Just Accidental?

[Jose Fly]

Creationism is connected with their religious views which forms a part of their identity. They can not help from becoming offended as criticism targets their capabilities, their knowledge, their religion and themselves. Hence why so many can never accept evolution as it is "throwing the baby out with the bath water". Everything goes with it as Creationism is a foundation belief that can not be modified in their view. Hence why if one points of theistic evolution the usually retort is religious squabbling

Nailed it! For example, Deeje directly stated that she could never compromise on this because it would require her to leave her faith. Obviously her faith is a very important aspect of who she is as a person, so it would be difficult to overstate the social and emotional price she'd have to pay were she to question creationism and begin to recognize evolution as real.

 

[Jose Fly]

I see a lot of talk but very little real evidence to support all this supposition.

Apparently you didn't notice the fossils, even as you posted images of them. Weird.

If the evolutionists cannot even agree amongst themselves, then what hope is there for the truth to be told?

I can't think of a single field of science where all the scientists are in full agreement on every detail. Can you?

 

[Deeje]

Creationism is connected with their religious views which forms a part of their identity. They can not help from becoming offended as criticism targets their capabilities, their knowledge, their religion and themselves. Hence why so many can never accept evolution as it is "throwing the baby out with the bath water". Everything goes with it as Creationism is a foundation belief that can not be modified in their view. Hence why if one points of theistic evolution the usually retort is religious squabbling

There was a clear invitation to discuss the theory and its evidence....yet here you are still bagging out creationists ( I am not a creationist BTW) as if that is a substitute for the pathetic evidence presented by evolutionists who appear to be equally "squabbling" about their own views.

Shooting the messenger is an old ploy but all it does is betray a lack of defense. Got the goods? Then lets see them. Give us hard evidence that something beyond adaptation.....(cosmetic changes within a species does not prove organic evolution......except to those who want to believe it does.) I don't believe it does....not only because I believe in an all powerful Creator, but because your pet theory is awfully dependent upon suggestion and inference and educated guessing about what "might have" or "could have" happened all those millions of years ago to be taken seriously by anyone who believes in a Creator. You say its all "accidental"...that no Intelligent Designer was required......but how many "accidents" does it take to make something better, compared to the ones that make things worse? You tell me. How many millions of fortunate accidents are we talking about when mutations rarely cause anything beneficial.

Like these...we all know what accidents look like....right? Just Accidental?

 

[Deeje]

Nailed it! For example, Deeje directly stated that she could never compromise on this because it would require her to leave her faith. Obviously her faith is a very important aspect of who she is as a person, so it would be difficult to overstate the social and emotional price she'd have to pay were she to question creationism and begin to recognize evolution as real.

Still trying to undermine the discussion with personal observation Jose Fly? Is that all you have?

Its getting old.
If you want to play "shoot the messenger" I have to tell you I am wearing a bullet proof vest. Water off a duck's back.

You say these things as if I have an axe hanging over my head forcing me to believe in creation, as if the evidence science produces is remotely convincing......you've got to be kidding.

I wouldn't swap your fairy tale for mine for the simple reason that mine makes more sense....and even a child can comprehend it. No science degrees are necessary because all they do is impress other humans. God doesn't need to impress anyone....but his works impress me immensely.

Apparently you didn't notice the fossils, even as you posted images of them. Weird.

Yes, I did notice them, that is why I posted them. You think evolution is the only explanation, but these various species of apes could just as easily have been created as separate specimens or as variations within a family. The Creator is not some kind of a magician.....he crafts his creation over time until he is satisfied with what he has produced. This is why he could say at the end of each creative period, that "everything was good". After the creation of his final masterpiece, man, (the only creation made in the image of his Maker) only then did God say that everything was "very good". He was supremely satisfied with the finished product, having endowed humans with his unique attributes. What happened next, has nothing to do with creation, but it sure answers a lot of questions.

I can't think of a single field of science where all the scientists are in full agreement on every detail. Can you?

Then stop trying to imply that it is a fact, when it clearly isn't. Stop teaching it in schools and universities as fact, as if there is no other viable explanation. It's a theory......unproven and unsubstantiated with anything but supposition and biased interpretation of evidnece to support it....so teach the kids the real truth about evolution......ID could be just as true with more than enough "evidence" to support it. Giving kids the impression that they are nothing but animals has produced an attitude that they can pretty much do as they please.....have you got teens or grandkids growing up in this world? Do you like the world they have inherited from the contributions of science? I don't....and if I didn't have the hope that the Bible holds out for the future, I am not sure I could tolerate the injustice, the violence, the corruption and the greed that seems to prop up the whole thing. How does man solve the problems, when man IS the problem?

 

[Shad]

There was a clear invitation to discuss the theory and its evidence....yet here you are still bagging out creationists ( I am not a creationist BTW) as if that is a substitute for the pathetic evidence presented by evolutionists who appear to be equally "squabbling" about their own views.

