What if it was created by God to evolve?

[wellwisher]

I think theistic evolution is a better alternative for religious people than Creationism.

That being said, I still don't see it as being a 100% completely perfect concept, either. I prefer just straight evolution, no theistic portion to it.

The current version of evolution cannot be made perfect until evolution gets rid of casino math. That math is based on black box thinking and not logic. It adds too much fuzzy dice fudge.

As an analogy, in ancient times, people could observe the night sky and plot the stars and planets. They could even use that data and create charts and tools to make accurate predictions, all while using a theoretical model of the sky based on mythology. The observation, charts and tools were very accurate and had predictive value, all on own their own. This was in spite of their theoretical explanation not being accurate. Good data and correlation can work even with or without bad theory. Many people mistake applied science for pure science, thereby thinking the theory is right; helios is alive.

The problem with statistical math, still used by evolution, is it adds a layer of whims of the gods. This adds some theistic evolution onto rational science. This can confuse some to think that the good observations and the practical correlation, paralleled by the whims of the gods; means that theory right. One can plot the path of the sun even if we pretend Helios is doing this. But that does not prove Helios. This is the problem with evolution; Casino Science is like Helios.

Could evolutionary theory still work, if we did not allow casino math; no theistic addendum to evolution? Or are the black box assumptions needed? Could this model be inferred with pure logic? The answer is no. This is due to some mythology accompanying the empirical model.

The difference between the statistical theistic addendum and the classic theistic addendum is the divine of the latter can do anything on demand. Statistical theistic can do the same things, as the Divine model, but you will need to wait; finite odds needed to make the first replicators will happen but will take time. God could have said let there be replicators. Statistics says we need replicators to get the theory jump started. This is logical and possible, so if we had the time.... Therefore we will start there.

If Helios decided to sell his chariot and use an electric car, would the charts still be able to make predictions? The answer is yes, since the observations and charts are the real objective evidence not the theory. I been showing how to upgrade the theory with a water model, but the theology of evolution is too dogmatic. This explains the religious war being fought by the Atheists centered on the god of dice and cards.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Autistic memory from grade 12 science.

Then you have almost no education in the sciences.

Then maybe be more clear.

No, you appear to be doing that on purpose.

Why would you create a hypothesis if you didn't observe something first?

Okay, why didn't you admit that you had no clue as to what a hypothesis is?

A myth with value. You understood my reference and idea immediately.

Not really. It grossly distorts his work. We know of it because someone came up with a cute way to associate Newton with gravity. You unfortunately did not even learn what his law refers to.

i agree with science. I disagree with many conclusions of scientists. Do you see the difference?

Nope, you do not agree with "science". Because at times there is only one answer. You demonstrated that yourself. Creationists do so all of the time when they cannot design proper hypotheses for their beliefs. Like it or not you are a science denier.

I have many things to say to those Christians as well. But why are you deflecting?

I am not. You seem to have forgotten that that was your initial error here. You implied that one had to call God a liar to be a true Christian.

I have not changed my stance at all. Please show me where I have.

You tried to claim that you had the same evidence that scientists do earlier. Now you are claiming that you do not have evidence.

So you call it observation... but is not that observation a form of evidence? What is the event is non repeatable? We observe an accident... but we can not repeat it. We can duplicate it maybe... but not repeat it. Is the observation of the accident not evidence?

Observation can be empirical evidence, but even then you still need an explanation that it agrees with.

You are not reasoning clearly This is why you need to learn what the scientific method is. Here is a simplified flow chart. It is not the only way, but others are going to be very close:

 

[dwb001]

Then you have almost no education in the sciences.

All that is required to poke holes in the science that is presented here.

No, you appear to be doing that on purpose.

What? I dont read back.

Okay, why didn't you admit that you had no clue as to what a hypothesis is?

The first attemt to explain a phenomenon. Subject to experimentation and correction.

Not really. It grossly distorts his work. We know of it because someone came up with a cute way to associate Newton with gravity. You unfortunately did not even learn what his law refers to.

