Just Accidental?

[Desert Snake]

No as I mimicked a different part of your argument.

I used self-caused. I can equally use eternal.

That is affirming my argument, not refuting it.
argument/premise different argument/same premise= not refutation

Since I am mimicking your points I am attacking the logic of your arguments.

No, you aren't.
You are de facto agreeing with the logic of my argument.

 

[sayak83]

The fossil record is a deluded fantasy with no more solid scientific evidence than I have. There is not one single piece of scientific fact linking any species to another in the fossil record and you know it. The great detail is fabricated as a web of suggestions and conjecture held together by diagrams out of human imagination. It is 100% supposition. You can deny it all you like, but there are definitely some here who are closing their eyes to the truth. If you are blind, then it is by your own choice. The overwhelming evidence is for Intelligent Design, not a string of very fortunate undirected accidents.

The deluded fantasy is on your part Deeje, not mine. Much of the arguments and evidence are presented here. I will leave it up to those who read them to decide.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not my species, nor any other creature on this planet for that matter....the fortunate occurrence that produced either you or me is the result of an amazing mechanism whereby diversity and variety is achieved without any conscious effort on the part of our parents.
No matter how many generations come and go.....humans and these animals will always be born true to their "kind".

Awwwwe....look how cute all these fortunate little accidents are......c'mon....tell me they just designed themselves and we all just happen to find them adorable.

......have you run out of arguments?

I think you're the one who has run out of arguments.

Know how I know that? Because nobody says that animals "just designed themselves" and yet here you are asserting that is what evolutionary theory claims, along with all your other straw men arguments. The fact that you still don't even seem to understand evolution at this point in the thread speaks volumes. I don't think willful ignorance is a virtue.

P.S. Tape worms aren't adorable. Flesh eating bacteria isn't adorable. So there goes that argument as well.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are just not getting it, are you?

The "divine intervention" was the creation of the first humans. They were designed with procreative abilities and they were told to "fill the earth" with their "kind". This was true of all living things on this planet. That mandate has been fulfilled.

Who get to be among the ones with the 'golden ticket' is not relevant. I don't know how to make that any clearer. I do not see myself as anything but fortunate to be born and to have life...its truly a miracle. I was one sperm away from being somebody else. But since I would never have been born, who would have missed me? My individual life was not foreordained in any way.

Your argument is a little silly for the simple reason that the Creator designed life to replicate.....who it produces is not important. But humans will remain humans for all time to come. They will not evolve into something else. We did not evolve from primates and there is not one single shred of solid evidence that evolution ever took place. You cannot prove me wrong.
Supposition is not fact....and supposition is all you have. I don't think you really look at the evidence, which is why I post pictures of real creatures rather than the made up ones invented by science.

Humans ARE primates.

I've posted many real creatures as well. Funny how you don't acknowledge those at all.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

[The Ark] was not a boat, but a monolithic chest....it had no bow or stern and no rudder....it was designed to float, not to navigate. The ratios of height to length to width, are still used by ship builders to this day because of its incredible stability in all conditions. How did Noah know how to build such a vessel when no one had ever taught him to?

More evidence of the Bible's Divine inspiration, but many are so willing to ignore it.

Same with the Mosaic Law and its commands to the Israelites regarding cleanliness and quarantining of those who handle the dead. Only in modern times have people appreciated the benefits of such counsel.

I wanted to write more, but I gotta run....life beckons.

 

[Deeje]

There are no evidences to the exodus ever historically occurring: the slavery and liberation, the 10 pestilences, and the invasion of Canaan.

There are no evidences to support that Moses ever lived. And that make it highly unlikely Moses wrote anything.

And beside that...the invasion of Canaan after Moses' death...whether this be 1513 or 1473 BCE, would have occurred during the 18th dynasty (1549 – 1292 BCE) in New Kingdom Egypt. That's not likely to happen. The are number of reasons why Joshua couldn't invade Canaan.

For one, Canaan and Syria was in the hand of Egypt most of the time, during the 18th dynasty. There were a lot of strong rulers in the early half of 18th dynasty, during late 16th and early 15th centuries BCE.



I would put the date of the Israelites leaving Egypt in 1446 BCE, which would mean Moses' death occurring 1406 BCE, and invasion after this date. The reason being King Solomon (only if he was a real king), supposedly c 970 - 930 BCE, and the temple foundation in 966 BCE (source: 1 Kings 6:1).


Archaeologically, it is clear that these 2 cities were built at different time.

Pithom was built some times in 18th or 17th century BCE, which is the 13th dynasty (Middle Kingdom).

While Rameses or more precisely Pi-Ramesses (the House of Ramesses) was named after Ramesses II (1279 – 1213 BCE), the 2nd king of 19th dynasty.

So the cities weren't built at any date, you and I have provided.



Again, like Moses, it most likely Daniel is not a real person.

There are no historical evidences that Daniel was ever advising any Neo-Babylonian king.

So forgive me, if I cannot take your claims about Moses and Daniel seriously.

I do not see anyone with a big stick forcing you to believe anything

You are free to believe whatever you like.

Egypt was not noted for recording its defeats or humiliations.
Saying something is 'not likely' is half way between that and saying that it was 'likely'.

I will take the Bible's word over human history records any day. That is my choice.

 

[Deeje]

Humans ARE primates.