ID is creationism rebranded.

I was responding to another poster not you.

Shooting the messenger is an old ploy but all it does is betray a lack of defense. Got the goods?

I have posted many "goods" as other people have. You just distort or ignore anything that does not conform to your Creationist view point. There is a point that people come to when they know that evidence that does not point to Creationism will be dismissed. More so in your case you have already displayed not only incompetence but willful ignorance of the subject of evolution. Heck you can not even read your own sources correctly. Pointing this out is not shooting the messenger. It is pointing out the messenger is not credible at all.

Then lets see them. Give us hard evidence that something beyond adaptation.....(cosmetic changes within a species does not prove organic evolution......except to those who want to believe it does.)

Why, you will just ignore the examples again. You will treat the speciation of a flower as nothing as your change species to mean genus when it pleases you.

I don't believe it does....not only because I believe in an all powerful Creator, but because your pet theory is awfully dependent upon suggestion and inference and educated guessing about what "might have" or "could have" happened all those millions of years ago to be taken seriously by anyone who believes in a Creator.

You contradict your previous claim. To reject evolution in favour of believing in a Creator makes you a Creationist.

You say its all "accidental"...that no Intelligent Designer was required......but how many "accidents" does it take to make something better, compared to the ones that make things worse? You tell me. How many millions of fortunate accidents are we talking about when mutations rarely cause anything beneficial.

No you say it's an accident as you strawman any view that contradicts your own. Find my post where I said it was an accident. You wont find one as it is a made up claim by you which you project on to anyone you please.

Like these...we all know what accidents look like....right? Just Accidental?

You vain attempt to link car type accidents show you can not even get the definition right as many accidents have causes which can be pointed to. Such as people speeding, road rage, etc. Most car accident can be avoid as typically it is a driver error thus can be avoided hence why there is insurance, laws and court systems for these events. Also since all your examples are linked with human constructs these constructs can be at fault for a number of reasons. A train can derail due to engineer error, fatigue of the rails, lack of maintenance, etc.

When the messenger shows themselves a fool pointing this out is not an attack.

 

[Deeje]

No you say it's an accident as you strawman any view that contradicts your own. Find my post where I said it was an accident. You wont find one as it is a made up claim by you which you project on to anyone you please.

That was the generic "you"...perhaps I should have said "y'all" ?

"Accidents" need no explanation......how many "accidents" are beneficial in any situation?......you didn't answer the question.

 

[Shad]

That was the generic "you"...perhaps I should have said "y'all" ?

Yes using proper language when you are addressing a person regarding something claimed to have been done makes sense. I can not read your mind nor intent behind you. I assumed you used a common definition not one you hold in your mind.

"Accidents" need no explanation

Yet law systems and insurance companies show otherwise as does evolution.

......how many "accidents" are beneficial in any situation?......you didn't answer the question.

Since you have distorted the word to mean whatever you want I can not reply. This is what happens when you avoid the technical jargon in favour of the common language. Provide specific examples and/or specific terms.

 

[Jose Fly]

Still trying to undermine the discussion with personal observation Jose Fly?

Well, I'm just speaking the truth.

You say these things as if I have an axe hanging over my head forcing me to believe in creation

I'm simply going by what you told me, i.e., that you could never compromise on this issue because you would have to abandon your faith.

Are you now going to try and argue that leaving your faith is no big deal? That it's so unimportant that you could just walk away from it without any serious consequences?

Yes, I did notice them, that is why I posted them.

So obviously then your assertion that we have no evidence is wrong.

You think evolution is the only explanation, but these various species of apes could just as easily have been created as separate specimens or as variations within a family.

In the same way that everything could also have been supernaturally created 30 seconds ago.

The Creator is not some kind of a magician.....he crafts his creation over time until he is satisfied with what he has produced. This is why he could say at the end of each creative period, that "everything was good". After the creation of his final masterpiece, man, (the only creation made in the image of his Maker) only then did God say that everything was "very good". He was supremely satisfied with the finished product, having endowed humans with his unique attributes. What happened next, has nothing to do with creation, but it sure answers a lot of questions.

I realize that's what you believe, and as you make clear those beliefs come directly from a religious text. That's entirely consistent with what I've been saying to you for some time now.....for you this is about religion, not science.

Then stop trying to imply that it is a fact, when it clearly isn't.

If we were to adopt that line of reasoning, then nothing could ever be a "fact".

Stop teaching it in schools and universities as fact, as if there is no other viable explanation. It's a theory.

Now you're demonstrating that all the times people have tried to explain to you just how ignorant the "it's a theory not a fact" argument is, were a complete waste of time.

Your deliberate, persistent ignorance is noted.

