’ve accepted & promote, fit far better into the grand scheme of everything, than those you have advanced.

And yet you continually fail to present any reason that they do fit or are superior to the explanations that are offered.

For example, when posters like @George-ananda , @Tinkerpeach , and others present their evidence & experiences with unseen intelligent entities, you’re just like other skeptics on here. You have no explanation and so prefer to claim they’re “mistaken,” rather than examine the rational presentations of their evidence.

I haven't seen evidence presented by those others or by you. Just claims. Your basically saying that any claim that comes close to matching your own is evidence for yours and those that don't are just false. You do this without benefit of evidence.

Then off you go, content to ignore it.

There is a pot and a kettle here somewhere. Isn't that special.

If you think I “make stuff up”, prove it.

I think that you have presented claims and have yet to support them as the best answer.

Actually, my claims & beliefs do fit the facts. (Including the unexplained phenomena.)
Both of us have the same facts / evidence. Our interpretations of the facts is where we differ.

I've heard this many times before by people that cannot provide valid interpretations to the same things. As you have so often demonstrated in defense of my position.

I think I’m quite clear: that no extant species, or population thereof, can evolve to the point of forming a new Family taxon; certainly not a new Order, much less a new Class or Phylum.

I'm familiar with the claim. I'm not familiar with any evidence that supports it and what are called arguments for that position are weak and unsupportive.

New species, even new Genera, yes. But they’ll still be classified within that Family. (Or Order… that classification system is always in flux.)

The evidence that has been hashed and rehashed demonstrates that your idea doesn't fit in the grand scheme of things.

Alright.

1) The evolution of the genetic code which builds proteins that then are arranged to form the bacterial flagellum, or any of hundreds of other molecular machinery in the cell.

2) The cell itself, and the membrane encasing it.

Etc., etc.

So, examples from ignorance. We don't know, so therefore it refutes science and installs any random belief. Then why is my belief or yours so much better than others when neither of us can support it except by fiat.

No…. I know you’d like to think so, but no evolutionary mechanisms — even under lab-controlled conditions — have been observed to produce irreducible-complex systems.

I don't have to think so, I accept the fact. All the claimed irreducibly complex structures and systems have been shown to be reducible. All that creationist ideas offer is a retreat to what they believe is the next thing until that is demonstrated otherwise and then it is a retreat to the next and so on back.

(And the humorous example of turning a mousetrap into a tie-clasp, was no refutation.)

It was indeed. It refuted the claim of irreducible complexity very well. So much so that I am comfortable that continual reference to it represents how stinging so easy a defeat that it was.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Deflecting. You didn’t answer her question.

Does science claim a god did anything? No… natural means / methods are the only explanations.

So, In your view, where does God come into the picture? What did God create? (I guarantee you, somewhere along the line, it will conflict with science.)

Question for @Dan From Smithville , too.

I believe the these questions about the spirituality of others are a deflection.

In the past, I have asked simple questions that should have easily been answered by those that claim to possess superior knowledge and experience, but rather than provide me with the answers, suddenly the conversation is about what I believe and that these people suddenly have a compelling need to hear my explanations of my faith.

Here, the subject is evidence and a scientific theory. Rather than present evidence and arguments regarding the "same evidence" and different conclusions, we are back to the diversion.

It is the sort of thing that makes me question the motives and sincerity of others and have doubts that my interests or needs are at all important to others and that I'm merely seen as a pawn in the manifestations and desires of a group rather than meeting the claim they are here to Glorify God.

You and I have different ideas about how that Glorification is manifested or whether it is directed where it is supposed to be and not going to some other entity, organization or idea. But I keep my questions in context and in line with and reference to the claims others make.

In a previous post, you made several claims and I await your demonstration of them, but I suspect, based on prior experience, that I will never see it. Of course, that won't inhibit the empty repetition of those claims or the creation of diversions from that emptiness. In my experience, that is the response to questions and requests to see those claims supported.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You may believe it is not necessary to know what or how a person thinks about God, and it's obvious that some others will agree with you, but I do not agree that the questions are not necessary. Thanks again for expressing your viewpoint, much appreciated.

It's a diversion. How does knowing the feelings and personal beliefs of anyone help you support your claims or answer their questions?

For me, this has become a part of what you do and repeat in place of a solid position regarding the actual topics of discussion.

Is it really an exercise of the free will of an individual to parrot a groups dogma as fact when that remains unestablished and those parroting refuse to stay on point and provide support that what they claim is valid?

Don't worry about answering. I know you will, given that is how I have seen this played out. But I've no interesting in helping perpetuate what I see as a diversion that has no evidentiary value to the topic of discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What judgement am I personally bequeathing?