To science, humans might be primates....but to God we are his children, uniquely made in his image. That differentiates us from all other creatures who do not possess the attributes that we do. (particularly spirituality) Between humans and any apes there is a chasm that cannot be filled by any evidence, because none exists. Science can suggest links in an evolutionary chain, but they cannot produce them. The chain is imaginary, built on supposition. No one can challenge that fact because you all know that its true. At the end of the day, you have a belief that has no more solid evidence for its validity that we do.

I've posted many real creatures as well. Funny how you don't acknowledge those at all.

You have? What pictures of real creatures did you post that were not illustrations of what science imaged a creature to look like? Where is the evidence of relationship in a continuing line of descent from one creature to another?

Science cannot produce evidence that is not highly manufactured and sold to people with great marketing. The power of suggestion works as any advertiser will tell you. Good graphics just adds to the illusion.

God doesn't need to sell himself.....he allows his creation to speak for itself.

 

[Sapiens]

My goodness ......it never ceases to amaze me how blind some people can be to very simple facts.

Amen. Were truer words never spoken accidentally.

My mother did not give birth to a dog or a cat or any other creature because her human DNA combined with my fathers human DNA to produce a family of humans. No matter how much time elapses, that will always be the case. Humans will produce other humans as they were designed to do.

It is a continuum. You need to read up on Ring Species, where genetic variability is spread over space rather than over time.

The duck DNA was already designed ready to be passed on to the next generation, who would all bear the same beautiful patterning. All species reproduce "according to their kind"....it's not rocket science is it?

No, it is not rocket science, but it seems to escape you. I guess that is because it runs counter to your preconceived notions.

The fossil record does not supersede this fact of nature. When science produces fossils with the assumption that evolution must have taken place, then it can fill in the gaps with imagination and all manner of "scientific" musings that cannot be proven.....it has to do that because there is nothing else to link one fossil to another. The chain is imaginary because no links actually exist.

Spoken like someone with a weak and passing knowledge of the fossil record and even less familiarity with the confirming geological, immunological and genetic data.

The chance factor is not in an alteration of my genes, but in the diversity of our appearance, dictated by the combined gene pool. My siblings and I do not look alike, yet we are all humans with the same uniquely human characteristics. We have the same body structure and internal workings, yet we have different personalities, different hair color, different eye color, and somewhat different builds, yet all of this was dictated, not by chance, but by the genetic combination that resulted when fertilization took place in each occasion. You mistake the wonder of diversity for blind chance? Seriously, you are grasping at straws.

Again, your lack of background and understanding is showing. Random chance (e.g., mutation) is the origin of all diversity ... that's where the raw material comes from (if you don't believe this, you need to look into what is know about the genetics of Sickle Cell Anemia, speaking of differences in internal workings), but random assortment of the available parental genes is where the diversity of your appearance (and so much more) comes from.

Is anybody else reading what I am reading in these replies? Seriously....we need to question the level to which some are willing to descend to prove their point. Pathetic guys.....I thought you were smarter than that?

"Question the level ..." what ever are you talking about? This is a debate forum. You are not debating, you provide no evidence. You make no arguments. You just preach and expect everyone to bow down before the idols of the four horsemen of logical fallacies: argument from ignorance, straw-man, god of the gaps and argument from personal incredulity.

The mechanism that produces life is beautifully crafted.....replicas of ourselves are produced because we are designed to do so.

Yes, the mechanism is beautiful, honed by billions of years of evolution. We do not produce replicas, we produce new combinations with new variations and let nature sort it out.

"Whom" we produce in that process is immaterial. It was 'humankind' that was to "fill the earth" along with all the other creatures designed to share life on this planet. If we are among them, then we need to be grateful that we have life, when the odds against us individually being here are astronomical.

That is typical of your debating style, a bold-faced misstatement of fact, bereft of evidence or support, presented as though the logical fallacy tapped (in this case argument from fallacy and appeal to probability) lends some credibility.

Is that a serious question? There is absolutely no evidence that humans and dinosaurs ever shared the same air or land space at the same time. I am not a YEC. What Noah took into the ark was what God brought to him. Noah did not have to go out and lasso them. There was a pair of each "kind" of wild animals and 7 of the more domestic ones.

Genetic bottlenecks are rather easy to detect and date, if the Noah fairy tale had any basis every population on Earth, including people would show:

allelic diversity that decline more than heterozygosity. This results from the fact that bottlenecks tend to eliminate many low-frequency alleles. [Nei et al. (1975) "The Bottleneck Effect and Genetic Variability in Populations." Evolution 29:1-10.] So, there is an excess of heterozygosity in selectively neutral loci. [Cornuet and Luikart. (1996) "Description and Power Analysis of Two Tests for Detecting Recent Population Bottlenecks from Allele Frequency Data." Genetics 144: 2001-2014.] Tests for bottlenecks focus on detecting this "excess" heterozygosity, which may last for many generations as allelic diversity recovers through mutation (if there were no mutation, as you'd have it, there'd be almost no heterozygosity).

Figure: Excess heterozygosity under a stepwise mutation model, from Cornuet, et.al. Curves 1-8 represent different amounts of time after the bottleneck event; as you can see, heterozygosity excess first increases, then decreases. The lower the number of post-bottleneck alleles, the more heterozygosity excess. If the Noah story had any basis all populations would show similar (statistically the same) curves.