.....unproven and unsubstantiated with anything but supposition and biased interpretation of evidnece to support it....so teach the kids the real truth about evolution......ID could be just as true with more than enough "evidence" to support it.

So tell me....how do you think science curricula should be set?

Giving kids the impression that they are nothing but animals has produced an attitude that they can pretty much do as they please.....have you got teens or grandkids growing up in this world? Do you like the world they have inherited from the contributions of science? I don't....and if I didn't have the hope that the Bible holds out for the future, I am not sure I could tolerate the injustice, the violence, the corruption and the greed that seems to prop up the whole thing. How does man solve the problems, when man IS the problem?

Then I suggest you disavow yourself from all things that come from science. But you won't do that, will you? You'll continue to enjoy the benefits of it while hypocritically complaining about it.

Such is the nature of creationism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There was a clear invitation to discuss the theory and its evidence....yet here you are still bagging out creationists ( I am not a creationist BTW) as if that is a substitute for the pathetic evidence presented by evolutionists who appear to be equally "squabbling" about their own views.

Shooting the messenger is an old ploy but all it does is betray a lack of defense. Got the goods? Then lets see them. Give us hard evidence that something beyond adaptation.....(cosmetic changes within a species does not prove organic evolution......except to those who want to believe it does.) I don't believe it does....not only because I believe in an all powerful Creator, but because your pet theory is awfully dependent upon suggestion and inference and educated guessing about what "might have" or "could have" happened all those millions of years ago to be taken seriously by anyone who believes in a Creator. You say its all "accidental"...that no Intelligent Designer was required......but how many "accidents" does it take to make something better, compared to the ones that make things worse? You tell me. How many millions of fortunate accidents are we talking about when mutations rarely cause anything beneficial.

Like these...we all know what accidents look like....right? Just Accidental?

Please learn and understand how science works. Please.
You've been given plenty of explanation and opportunity on this thread to clear up the misunderstandings and errors that your position is based on.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Still trying to undermine the discussion with personal observation Jose Fly? Is that all you have?

Its getting old.
If you want to play "shoot the messenger" I have to tell you I am wearing a bullet proof vest. Water off a duck's back.

You say these things as if I have an axe hanging over my head forcing me to believe in creation, as if the evidence science produces is remotely convincing......you've got to be kidding.

I wouldn't swap your fairy tale for mine for the simple reason that mine makes more sense....and even a child can comprehend it. No science degrees are necessary because all they do is impress other humans. God doesn't need to impress anyone....but his works impress me immensely.

Yes, I did notice them, that is why I posted them. You think evolution is the only explanation, but these various species of apes could just as easily have been created as separate specimens or as variations within a family. The Creator is not some kind of a magician.....he crafts his creation over time until he is satisfied with what he has produced. This is why he could say at the end of each creative period, that "everything was good". After the creation of his final masterpiece, man, (the only creation made in the image of his Maker) only then did God say that everything was "very good". He was supremely satisfied with the finished product, having endowed humans with his unique attributes. What happened next, has nothing to do with creation, but it sure answers a lot of questions.



Then stop trying to imply that it is a fact, when it clearly isn't. Stop teaching it in schools and universities as fact, as if there is no other viable explanation. It's a theory......unproven and unsubstantiated with anything but supposition and biased interpretation of evidnece to support it....so teach the kids the real truth about evolution......ID could be just as true with more than enough "evidence" to support it. Giving kids the impression that they are nothing but animals has produced an attitude that they can pretty much do as they please.....have you got teens or grandkids growing up in this world? Do you like the world they have inherited from the contributions of science? I don't....and if I didn't have the hope that the Bible holds out for the future, I am not sure I could tolerate the injustice, the violence, the corruption and the greed that seems to prop up the whole thing. How does man solve the problems, when man IS the problem?

That evolution occurs, is a fact. There is no other viable explanation that fits the evidence. The scientific theory of evolution provides an explanatory framework for that fact. Germs and gravity are also scientific theories (yet you don't seem to question those). You've had this explained to you several times now.

I'm sorry but you strike me as a person who has never participated in a science class in your entire life given that you're operating from a completely erroneous point of view in regards to the scientific method.

 

[Deeje]

Yes using proper language when you are addressing a person regarding something claimed to have been done makes sense. I can not read your mind nor intent behind you. I assumed you used a common definition not one you hold in your mind.

But also we should realize that our replies are never just for the person we are responding to because of how many silent readers there are on these forums, contemplating how the conversation is going. What they don't need is pedantic personal snipes that don't address the topic.

Yet law systems and insurance companies show otherwise as does evolution.

That is an interesting statement considering that accidents are their business.

If you Google "accidents" look what sort of images come up.....there are some horrendous ones.
None of them are good.

If someone mentions the fact that they have had an accident, what is your first reaction?
Do you immediately ask how good it was?