Dont care as you got my point and engaged fully with it. A shorthand answer sometimes is good enough.

Nope, you do not agree with "science". Because at times there is only one answer. You demonstrated that yourself. Creationists do so all of the time when they cannot design proper hypotheses for their beliefs. Like it or not you are a science denier.

Nope... sometimes is not always. So there is room for alternative explanation.

I am not. You seem to have forgotten that that was your initial error here. You implied that one had to call God a liar to be a true Christian.

Where was that again? I would never imply that so maybe i mistyped or you maybe misread.

You tried to claim that you had the same evidence that scientists do earlier. Now you are claiming that you do not have evidence.

When did I say that? I use the same evidence as evolutionists. So if you say.i have no evidence then you are saying the evolutionists have no evidence. That would be a misreading on your part.

Observation can be empirical evidence, but even then you still need an explanation that it agrees with.

No. Evidence can contradict as well.

You are not reasoning clearly This is why you need to learn what the scientific method is. Here is a simplified flow chart. It is not the only way, but others are going to be very close:

View attachment 85059

Your graphic is missing the first step. What makes you ask the question.

And it is overly simplified.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All that is required to poke holes in the science that is presented here.

What? I dont read back.

The first attemt to explain a phenomenon. Subject to experimentation and correction.

Dont care as you got my point and engaged fully with it. A shorthand answer sometimes is good enough.

Nope... sometimes is not always. So there is room for alternative explanation.

Where was that again? I would never imply that so maybe i mistyped or you maybe misread.

When did I say that? I use the same evidence as evolutionists. So if you say.i have no evidence then you are saying the evolutionists have no evidence. That would be a misreading on your part.

No. Evidence can contradict as well.

Your graphic is missing the first step. What makes you ask the question.

And it is overly simplified.

I am tired of this. If you want to continue you have to do it one point at a time. It takes too long to correct gross ignorance. We won't get anywhere with broken up posts.

I need you to answer some questions. Can you be honest? When the evidence shows you to be wrong will you change your mind?

 

[dwb001]

I am tired of this. If you want to continue you have to do it one point at a time. It takes too long to correct gross ignorance. We won't get anywhere with broken up posts.

I need you to answer some questions. Can you be honest? When the evidence shows you to be wrong will you change your mind?

I have been honest since I began posting.

What evidence do you have?

I don't think it will be free from preconceived errors that I will have to point out to you. Are you okay with me showing where your evidence is jumping to conclusions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have been honest since I began posting.

No you haven't been. And since that was a gross error I am done with that post.

Once again, and I will be nice and reword it, even though you have to know that my first question was correct:

If the evidence shows you to be wrong can you be honest? Can you change your mind about the creation myths of Genesis?

 

[dwb001]

No you haven't been. And since that was a gross error I am done with that post.

When have I lied? Share the post.
I have sookeb only what i hold to be true.

Once again, and I will be nice and reword it, even though you have to know that my first question was correct:

If the evidence shows you to be wrong can you be honest? Can you change your mind about the creation myths of Genesis?

I have changed my mind several tines about the Creation account

If your evidence rises to a sufficient level I don't see why I wouldn't again

Are you open to believe that Genesis is the truth or are you wanting to make this one sided?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When have I lied? Share the post.
I have sookeb only what i hold to be true.

One does not necessarily have to lie to be dishonest. And I already pointed out when you did.

I have changed my mind several tines about the Creation account

If your evidence rises to a sufficient level I don't see why I wouldn't again

Are you open to believe that Genesis is the truth or are you wanting to make this one sided?

Okay, we will see. You are not off to a good start.

Yes, if the evidence was there I would change my mind. But since all of the evidence, and there are millions of examples of evidence, only support evolution I do not see that happening.

You did not like this version of the scientific method:

What is wrong with the first step? How is that out of order?

 

[dwb001]

One oes not necessarily have to lie to be dishonest. And I already pointed out when you did.