One can also look at allelic deficiency given the amount of heterozygosity, or the deficiency of rare alleles, since these tend to be eliminated first [Maruyama and Fuerst. (1985) "Population Bottlenecks and Nonequilibrium Models in Population Genetics. II. Number of Alleles in a Small Population That Was Formed By a Recent Bottleneck." Genetics 111: 675-689.], of one can test for a reduction in the variance of allele frequencies, for the same reason. See [Luikart et al. (1998) "Usefulness of molecular markers for detecting population bottlenecks via monitoring genetic change." Molecular Ecology 7: 963-974] for a comparison of statistical power. (Spoiler: The variance test comes out on top.)

(thanks, Shan Kothari)

 

[Sapiens]

Noah was told to gather stores of food for all these animals as well as for the human occupants of this massive floating zoo. It was not a boat, but a monolithic chest....it had no bow or stern and no rudder....it was designed to float, not to navigate. The ratios of height to length to width, are still used by ship builders to this day because of its incredible stability in all conditions. How did Noah know how to build such a vessel when no one had ever taught him to? God gave him the plans, which he carried out to the letter. Because he had to start this project from scratch, it would have taken him decades to complete. Why didn't God just provide an ark already built? Because we have to learn how to save ourselves...it will not be handed to us, but is something we have to put in effort to achieve.

Actually a wooden hull of that size is quite impossible, it would have flooded at the seams due to working and quickly broken up. At 137 meters (450 feet), Noah's Ark would be the largest wooden vessel ever confirmed to have been built. In recorded history, some dozen or so wooden ships have been constructed over 90 meters; few have been successful. Even so, these wooden ships had a great advantage over Noah's Ark: their curved hull shapes. Stress loads are distributed much more efficiently over three dimensionally curved surfaces than they are over flat surfaces. But even with this advantage, real-world large wooden ships have had severe problems. The sailing ships the 100 meter Wyoming (sunk in 1924) and 99 meter Santiago (sunk in 1918) were so large that they flexed in the water, opening up seams in the hull and leaking. The 102 meter British warships HMS Orlando and HMS Mersey had such bad structural problems that they were scrapped in 1871 and 1875 after only a few years in service. Most of the largest wooden ships were, like Noah's Ark, unpowered barges. Yet even those built in modern times, such as the 103 meter Pretoria in 1901, required substantial amounts of steel reinforcement; and even then needed steam-powered pumps to fight the constant flex-induced leaking. If there was even the gentlest of currents, sufficient pressure would be put on the hull to open its seams. Currents are not a complete, perfectly even flow. They consist of eddies and slow-moving turbulence. This puts uneven pressure on the hull, and Noah's Ark would bend with those eddies like a snake. Even if the water itself was perfectly still, wind would expose the flat-sided Ark's tremendous windage, exerting a shearing force that might well crumple it.

This results from what is known as the square-cube law: increase an object's dimensions, and its surface area increases by the square of the multiplier, and its weight increases by the cube of the multiplier. But one extension of this law is less familiar. When we scale up an object — take a wooden structural beam as an example — the strength of the beam does not increase as fast as its weight. Applied mechanics and material sciences give us all the tools we need to compute this. In summary, the tensile strength of a beam is a function of its moment and its section modulus. No need to go into the complicated details here — you can look up beam theory on Wikipedia if you want to learn the equations. Scale up a simple wooden beam large enough, the weight will exceed its strength, and it will break from its own weight alone. Scaled up to the immense size of Noah's Ark, a stout wooden box would be unspeakably fragile.

(thanks Brian Dunning)

After the flood waters subsided, and they stepped out on dry land, there is nothing to suggest that God could not speed up the breeding capacity of the creatures he chose to survive.

Another interesting set of logical fallacies, "there is nothing to suggest that god..." we've got, at least: argument from ignorance, god of the gaps, onus probandi,
petitio principii, and a bunch more.

Today, we are either building our own "ark" or we are building our own coffin. The people in Noah's day thought that it was safe to ignore this old crackpot, because everyone else was doing it. Jesus used this scenario as a warning about what would happen again. (Matthew 24:37-39) We need to be careful about complacency and popular opinion....it isn't always a good gauge where God is concerned.

He will not force himself on anyone who doesn't want him. I think that is quite fair...don't you?

I think your case for the existence of any god(s) is nonexistent, I know that your case for Noah and a flood (etc.) is horse pucky, as already demonstrated. You can only support it by going deus ex machina on us.

You treat science as your very limited god. If science hasn't got a theory about something, it consequently doesn't exist even in the realms of possibility.
When you ask the obvious question..."could life arise by chance?", evolutionists are quick to point out that abiogenesis is not their field, as if the question itself is unrelated.

It is so relevant that it could turn the whole theory on its ear.

Could life arise by chance? I appears, from current data, that it could, and that it did.

Evolutionists, by necessity, have a belief system that has way too many assumptions and no real evidence. They point to their fossils and the story they supposedly tell, but deny that there is no real link between them that wasn't a figment of some learned imagination. You can quote scientific articles and DNA studies but none of it proves any real link between the bones of one creature and the bones of another, separated by millions of years.

Let's not confuse your lack of understanding of comparative anatomy, paleontology, immunology and genetics with effective and meaningful arguments in support of your know-nothing thesis.

I am trying to get you to realize that science is a substitute for religion to many people. Instead of "God did it" you replace that with "Natural Selection did it" but you have no more "scientific" proof for your statement than I do. Is that so hard to admit?

Perhaps that is true for some ignorant people. But your false equivalency does not hold water.

I don't find evolution to be logical or rational. I believe it flies in the face of both.....unless you have an agenda....that a Creator must be an impossibility because science can't find him or explain him.