Since you have distorted the word to mean whatever you want I can not reply.

I have not distorted the word at all...I believe evolutionists have taken "accidents" into another realm completely.

This is what happens when you avoid the technical jargon in favour of the common language.

Now that is just plain funny.

Science uses the technical jargon to cover up the fact that they have no facts.

I asked any of you to produce solid evidence that macro-evolution takes place outside of adaptation within a species. I asked for proof that evolution ever took place outside of science's imagination and look....no one has anything.

Provide specific examples and/or specific terms.

"Specific examples"? There are literally thousands of them....."specific terms"?...you mean scientific terms? No I don't need scientific terms to prove that macro-evolution is an illusion. There are too many things "designed" to just wave them away as products of "natural selection".

I will give you an example of something that took place on my back porch a couple of days ago. We have large skinks who live in our garden and hide in various places around the back stairs. Our dog cornered one and proceeded to make a grab for it.......the lizard left its tail writhing on the ground as a decoy whilst he made his escape.

Do you believe that this was just accidental?

Do you think that this kind of design can just happen, undirected?

What about these....?

What about the construction engineers? Who taught them to do this?

No design? No designer? You must be blind.

 

[Jose Fly]

I asked any of you to produce solid evidence that macro-evolution takes place outside of adaptation within a species. I asked for proof that evolution ever took place outside of science's imagination and look....no one has anything.

Now you're just flat out lying. I posted a specific example of the observed and documented evolution, in the wild, of a new species that is incapable of breeding with its parent species. I even described it to you in layman's terms. Yet here you are acting like that never happened.

And the weird thing is, you actually believe you're representing your faith, creationism, and yourself in a positive light. It'd be difficult to overstate the amount of delusion you're exhibiting.

 

[Deeje]

Now you're just flat out lying.

Here we go with the person insults again. These are just childish tantrums.
Please try to keep this topic above the infantile level.

I posted a specific example of the observed and documented evolution, in the wild, of a new species that is incapable of breeding with its parent species. I even described it to you in layman's terms. Yet here you are acting like that never happened.

If that was your best example then I'm sorry, it was most unimpressive......got anything that proves your case instead of members of the same species being involved? From what I recall, all I saw was adaptive change.

Were Darwin's finches able to breed with mainland finches? Were the iguanas able to breed with mainland iguanas? Weren't the finches still finches and the iguanas still iguanas?

Were the hawthorn flies used in lab experiments turned into something else? What about the fish? Adaptive change does not explain macro-evolution....but science uses it as its proof. All species have the ability to adapt, but not to change their "kind". This is something science can only suggest....but not prove.

And the weird thing is, you actually believe you're representing your faith, creationism, and yourself in a positive light. It'd be difficult to overstate the amount of delusion you're exhibiting.

Could I just suggest that perhaps you might like to keep the personal observations to yourself and just concentrate on the topic? There is a distinct possibility that you yourself could be failing to represent science in a positive light....resorting to name calling

and failing to provide any real evidence.
A scientist that is deluded is in exactly the same category as a deluded fool.

But you knew that...right?

I invite you to address this post.... https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/just-accidental.191045/page-127#post-5060064
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/just-accidental.191045/page-127#post-5060064
Please confront those images and then tell me about all those fortunate "accidents" in nature and how they need no designer.

 

[Shad]

But also we should realize that our replies are never just for the person we are responding to because of how many silent readers there are on these forums, contemplating how the conversation is going. What they don't need is pedantic personal snipes that don't address the topic.

No words have specific definition. If you meant a group say so do not use "you"

That is an interesting statement considering that accidents are their business.

Yes yet there are methods to establish who was at fault and why.

If you Google "accidents" look what sort of images come up.....there are some horrendous ones.

None of them are good.

Irrelevant emotional appeals

If someone mentions the fact that they have had an accident, what is your first reaction?
Do you immediately ask how good it was?

No I ask them if they are okay, if they need help. Yet my reaction does nothing to put forward no one is at fault.

I have not distorted the word at all...I believe evolutionists have taken "accidents" into another realm completely.

Yes you have as I have made replies when you confused natural selection with speciation.

Now that is just plain funny.

Science uses the technical jargon to cover up the fact that they have no facts.

No it uses technical terms as it is not a layman's subjects. You response is a nonsensical assertion which is merely a smear tactic.

I asked any of you to produce solid evidence that macro-evolution takes place outside of adaptation within a species. I asked for proof that evolution ever took place outside of science's imagination and look....no one has anything.

I have provided such before. You ignored it. Others have provided it, you ignored these. You are only demanding evidence so you can reject it. You are not actually interested in learning anything. You are doing it for show, nothing more. I refused to play your games anymore.

"Specific examples"? There are literally thousands of them....."specific terms"?...you mean scientific terms? No I don't need scientific terms to prove that macro-evolution is an illusion. There are too many things "designed" to just wave them away as products of "natural selection".