And as for the absolute beauty of God's creation, I praise him for what I see and get to witness every single Day! The awesome wonder of my children and my grandchildren, the beauty of flowers, plants, trees, all the thousands of creatures around us, and the magnificent skies where as every day brings forth a different sunset and sunrise. All of these Scream creation to me, and I worship the One who created all of this for US.

But if what you mean is I don't give credit to anything or anyone else for these Gifts other than God, I am guilty and absolutely see no need to? And to do so would mean I really don't believe in him. That would be similar to saying I love my wife and that she is the only one for me, that I belong to her and she to me, but then seeing another woman, leaving my wife behind and chasing after her.

The reason we worship God, and only give him the Glory for this world and all the universe, is because we know he is who he says he is. Creator of everything!
And if that offends you, and others, ALthough I really do not mean or intend to, it doesn't matter ultimately, what matters is my relationship with the one who breathed life into me.

It is your judgement that you are personally bequeathing as the means to reject valid information from rational inquiry. Even the Bible supports rational inquiry.

Are you a scientist? Nothing from what you have posted would lead to that conclusion.

Are you skilled and schooled in the field of biology that your opinions about it are sound, correct and carry the weight to be considered with seriousness? Again, nothing offered indicates that.

Is your understanding of the science of evolution so deep and broad that you can recognize the answers that you want and the sources that you use to be sound and the best answer to the questions, issues and discussions. Once again, the evidence says that is not the case.

So, it is your judgement based on what you want to believe that you are bequeathing on others with the caveat that to not accept it is to defy and dismiss God.

I believe that in all my time with the Lord, the random opinion and arguments from ignorance by other Christians were not related to me as having authority to dictate how the world is. What you are claiming is that, because you claim to believe, everything you say is infallible. I see this from many on here, but I have yet to see it as a fact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is ok. And we do have freedom of choice. So thanks for that.

Some of us don't seem to be evidence in support of that claim. In fact, some people are aligned with groups where exercising the freedom of choice will get you persecuted. Much as my exercise of it here does for me.

 

[F1fan]

And as for the absolute beauty of God's creation,

There is no absolute beauty, it's just your opinion. You aren't God, are you? If not, then whatever you believe ends with you nd your judgment.

I praise him for what I see and get to witness every single Day! The awesome wonder of my children and my grandchildren, the beauty of flowers, plants, trees, all the thousands of creatures around us, and the magnificent skies where as every day brings forth a different sunset and sunrise. All of these Scream creation to me, and I worship the One who created all of this for US.

We don'y care what you believe nor your rituals. It's irrelevant to anyone else. All we care about is if you can show what you claim is factual and likley true.

But if what you mean is I don't give credit to anything or anyone else for these Gifts other than God, I am guilty and absolutely see no need to? And to do so would mean I really don't believe in him. That would be similar to saying I love my wife and that she is the only one for me, that I belong to her and she to me, but then seeing another woman, leaving my wife behind and chasing after her.

More of your personal beliefs that have nothing to do with anyone else.

The reason we worship God, and only give him the Glory for this world and all the universe, is because we know he is who he says he is.

No, it's what you learned from other Christians. You haven't demonstrated any such knowledge.

Creator of everything!
And if that offends you, and others, ALthough I really do not mean or intend to, it doesn't matter ultimately, what matters is my relationship with the one who breathed life into me.

More of your irrelevant beliefs. Where's the evidence?

 

[F1fan]

I have attended two humble Bible colleges,

Your colleges might have been humble, but you aren't. You are making assertions that are not true or fact-based. Do you not understand the difference between knowledge and belief? Did your colleges not teach that?

but the Bible is not to be understood in the way that you think.

Did your college teach you how the Bible was assembled back in the 4th century? Did they teach you that there were over 200 books and the bishops decided to whittle it down to 72 books? Revelations almost didn't make the cut. It was eventually included because several bishop's traded voted for their choices. Look at all the chaos that Revelations has cost humanity with all the End Time nonsense. After hundreds of End Time predictions that ruined lives Christians are still predicting it.

The Holy Spirit is the true Author of the Bible and he is the teacher./interpreter of all scripture.

The Holy Spirit isn't a known fact. Can you demonstrate any such thing exists outside of human imagination? Science can demonstrate evolution, why can't Christians demonstrate God?

If you are simply going to point out dates, and unimportant things, grammar, word contradictions that have nothing to do with the Teachings, doctrines and truths which are the purpose of the Bible then your attempts will only fuel your own doubts but will not Shake my Faith or any who truly believe the God of the Bible.

Believers never came to a rational conclusion in what they believe, so arguments aren't going to make them realize their errors of judgment.