Your presuppositions lead you into the Valley of the Shadow of Ignorance, so bloviating your beliefs does not make a strong case. Try to find some actual evidence, try to make some actual arguments.

 

[Shad]

That is affirming my argument, not refuting it.
argument/premise different argument/same premise= not refutation

I have made God redundant thus unnecessary. I never said I was refuting your argument, you made this claim. Thus according to you I was refuting your argument as well. You do not seem to understand my posts, or you own.

No, you aren't.

According to you I was since I was mimicking your argument

You are de facto agreeing with the logic of my argument.

So it took you 5 posts to figure this out after I had been telling you I had been using your own argument, except I made God redundant, for 4 posts previously.... Hilarious. Congratulations on figuring out.... nothing.

 

[Shad]

Egypt was not noted for recording its defeats or humiliations.

Irrelevant as material evidence of the Exodus is not present. Besides there are records of their defeats if not one that is irrelevant to the period being discussed. However this refuted the idea that a lack of records is done on purpose in order to erase the supposed events of the Exodus narrative. Absence of evidence is not proof but is evidence of absence which helps create probability that an event is more likely not to have happened than happened.

I will take the Bible's word over human history records any day. That is my choice.

You accept the human record with no material evidence. You just treat your human records as if it was not a human record which is a religious bias. All you have done is confirm your bias then state it openly. Hilarious

 

[Sapiens]

I am amazed by your reasoning.....who said that my exact DNA had to be foreordained even by creation? As I have gone to great lengths to clarify, it is my species that is designed along with all the rest of the living things on this planet. The reproductive abilities in all of them assure us of one thing...they reproduce replicas of themselves "according to their kinds". No matter how many generations come and go, all species will remain within their "kind". Small adaptations may occur in any given species, if climatic conditions or food sources change, but they will always remain within their "kinds". Adaptation is not proof of organic evolution.

And since you are not a YEC, so it is not time as the factor, what prevents the "small adaptations" from summing into a greater whole?

The fossil "evidence" is no such thing. It is strung together with wishful thinking.

No, it is strongly supported by many other independent fields of science.

Why would they want to? These gods are mythological. None of them are creators and none of them left written instructions for the human race that are still in existence. There is only one Creator and he has left us a guidebook outlining his activities and expectations. He has little interest in what science has to say about any of his work. He does not require you to believe in him, but he does require that the system of things operating on earth at the present time will come to a conclusion. We as individuals can avail ourselves of his good favor and enjoy what he is offering to all mankind, or we can go on our merry way and find out that this theory resulted in a dead end, with absolutely nowhere to go. The end result will be entirely up to us.

You get what you ask for.

You have a singularly jingoistic view, what actual evidence do you have that makes you right and everyone else wrong?

The fossil record is a deluded fantasy with no more solid scientific evidence than I have.

Since you have no scientific evidence I find the second clause of your statement credible, the first clause, however, is unsupported, in fact, it is contradicted by all of modern science.

There is not one single piece of scientific fact linking any species to another in the fossil record and you know it. The great detail is fabricated as a web of suggestions and conjecture held together by diagrams out of human imagination. It is 100% supposition. You can deny it all you like, but there are definitely some here who are closing their eyes to the truth. If you are blind, then it is by your own choice. The overwhelming evidence is for Intelligent Design, not a string of very fortunate undirected accidents.

1. There is a great deal of supporting evidence that validates the current views of the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence, of any sort, that supports ID, all there is is half baked criticisms of the ToE and a plethora of logical fallacies I challenge you to creditably advance ID without using logical fallacies or mentioning the ToE.
3. No one claims a "string of undirected accidents." That is a straw-man argument on your part.

Not my species, nor any other creature on this planet for that matter....the fortunate occurrence that produced either you or me is the result of an amazing mechanism whereby diversity and variety is achieved without any conscious effort on the part of our parents.
No matter how many generations come and go.....humans and these animals will always be born true to their "kind".

Awwwwe....look how cute all these fortunate little accidents are......c'mon....tell me they just designed themselves and we all just happen to find them adorable.

......have you run out of arguments?

No, you have failed to make a single argument, you just repeat the same tired claims.

You are just not getting it, are you?

The "divine intervention" was the creation of the first humans. They were designed with procreative abilities and they were told to "fill the earth" with their "kind". This was true of all living things on this planet. That mandate has been fulfilled.

Claims without evidence, as per usual.

Who get to be among the ones with the 'golden ticket' is not relevant. I don't know how to make that any clearer. I do not see myself as anything but fortunate to be born and to have life...its truly a miracle. I was one sperm away from being somebody else. But since I would never have been born, who would have missed me? My individual life was not foreordained in any way.

Your argument is a little silly for the simple reason that the Creator designed life to replicate.....who it produces is not important. But humans will remain humans for all time to come. They will not evolve into something else. We did not evolve from primates and there is not one single shred of solid evidence that evolution ever took place. You cannot prove me wrong.

A series of claims, all without evidence.

Supposition is not fact....and supposition is all you have. I don't think you really look at the evidence, which is why I post pictures of real creatures rather than the made up ones invented by science.

Supposition? No. Inference supported by multiple lines of evidence? Yes.

I do not see anyone with a big stick forcing you to believe anything

You are free to believe whatever you like.

Everyone is free to do so, but when they start to confuse their wild beliefs with fact ... it is time to rein them in. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Egypt was not noted for recording its defeats or humiliations.