If there are thousands you can provide a specific to ask. Instead your rant providing no question at all. Remember as I said you are doing it for show, nothing more.

I will give you an example of something that took place on my back porch a couple of days ago. We have large skinks who live in our garden and hide in various places around the back stairs. Our dog cornered one and proceeded to make a grab for it.......the lizard left its tail writhing on the ground as a decoy whilst he made his escape.

Irrelevant hypothetical

Do you believe that this was just accidental?

No as I reject your loaded terminology. Did I not make this clear already?

Do you think that this kind of design can just happen, undirected?

No as there are mechanics involved.

What about these....?

See above

What about the construction engineers? Who taught them to do this?

Their parents, ingenuity and instinct. Just as birds figure out how to fly.

No design? No designer? You must be blind.

No I am just no presupposed to ID due to a religious narrative like yourself. Hence why Catholics can accept evolution and you can not. Your doctrine prevents this.

 

[Deeje]

No words have specific definition. If you meant a group say so do not use "you"

Yes Sir!

Yes yet there are methods to establish who was at fault and why.

That would be because something or someone was the cause of the accident.....no?
Cause and effect? In evolution, science removes the cause to concentrate only on the effect. How silly. The cause is way more important than the effect.

Irrelevant emotional appeals

Actually it was pictorial evidence of what I was saying......no one thinks "accidents" are beneficial because human experience tells them otherwise.

No I ask them if they are okay, if they need help. Yet my reaction does nothing to put forward no one is at fault.

But you know someone or something caused the accident....Yes?
What about the beneficial accidents....? Do you congratulate them? How often would you expect one to happen? How often have you patted someone on the back for a beneficial accident?

Yes you have as I have made replies when you confused natural selection with speciation.

Oh my goodness! My entire argument is undone by one mistake in terminology?

Isn't "natural selection did it" science's substitute for "God did it"? Isn't speciation something only observed within a family or "kind" of creature? Show us one species morphing into another completely different creature......actual evidence that doesn't rely on suggestion. Surely you have some?

No it uses technical terms as it is not a layman's subjects. You response is a nonsensical assertion which is merely a smear tactic.

Hmmmm...how do you "smear" science by telling the truth?

If something is true, you should be able to convey it in simple language. But it seems as if every time someone tries, it just shows up the flaws because the jargon conveniently hides a multitude of supposition.

I have provided such before. You ignored it. Others have provided it, you ignored these. You are only demanding evidence so you can reject it.

Wait! You mean there was actual evidence and I missed it?

Drat!
Seems to me that I addressed most of the things presented to me.....please tell me what I ignored.

You are not actually interested in learning anything. You are doing it for show, nothing more. I refused to play your games anymore.

Don't wanna play anymore eh? But you are wrong....I am interested in learning.....but evolutionary science has nothing to teach me.

If there are thousands you can provide a specific to ask. Instead your rant providing no question at all. Remember as I said you are doing it for show, nothing more.

I am merely showing that the "science" is not really all that accurate. I am demonstrating that there is way more guesswork than there are facts.The videos posted above provide abundant evidence for special creation by a brilliant artisan.

Irrelevant hypothetical

It wasn't hypothetical......it was a real occurrence that happened on my back porch only days ago. The lizard deliberately shed its tail and left it as a decoy so it could escape from my dog......you have no answer for that, do you?

No as I reject your loaded terminology. Did I not make this clear already?

Presenting established truth is loading terminology? Really? All those fortunate "accidents" that produced all life forms on this planet from an amoeba in the primordial soup, is me loading the terminology? Perhaps we should call them flukes then?

Is a fluke more "scientific"?

No as there are mechanics involved.

The Creator is a great mechanic.

I can thoroughly recommend him. I don't know of any mechanical things that did not have a mechanical mind to design and manufacture them...do you?

Their parents, ingenuity and instinct. Just as birds figure out how to fly.

Yep, they just evolved wings because they wanted to learn how to fly.....are you hearing yourself?

Ingenuity requires intellect and purpose. Instinct is what drives the animal kingdom......in case you haven't noticed, there are no creatures on earth who have more intelligence, ingenuity and creativity than humans....we do not operate by instinct. We plan.

No I am just no presupposed to ID due to a religious narrative like yourself. Hence why Catholics can accept evolution and you can not. Your doctrine prevents this.

I am not sure why you bring up Catholics at this point? I have no interest in Christendom or anything it teaches. My doctrine, as well as my own experience in life prevents me from swallowing the belief that everything on this earth is the product of random chance.

My "narrative" is not driven by anything but common sense and great appreciation for the brilliant things I see in creation. I see clever and innovative designs in nature on so many levels....you see fortunate accidents or flukes as being responsible for what we can observe with our own eyes. I believe you have selective blindness.