I don't recall you pointing out my dishonest words. So you fail to present evidence when asked. Poor start for you.

Okay, we will see. You are not off to a good start.

Yes, if the evidence was there I would change my mind. But since all of the evidence, and there are millions of examples of evidence, only support evolution I do not see that happening.

Preconceived bias already showing.

You did not like this version of the scientific method:

View attachment 85068

What is wrong with the first step? How is that out of order?

What made you ask the question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't recall you pointing out my dishonest words. So you fail to present evidence when asked. Poor start for you.

Preconceived bias already showing.

What made you ask the question.

Try again. You got lost last time the posts got broken up, probably by both of us, If you cannot follow along when posts are broken up do not interrupt them.

And please, try to be honest. Do not accuse others of your sins.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It began with the theory of “spontaneous generation” among scientific minds and evolved into abiogenesis which is effectively Genesis among Atheist scientists.

Spontaneous generation was a creationist position refuted by science. There has never been a theory of spontaneous generation to my knowledge. Someone can correct me if I am wrong here.

Abiogenesis is not life arising fully formed into specific types. It is the search for the origin of life in the evidence regardless of whether those scientists are atheist or theist. Abiogenesis has continually accruing evidence, but remains as a series of hypotheses that do not have enough evidence available at this time to test. It is based on evidence of the natural world given that is the only source of evidence we have.

 

[dwb001]

Try again. You got lost last time the posts got broken up, probably by both of us, If you cannot follow along when posts are broken up do not interrupt them.

And please, try to be honest. Do not accuse others of your sins.

Then point it out... or I will just assume you are making things up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then point it out... or I will just assume you are making things up.

No, if you want to have a conversation it is your job to follow the conversation. I point them out when they happen. If you ignore the correction when that happens you have no grounds for complaint after that.

 

[dwb001]

No, if you want to have a conversation it is your job to follow the conversation. I point them out when they happen. If you ignore the correction when that happens you have no grounds for complaint after that.

So no harm no foul.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So no harm no foul.

Wrong again.. But then that is nothing new for you on this topic. You seem to be running away from the topic.

 

[dwb001]

Wrong again.. But then that is nothing new for you on this topic. You seem to be running away from the topic.

I am responding to your post. You can keep this train on the tracks but this post right here is a further derailment. I answered your questions... now present your convincing evidence for evolution.

(See this is me trying to get on track... now if you take umbrage with the first part of my post... you are derailing... or you can proceed on track.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am responding to your post. You can keep this train on the tracks but this post right here is a further derailment. I answered your questions... now present your convincing evidence for evolution.

(See this is me trying to get on track... now if you take umbrage with the first part of my post... you are derailing... or you can proceed on track.)

You took off the rails. You won't let it get back on track. That is because you know that you are wrong.

And no, you did not listen. It was explained to you how you do not get to demand evidence when you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence. I know. You are afraid. That is a natural reaction.

You need to learn the basics first.

 

[dwb001]

Wrong again.. But then that is nothing new for you on this topic. You seem to be running away from the topic.

Please show the harm or the foul.
Or are we just disagreeing to be disagreeable?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please show the harm or the foul.
Or are we just disagreeing to be disagreeable?

I do not play that silly game. Take your corrections when they happen. You are the one that wants to deny all of the sciences. So let's fixt that problem first. Or is this just another delaying tactic of yours?

 

[dwb001]

You took off the rails. You won't let it get back on track. That is because you know that you are wrong.

I dont see any questions here.

And no, you did not listen. It was explained to you how you do not get to demand evidence when you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence. I know. You are afraid. That is a natural reaction.

Listen to what?
i never demanded evidence... but if you want me to talk about something you would neeed to offer a seed.
Autism mindset needs prompts to get running.

You need to learn the basics first.

I know basics... but why should I write a 10 page lecture if you will disagree with the first sentence?
Is it not better for you to get your questions answered instead of me answering questions you have not asked?