OK, where is the archaeological evidence of the Exodus, there should be at least on fire pit in every 200 square meters of Sinai, not to mention kitchen middens, burials, etc. Where are they? No where to be found, never existed, Exodus never happened.

Saying something is 'not likely' is half way between that and saying that it was 'likely'.

No, for a scientist saying something is not likely means that there is a less than 5% chance that it is so, not a 50/50 proposition.

I will take the Bible's word over human history records any day. That is my choice.

Chose as you wish ... but when you preach you need to defend against the pushback, something you are not able to do.

To science, humans might be primates....but to God we are his children, uniquely made in his image. That differentiates us from all other creatures who do not possess the attributes that we do. (particularly spirituality) Between humans and any apes there is a chasm that cannot be filled by any evidence, because none exists. Science can suggest links in an evolutionary chain, but they cannot produce them. The chain is imaginary, built on supposition. No one can challenge that fact because you all know that its true. At the end of the day, you have a belief that has no more solid evidence for its validity that we do.

More claims without evidence.

You have? What pictures of real creatures did you post that were not illustrations of what science imaged a creature to look like? Where is the evidence of relationship in a continuing line of descent from one creature to another?

The scientific literature is filled with it, too bad you do not know how to access it.

Science cannot produce evidence that is not highly manufactured and sold to people with great marketing. The power of suggestion works as any advertiser will tell you. Good graphics just adds to the illusion.

A claim without evidence.

God doesn't need to sell himself.....he allows his creation to speak for itself.

Then what are you yapping about?

 

[Deeje]

It is a continuum. You need to read up on Ring Species, where genetic variability is spread over space rather than over time.

"In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations that can interbreed with relatively closely related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series that are too distantly related to interbreed."
www.darwinwasright.org/ring_species.html

Please tell me where in these populations the species ceased to be the same "kinds" of creatures.
I can acknowledge adaptation because there is at least evidence for it, but there is no real evidence that any species became some other "kind" of creature. Evolutionists have to suggest a link because none exist in reality.

No, it is not rocket science, but it seems to escape you. I guess that is because it runs counter to your preconceived notions.

But of course, you have no pre-conceived ideas of your own?

Spoken like someone with a weak and passing knowledge of the fossil record and even less familiarity with the confirming geological, immunological and genetic data.

Spoken like a true evolutionist....condescension seems to speak louder than any real evidence. You can quote all the scientific data you like Sapiens, but you cannot furnish a link between species in a supposed evolutionary chain, except by suggestion. Throw in the good graphics and voila! It becomes fact instead of fantasy.

That places the theory of evolution in the same position as ID. It is a belief system strung together with supposition but no real evidence. I see more evidence for intelligent creation than I ever do for mindless evolution.

Again, your lack of background and understanding is showing. Random chance (e.g., mutation) is the origin of all diversity ... that's where the raw material comes from (if you don't believe this, you need to look into what is know about the genetics of Sickle Cell Anemia, speaking of differences in internal workings), but random assortment of the available parental genes is where the diversity of your appearance (and so much more) comes from.

My lack of background is a blessing IMO, for the simple reason that my common sense is not buried by the constant bombardment of "scientific" rhetoric trying to demonstrate how this process happened with nothing more than the power of suggestion and a few fossils who have no real story to tell unless the interpreters are standing by putting words into their bony mouths. I can see with my own eyes what intelligently planned diversity produces......It isn't accidental any more than the computer I'm typing on, is accidental.

That is typical of your debating style, a bold-faced misstatement of fact, bereft of evidence or support, presented as though the logical fallacy tapped (in this case argument from fallacy and appeal to probability) lends some credibility.

My debating style is simple. Facts are facts and beliefs are beliefs. Your theory is a theory, so call it one. Don't change the definition of the word to suggest that it is proven fact when we know that it is no such thing.

What I have said all along is that science has no more facts for evolution than proponents of ID have for an intelligent first cause who designed all the diversity of life on this planet.

Choose your belief system based on what you want to believe....that is the choice we all have.

 

[Deeje]

And since you are not a YEC, so it is not time as the factor, what prevents the "small adaptations" from summing into a greater whole?

Genetics. Small adaptations are minor changes within a species. They never translate into bringing other "kinds" of creatures into existence.There is no evidence that adaptation can ever result in what science is suggesting.

The roadblocks in the genetic code will not allow even related species to interbreed and produce offspring. The resulting offspring are invariably infertile. Mules, ligers, zonkeys etc.

No, it is strongly supported by many other independent fields of science.

All fields of science are populated with individuals who by and large share a common belief that evolution is true.
Bias is hardly a big factor to demonstrate the truth of anything.

You have a singularly jingoistic view, what actual evidence do you have that makes you right and everyone else wrong?

Can I ask you the same question? I don't see that you have any more "real" evidence than we do.

You believe what science says....we believe what the Bible says. You have no advantage over me in that position. We have each chosen a belief and we confirm in our own minds what the "evidence" tells us.

Since you have no scientific evidence I find the second clause of your statement credible, the first clause, however, is unsupported, in fact, it is contradicted by all of modern science.

Modern science is wonderful when it explains things that it can factually demonstrate, but when it ventures outside of facts and into the realms of supposition, that is where the cracks appear. You can putty them up but the breach is still just below the surface. It is a very fragile structure and a wind of change that could happen tomorrow could bring the whole thing crashing down.