This is how I see scientists leading other scientists.....(Matthew 15:14)

 

[Shad]

That would be because something or someone was the cause of the accident.....no?

No as accidents are avoidable. That is what makes it an accident.

Cause and effect? In evolution, science removes the cause to concentrate only on the effect. How silly. The cause is way more important than the effect.

No evolution uses cause and effect. Those causes are the mechanics in the theory.

Actually it was pictorial evidence of what I was saying......no one thinks "accidents" are beneficial because human experience tells them otherwise.

Which is a horrible example as accidents in cars are not mechanics within nature.

But you know someone or something caused the accident....Yes?

By definition of the word accident.

What about the beneficial accidents....? Do you congratulate them? How often would you expect one to happen? How often have you patted someone on the back for a beneficial accident?

Again distorting accident and making an irrelevant comparison to people

Oh my goodness! My entire argument is undone by one mistake in terminology?

Yes.

Isn't "natural selection did it" science's substitute for "God did it"?

No as people can point to specifics in nature while "God did it" doesn't. People form models for prediction and test these. There is no model in "God did it"

Isn't speciation something only observed within a family or "kind" of creature?

No. It is observed in different species. Again injecting your terminology which is biblical not scientific.

Show us one species morphing into another completely different creature......actual evidence that doesn't rely on suggestion. Surely you have some?

That is not how speciation works so your question is irrelevant due to your ignorance of the subject.

Hmmmm...how do you "smear" science by telling the truth?

You are giving your opinion not a truth. An uneducated opinion.

If something is true, you should be able to convey it in simple language. But it seems as if every time someone tries, it just shows up the flaws because the jargon conveniently hides a multitude of supposition.

No you just change terms to mean what you want or reject anything that shows you are wrong. Nothing more.

Wait! You mean there was actual evidence and I missed it?

Drat!

Start reading the thread again if you missed it in your vain attempt at defending Creationism

Seems to me that I addressed most of the things presented to me.....please tell me what I ignored.

Not really as you distorted what is presented and claim victory which is merely pigeon chess.

Don't wanna play anymore eh? But you are wrong....I am interested in learning.....but evolutionary science has nothing to teach me.

You have no interest in learning, it is just a facade put forward by you. I have no internet in teaching someone not interested. If you want to actually learn you can enroll in a university which involved putting your money where you mouth is.

I am merely showing that the "science" is not really all that accurate. I am demonstrating that there is way more guesswork than there are facts.The videos posted above provide abundant evidence for special creation by a brilliant artisan.

No you just label it as guesswork as it fits your narrative.

Empty claim regarding special creation. Amusing you demand evidence upon evidence yet you make claims with zero evidence when it helps Creationism.

It wasn't hypothetical......it was a real occurrence that happened on my back porch only days ago. The lizard deliberately shed its tail and left it as a decoy so it could escape from my dog......you have no answer for that, do you?

It is an escape mechanism. So what?

Presenting established truth is loading terminology?

Again you mistake your uneducated opinion for truth.

Really? All those fortunate "accidents" that produced all life forms on this planet from an amoeba in the primordial soup, is me loading the terminology?

Yes as you distort complex mechanics down to a incorrect term. That is called a strawman and equivocation.

Perhaps we should call them flukes then?

Is a fluke more "scientific"?

And then you prove my point above.

The Creator is a great mechanic.

I can thoroughly recommend him. I don't know of any mechanical things that did not have a mechanical mind to design and manufacture them...do you?

Then it is not a Creator by definition. Your sloppy understanding of evolutionary mechanic and sloppy understanding of the concept of God caused you to make a mistake again.

Mechanical things are made. Mechanism within science does not mean mechanical nor machine. Again your sloppy language caused you to make another eror.

Yep, they just evolved wings because they wanted to learn how to fly.....are you hearing yourself?

Except I never said that. You are putting forward a strawman. I said learn to fly as in young birds being pushed out the nest by parents. However again since you have no education in the subject you made another mistake.

Ingenuity requires intellect

Which birds do have.

and purpose.

A purpose or goal of the bird nothing more

Instinct is what drives the animal kingdom......in case you haven't noticed, there are no creatures on earth who have more intelligence, ingenuity and creativity than humans....we do not operate by instinct.

Having more does not mean the rest do not have it at all. Yes humans do operate by instinct a lot. We still react to flight or fight responses. We still have natural drives such as our sex drive. We can counter our instincts with reason but that does not mean we never operate by instinct. Again another fine demonstrated of your lack of education in the subject

We plan.

Ants plan. They build chambers for specific purposes like food storage, garbage, offspring.

I am not sure why you bring up Catholics at this point?

It refuted your claim that no one that believes in a Creator takes evolution serious. I showed otherwise.

I have no interest in Christendom or anything it teaches.