1. There is a great deal of supporting evidence that validates the current views of the fossil record.

That is not true. The evidence is forced to fit the theory, not the other way around. If someone had never heard of evolution, there is no way that they would guess that it ever took place from the actual evidence in the fossil record. The fossils have ventriloquists speaking for them. They cannot speak for themselves.

2. There is no evidence, of any sort, that supports ID, all there is is half baked criticisms of the ToE and a plethora of logical fallacies I challenge you to creditably advance ID without using logical fallacies or mentioning the ToE.

You can challenge me all you like....I don't have "evidence" that you would accept, just as you have no "evidence" that I would accept. We each have a belief system, except one of us is in denial.

3. No one claims a "string of undirected accidents." That is a straw-man argument on your part.

Since "natural selection did it" is the substitute for "God did it" I see no way to prove either one with real evidence except for what is right under our noses. Creation speaks louder to me than the words of ego driven scientists who can't see that they could possibly be wrong.

Supposition? No. Inference supported by multiple lines of evidence? Yes.

There is no evidence that is not manufactured. The fossils are strangely silent unless scientists speak for them. Science is spinning a good yarn and it has convinced a lot of people to abandon belief in a Creator. That is a pity, because Christian beliefs (not Christendom's beliefs) are based on the Bible and as a guidebook on life it has no equal. Even Mahatma Gandhi recognized the wisdom related by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. When people throw God away, they throw away his moral standards and his recommendation to love our neighbors as ourselves.What kind of world has this created? A better one?

What has science given the world in a good way that they have not cancelled out many times over in their destructive productions? Science has brought planet Earth to the brink of extinction. Tell me where nature, untouched by man, ever did that. Nature is a natural recycler....science is a known polluter. Nature preserves life...science has furnished the means to destroy all life. What is so great about science?

 

[Sapiens]

"In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations that can interbreed with relatively closely related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series that are too distantly related to interbreed."
www.darwinwasright.org/ring_species.html

Please tell me where in these populations the species ceased to be the same "kinds" of creatures.

Therein lies the issue, I guess you fail to grasp the significance of the fact that neighboring populations that can interbreed yet the "ends" can not.

I can acknowledge adaptation because there is at least evidence for it, but there is no real evidence that any species became some other "kind" of creature. Evolutionists have to suggest a link because none exist in reality.

Patent foolishness, there is superlative evidence from many different fields. You should be saying, "I know of no real evidence that any species became some other "kind" of creature."

But of course, you have no pre-conceived ideas of your own?

That's right.

Spoken like a true evolutionist....condescension seems to speak louder than any real evidence.

When all else fails, try the ad hominem fallacy.

You can quote all the scientific data you like Sapiens, but you cannot furnish a link between species in a supposed evolutionary chain, except by suggestion. Throw in the good graphics and voila! It becomes fact instead of fantasy.

Naw, throw in exacting supporting evidence from many independent fields of science and it becomes irrefutable by logical argument. Thus you just make claims that it is not so and spout logical fallacies. How about a real argument? Haven't go one, eh?

That places the theory of evolution in the same position as ID. It is a belief system strung together with supposition but no real evidence. I see more evidence for intelligent creation than I ever do for mindless evolution.

Interesting since there is zero evidence for ID.

My lack of background is a blessing IMO,

Ah, anti-intellectualism at its finest.

for the simple reason that my common sense

Common sense is so uncommon these days, your common sense is naught but common ignorance, as has been demonstrated repeatedly..

is not buried by the constant bombardment of "scientific" rhetoric trying to demonstrate how this process happened with nothing more than the power of suggestion and a few fossils who have no real story to tell unless the interpreters are standing by putting words into their bony mouths.

Even common sense contradicts you. A number of creationists were asked to arrange a series of hominid skulls based on their appearance alone, low and behold, they organized them exactly the way the scientists would, exactly the way the genetics would. Fascinating, no?

I can see with my own eyes what intelligently planned diversity produces......It isn't accidental any more than the computer I'[m typing on, is accidental.

Straw-man fallacy, no one ever said it was accidental, selection (in this case natural selection) is never accidental.

My debating style is simple. Facts are facts and beliefs are beliefs.

Some day you may learn to distinguish between the two.

Your theory is a theory, so call it one.

Your trying the hackneyed "just a theory" gambit. Sorry that dog will not hunt. I love to call it a theory, that is the highest level of scientific findings, above even a "law."

Don't change the definition of the word to suggest that it is proven fact when we know that it is no such thing.

You mean like you just, dishonestly, tried to do?

What word would this be that you feel I am trying to redefine?

What I have said all along is that science has no more facts for evolution than proponents of ID have for an intelligent first cause who designed all the diversity of life on this planet.

You said it, but it is untrue. There is no evidence for ID, you have produced no evidence for ID despite being challenged to do so.

Choose your belief system based on what you want to believe....that is the choice we all have.

On a personal level, yes. On a public level, no. If you can't make your case ... best to keep your mouth shut least everyone see how weak your case is.

 

[Deeje]

Irrelevant as material evidence of the Exodus is not present. Besides there are records of their defeats if not one that is irrelevant to the period being discussed. However this refuted the idea that a lack of records is done on purpose in order to erase the supposed events of the Exodus narrative. Absence of evidence is not proof but is evidence of absence which helps create probability that an event is more likely not to have happened than happened.

I believe that there is as much evidence contained in the Bible to clear up questions as there is in science to explain evolution.