I will add that the list of things you have no interest in, right below science and evolution.

My doctrine, as well as my own experience in life prevents me from swallowing the belief that everything on this earth is the product of random chance.

That is a problem of your indoctrination then.

My "narrative" is not driven by anything

Yes it is, by your religion.

but common sense and great appreciation for the brilliant things I see in creation.

Common sense is unreliable in science, another thing you didn't know.

I see clever and innovative designs in nature on so many levels.

Opinion

...you see fortunate accidents or flukes as being responsible for what we can observe with our own eyes. I believe you have selective blindness.

No I accept models produced by science regarding evolution. I do not create those models as you do with your "I see stuff therefore I am right"

This is how I see scientists leading other scientists.....(Matthew 15:14)

Another opinion which is irrelevant.

 

[Jose Fly]

Here we go with the person insults again.

Again, I'm just telling the truth. You claimed that you asked for evidence and "no one has anything". You know that's not true, because I have posted articles at your request and I have attempted to explain them to you in layman's terms. That you refuse to understand or accept them does not mean they don't exist.

So you posted something that you know isn't true. What does that make you?

If that was your best example then I'm sorry, it was most unimpressive.

See? Here you even acknowledge that I did indeed post an example, which means your claim that "no one has anything" isn't true and you know it.

got anything that proves your case instead of members of the same species being involved? From what I recall, all I saw was adaptive change.

Now you're being dishonest again. The last example I provided you was the observed and documented evolution of a new species that, due to chromosomal differences, is physically unable to breed with its parent species. Your only response was to say that you didn't understand it and it wasn't the evolution of a new "kind" (which is more dishonesty on your part, given that you consistently refuse to even say what a "kind" is).

But not once did you ever make any sort of argument that would counter the fact that it is indeed the evolution of a new species.

Were Darwin's finches able to breed with mainland finches? Were the iguanas able to breed with mainland iguanas? Weren't the finches still finches and the iguanas still iguanas?

And here we see your fundamental ignorance at work. You apparently think "finch" and "iguana" are species.

Could I just suggest that perhaps you might like to keep the personal observations to yourself and just concentrate on the topic?

Yeah right. What you're asking is that you be allowed to be as dishonest as you can, and no one be allowed to call you on it.

Sorry. As long as you keep saying things that just aren't true, I'm going to point it out.

There is a distinct possibility that you yourself could be failing to represent science in a positive light....resorting to name calling and failing to provide any real evidence.

And here you go again....I've presented "real evidence".

I invite you to address this post.... https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/just-accidental.191045/page-127#post-5060064

Will do.

 

[Jose Fly]

If you Google "accidents" look what sort of images come up.....there are some horrendous ones.
None of them are good.

Just to be clear here, your argument against it being possible for mutations to increase fitness is "I googled 'accident' and none of the images that came up are good"?

If someone mentions the fact that they have had an accident, what is your first reaction?
Do you immediately ask how good it was?

My parents told me that my youngest brother was an accident. Does that automatically make him bad?

Science uses the technical jargon to cover up the fact that they have no facts.

Now you're being dishonest again. And the worst part is, in your dishonesty you're accusing pretty much the entire scientific community of lying and covering it up, and doing so for at least a century. IOW, a massive conspiracy.

If you truly believe in that sort of conspiracy theory, then perhaps I'm wrong.....maybe you're not so much dishonest as you are just plain loony.

There are too many things "designed" to just wave them away as products of "natural selection".

By what method did you determine things to have been "designed"?

I will give you an example of something that took place on my back porch a couple of days ago. We have large skinks who live in our garden and hide in various places around the back stairs. Our dog cornered one and proceeded to make a grab for it.......the lizard left its tail writhing on the ground as a decoy whilst he made his escape.

Do you believe that this was just accidental?

Given that every single trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've ever seen arise has done so via evolution, it's not at all unreasonable to conclude that the same is true for the past. Now, if you're going to posit an entirely different mechanism for the generation of those things, then you need to provide some evidence that the mechanism exists, and that it is capable of producing new traits, abilities, and genetic sequences.

So let's see your evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But also we should realize that our replies are never just for the person we are responding to because of how many silent readers there are on these forums, contemplating how the conversation is going. What they don't need is pedantic personal snipes that don't address the topic.



That is an interesting statement considering that accidents are their business.

If you Google "accidents" look what sort of images come up.....there are some horrendous ones.
None of them are good.

If someone mentions the fact that they have had an accident, what is your first reaction?
Do you immediately ask how good it was?



I have not distorted the word at all...I believe evolutionists have taken "accidents" into another realm completely.



Now that is just plain funny.

Science uses the technical jargon to cover up the fact that they have no facts.

I asked any of you to produce solid evidence that macro-evolution takes place outside of adaptation within a species. I asked for proof that evolution ever took place outside of science's imagination and look....no one has anything.