One absence of evidence has been the lack of bones discovered in the Sinai desert when millions of Israelites are said to have perished there.
The Apostle Paul wrote of those who perished in the wilderness....“But with most of them God was not pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness” (I Cor. 10:5 NKJV). “Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert” (NIV).
We get the impression from this passage that most of the bodies were just left in the Wilderness, exposed to the elements and to the vultures, hyenas and jackals! Burying them in the sand would not have prevented the animals from retrieving their remains in such a scarce food source area. If that is the case, there will be very few graves at all, so no apparent gravesites in the Sinai dessert would not indicate that a great number of people hadn't died there. They just weren't buried and if animals disposed of their remains, there would be nothing left.

You accept the human record with no material evidence. You just treat your human records as if it was not a human record which is a religious bias. All you have done is confirm your bias then state it openly. Hilarious

Here is a book that reinforces the beliefs that the Bible expounds. We are not without material evidence and reasonable explanations.

Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Traditions
James K. Hoffmeier

Abstract
For the past two decades, the nature of ancient Israel’s origins has been debated heatedly. Much of this debate has concentrated on part of the book of Exodus and the book of Joshua. Little attention, however, has been given to the wilderness tradition, for example, the episodes set in Sinai (Exodus 16 through Numbers 20). The current study investigates the importance of the wilderness tradition to ancient Israel’s religious and social formation. The location of Mt. Sinai, Israel’s law or covenant, and the possible Egyptian origins of Israel’s desert sanctuary, the tabernacle, are explored in the light of Egyptian archaeological materials. The book further argues that the Torah’s narratives preserve accurate memories of the wilderness period as evidenced by the accuracy of geographical place names in Egypt and Sinai, and by the use of many personal names and technical terms that are of Egyptian etymology. These factors lend credibility to the authenticity sojourn in Egypt and the exodus traditions, rather than viewing them as purely ideological or literary fictions dating to 1,000 years after the events.

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/0195155467.001.000/acprof-9780195155464

 

[Deeje]

Even common sense contradicts you. A number of creationists were asked to arrange a series of hominid skulls based on their appearance alone, low and behold, they organized them exactly the way the scientists would, exactly the way the genetics would. Fascinating, no?

I am not a Creationist. I am a proponent of Intelligent Design, which I believe is demonstrated to all who have not swallowed the lie that evidence for an Intelligent Creator doesn't exist. It exists everywhere and it doesn't take a science degree to see it.

I have no desire to swap insults with you. Condescension will never win over actual evidence.

Evolution is a theory for which no actual evidence exists except in the minds of scientists willing to stretch the truth to ridiculous limits. Supposition is not fact and never will be. Biased branches of science in cahoots will never result in the truth being told.

You can believe in evolution all you want....but it will never make the greatest scientist in existence disappear.
I notice that you have not commented on the dark side of science's contribution to the world.....Science will be shown up for what it really is....the greatest enemy of life on this planet. What is so great about science?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

you fail to grasp the significance

Patent foolishness

When all else fails, try the ad hominem fallacy.

you just make claims that it is not so and spout logical fallacies.

anti-intellectualism

your common sense is naught

Even common sense contradicts you

best to keep your mouth shut least everyone see how weak your case is.

You're abusive. Which usually results from a weak argument. And you accuse her of ad hominem....that's rich!

 

[Sapiens]

Genetics. Small adaptations are minor changes within a species. They never translate into bringing other "kinds" of creatures into existence.There is no evidence that adaptation can ever result in what science is suggesting.

Sure there is, there are entire journals dedicated to documenting that fact.

The roadblocks in the genetic code will not allow even related species to interbreed and produce offspring. The resulting offspring are invariably infertile. Mules, ligers, zonkeys etc.

Yoou mean like dogs and wolves and coyotes? You don''t know what you're talking about.
Hybrids are usually considered sterile, and sterility is a natural biological barrier against hybridisation occurring. There are rare situations where nature has proven the sterility rule not always correct and this has resulted in such beasts as li-ligers and ti-tigons.

Despite the rarity of natural hybridisation, and the even lower chance of fertility, we know it definitely happens, and frequently enough that over many thousands of years evolutionary change can come about.

When the built in protective mechanisms preventing successful breeding break down the opportunity for a new species to develop opens up. Perhaps a good example of this is the mule. Usually considered to be infertile from 1527 to 1990 around 60 live foals were reported as being born to mules. The claims were widely spread and came out of Europe, the U.S.A, South America, North Africa and China. Though the number of reports is minute compared to the amount of mules, over many thousands of years this could conceivably result in an entirely new species.

All reported fertile mules were females, and this has also been the case with all fertile hybrid big cats. All dissected males have all been confirmed as infertile.

All fields of science are populated with individuals who by and large share a common belief that evolution is true.
Bias is hardly a big factor to demonstrate the truth of anything.

That's what your ego forces you to believe, but it is not true. If I could disprove evolution I'd happily do so. I'd be rich and famous. But, alas I can't. If I can't you most assuredly, having admitted to being ignorant in the field, most assuredly can not.

Can I ask you the same question? I don't see that you have any more "real" evidence than we do.

You can, but I have a real answer, you have a "real" answer, and they're not the same thing. This is called the logical fallacy of false equivalency. Just another gambit is your playbook of falsehoods.

You believe what science says....we believe what the Bible says. You have no advantage over me in that position. We have each chosen a belief and we confirm in our own minds what the "evidence" tells us.