"Specific examples"? There are literally thousands of them....."specific terms"?...you mean scientific terms? No I don't need scientific terms to prove that macro-evolution is an illusion. There are too many things "designed" to just wave them away as products of "natural selection".

I will give you an example of something that took place on my back porch a couple of days ago. We have large skinks who live in our garden and hide in various places around the back stairs. Our dog cornered one and proceeded to make a grab for it.......the lizard left its tail writhing on the ground as a decoy whilst he made his escape.

Do you believe that this was just accidental?

Do you think that this kind of design can just happen, undirected?

What about these....?


No design? No designer? You must be blind.

That is a ludicrous statement. Is that why lawyers use technical jargon too? How about brain surgeons? Mechanics? If I'm not familiar with pistons, is it my fault, or my mechanic's fault?
The fact of the matter is, professionals use the technical jargon associated with their profession in order to communicate their work with each other. It's not about covering anything up. And if it was about covering things up, scientists probably wouldn't be publishing their findings in journals that anyone has access to. Think about it.


The point you think you're making about accidents is misguided. Evolution isn't just about accidents - you're forgetting about natural selection, genetic drift and the various other mechanisms involved. Furthermore, accidents don't necessarily produce negative results. Penicillin was discovered by accident, for example. My niece was an "accident" and yet she's brought great joy to my life. Not that it matters anyway because evolution isn't the total accident you make it out to be. Of course, that's been explained to you numerous times already.

 

[Deeje]

That is a ludicrous statement. Is that why lawyers use technical jargon too? How about brain surgeons? Mechanics? If I'm not familiar with pistons, is it my fault, or my mechanic's fault?
The fact of the matter is, professionals use the technical jargon associated with their profession in order to communicate their work with each other. It's not about covering anything up. And if it was about covering things up, scientists probably wouldn't be publishing their findings in journals that anyone has access to. Think about it.

I have thought about it....a lot....it always gave me a headache.

....and when any technical jargon is interpreted so that the lay person understands the basics (if not the detail) it usually makes sense, doesn't it? If the mechanic explains how pistons work to burn fuel with a spark plug to provide the thrust which drives the engine....is this too hard for the average person to grasp? Do we really need all the technical stuff to understand it?
This tends to happen in almost any endeavor where humans can specialize....they develop their own lingo, easily understood by those who immerse themselves in the subject matter, but "Greek" to those who are outside of it.

Doctors speak to each other in a language they understand but we don't...does it mean that they can't explain it in simple terms? Doesn't he do his best with diagrams to explain a procedure that may be necessary?

The invention of computer technology is another good example of this. The oldies are left trying to understand this new language, spoken by their grandkids.

When macro-evolution is put into simple language however, it is clear that there is no actual evidence for what they claim. The simple language shows it up immediately. I see adaptation used to prove that this theory went way beyond what can ever be observed in a lab experiment. "Suggesting" that something "might have" or "could have" taken place millions of years ago is a whole lot different to saying that it "must have" because we said so...."look here it is in our language....tough that you don't understand it." Can you see the difference?

The point you think you're making about accidents is misguided. Evolution isn't just about accidents - you're forgetting about natural selection, genetic drift and the various other mechanisms involved.

Organic evolution is about predictions and suggestions and guesses but NO REAL PROVABLE FACTS. That is the point. None of that explains how life originated, which is the more important question. "Cause and effect" means that whatever effect you see has a cause. Life has a cause and dodging the big question to answer the insignificant ones about how it adapted to changing environments is basically irrelevant.

Furthermore, accidents don't necessarily produce negative results. Penicillin was discovered by accident, for example.

Penicillin wasn't an accident. It was always there...its discovery and uses may have been stumbled upon.....that is whole different story.

My niece was an "accident" and yet she's brought great joy to my life.

Well, your niece may have been 'unplanned' but her conception was no 'accident'. Sex is after all designed to produce children. It is sad indeed when a whole new 'person' is produced as the unwelcome (in some cases) side effect of one's sex life.

Not that it matters anyway because evolution isn't the total accident you make it out to be. Of course, that's been explained to you numerous times already.

According to the theory of evolution, there is no guided or directed process. Mutations are 'accidents' that are unplanned but according to evolution, largely beneficial and passed down to the next generation. Can you give me statistics on the probability of mutations ever being beneficial, let alone the number needed to facilitate the kinds of changes that science is suggesting.

With an astonishing array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what are the positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macro-evolution is true. These would be needed to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations that are clearly evident. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.....so can anyone provide some that would explain how all this abundant life came about?

It has been said that 'mutations behave like a blind gunman who shoots his deadly bullets randomly into beautifully designed models of living molecular machinery'....
I can see how that is true.

But I cannot see how mutations could improve things to the extent that evolutionists claim.