Again with the false equivalencies, I have a major advantage over you, it is called evidence, I have lots, you have none. You don't believe mine, but then you trumpet your lack of expertise in the field, so that is irrelevant. You have chosen a belief, I have not, I have been persuaded by detailed evidence. Not the same thing at all.

Modern science is wonderful when it explains things that it can factually demonstrate, but when it ventures outside of facts and into the realms of supposition, that is where the cracks appear. You can putty them up but the breach is still just below the surface. It is a very fragile structure and a wind of change that could happen tomorrow could bring the whole thing crashing down.

How would you know when you admit to having no expertise? You, by your own admission are not qualified to comment and should not be taken seriously.

That is not true. The evidence is forced to fit the theory, not the other way around. If someone had never heard of evolution, there is no way that they would guess that it ever took place from the actual evidence in the fossil record. The fossils have ventriloquists speaking for them. They cannot speak for themselves.

Wrong again here's that video I mentioned earlier, the one where the creationists put the skulls in proper order using common sense:

You can challenge me all you like....I don't have "evidence" that you would accept, just as you have no "evidence" that I would accept. We each have a belief system, except one of us is in denial.

That does not make us even, I know something of the subject, you claim to not know anything.

Since "natural selection did it" is the substitute for "God did it" I see no way to prove either one with real evidence except for what is right under our noses. Creation speaks louder to me than the words of ego driven scientists who can't see that they could possibly be wrong.

Clearly you prefer to make ad hominem attacks to getting to know and understand the scientists that you so unchristianly wrong.

There is no evidence that is not manufactured. The fossils are strangely silent unless scientists speak for them. Science is spinning a good yarn and it has convinced a lot of people to abandon belief in a Creator. That is a pity, because Christian beliefs (not Christendom's beliefs) are based on the Bible and as a guidebook on life it has no equal. Even Mahatma Gandhi recognized the wisdom related by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. When people throw God away, they throw away his moral standards and his recommendation to love our neighbors as ourselves.What kind of world has this created? A better one?

Again you demonstrate you lack of basic understanding. Science is neutral on belief or atheism, it is the theists who drive thinking people away by holding fast to things that can be seen by most reasonable people as nuts.

What has science given the world in a good way that they have not cancelled out many times over in their destructive productions? Science has brought planet Earth to the brink of extinction. Tell me where nature, untouched by man, ever did that. Nature is a natural recycler....science is a known polluter. Nature preserves life...science has furnished the means to destroy all life. What is so great about science?

You fail to differentiate between science and engineering. Science is just a method of knowing.

 

[sayak83]

What has science given the world in a good way that they have not cancelled out many times over in their destructive productions? Science has brought planet Earth to the brink of extinction. Tell me where nature, untouched by man, ever did that. Nature is a natural recycler....science is a known polluter. Nature preserves life...science has furnished the means to destroy all life. What is so great about science?

We are undoubtedly living in the greatest and most prosperous time ever in human history. Period. And much of it is due to science and technology. This is true not only on the objective facts (wealth, prosperity, health etc.) but also on subjective wellbeing.

More technologically advanced countries == more happy people.
http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/03/HR-V1_web.pdf

And do not tell us about ecology and climate change. Scientists have been repeatedly and unambiguously talking of the dangers of climate change and the need for scientifically structured conservation efforts from the 1980-s and still we are being met with denial and disbelief. Its the irrational small-mindedness of vested economic and political special interests that are leading the world..once again...into deep crisis. Scientific technologies and solutions to develop sustainable agro-forestry practices and renewable energy systems are available and have been available for a long time. But they cannot be implemented or commercialized unless there is an effort and investment into this. If scientists were heeded, the transition to renewables and sustainable agriculture etc. would have been finished by now and there would have been no global warming or ecological troubles whatsoever.

Finally science of evolution is not even remotely concerned with the God question. Its much busier in aiding in the development of new medicines, tracking the changes in virus and virulent bacteria, and tracing gene and protein trees in order to understand their structure and functions.

For example, much of modern medicine research use mouse as a test subject. The assumption is similar looking genes producing same proteins are connected in similar physiological pathways between a mouse and a human. So the drug (or poison...in case one is testing the effect of a carcinogen) will act on it the same way. But how do you actually test this? Evolutionary theory along with common ancestry provides important information to sort out those genes whose functions have been conserved against those where the function has changed.

It is widely known that DNA to Amino Acid transcription code has lots of redundancies. So in every gene, there are sections of the DNA where change in letters due to mutations have no effect. These sections of DNA in the gene are invisible to selection and hence are subject to the laws of neutral mutation that are very well known. In contrast the sections of the gene whose letter change do have an effect on the protein will be visible to selection. Now two cases are possible:-

Rate of mutation in the redundant sections>>Rate of mutation of non-redundant sections.

In this case selection effects are actively purging the gene from all mutations that are affecting the protein and hence the gene function is conserved.

Rate of mutation in redundant section<Rate of mutation in non-redundant section

In this case there has been one or more advantageous mutations in the gene that have altered the function of the gene and that is being positively selected for.

Now the only thing that is left is to sequence the gene from mice, men and a few other mammals...separate out the redundant from the non-redundant part. Calculate the rate of evolution in each part based in time of divergence from combined fossil and genomic data , and find what the ratio is.

This helps to ascertain which gene and physiological pathways of mice are good model for humans and hence can be trusted in medicine research and which are not. Such knowledge has aided greatly in treatment developments.

Now I would like you to explain this using the ID model and to talk about a specific way in which "God created everything" is to help research as evolutionary theory is successfully doing in many many cases.