Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
agreed, thank you!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
agreed, thank you!
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
From the study I linked:
On this occasion, the snakes yielded an average pupil dilation of 0.29 mm, while the fish came it at just 0.17 mm. As a result, the researchers suggest there may indeed be an innate fear of spiders and snakes.
pretty cut and dry is it not?
I agree with the researches on this, if you disagree with me and them... that's perfectly okay Audie- you are welcome to your own opinion here, no apology required....
Audie
Veteran Member
I can't resist....where did the chemicals come from?
Can you build anything without materials? Did they just appear from nowhere?
Do you need a being with intelligence to assemble materials to form a useful product, or to make a robot that performs functions for which it was designed and programmed? Can the components accidentally come together on their own to accomplish these things? What does logic dictate?
Evolution not only fails to address, but completely overlooks the most basic questions.....where did matter come from? How did life originate? You all speak about what you believe happened to matter once it somehow came to life (no idea how that happened, but it can't possibly involve a Creator) but once you pull your head out of the sand on that issue, you run away with a notion you cannot prove whilst accusing ID proponents of believing in fairy tales. Seriously it's time to get real on this issue.
Evolution sounds good when applied with liberal amounts of scientific jargon and great computer generated imaging, but as for actual evidence, there is a very short supply.
FACT: Adaptation is what science can prove......macro-evolution is a scientific fairy tale that requires as much, if not more "faith" and "belief" than those who see evidence for Intelligent Design.
This has been done to death metis. Speciation proves what? All it demonstrates is adaptation. It produces new varieties of the same taxonomic family of creatures. None of the experimentation produced a new creature. The flies were still flies....the bacteria and viruses remained bacteria and viruses and the fish were still fish....they will never be anything else. Science can suggest a lot of things but it cannot prove any of it.
Mutations are almost always detrimental, not beneficial. Google beneficial mutations in humans and see how many you come up with. Then ask yourself how many of those are life altering?
Genetic drift, according to Berkeley Evolution Library....
"Genetic drift — along with natural selection, mutation, and migration — is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution.
In each generation, some individuals may, just by chance, leave behind a few more descendents (and genes, of course!) than other individuals. The genes of the next generation will be the genes of the "lucky" individuals, not necessarily the healthier or "better" individuals. That, in a nutshell, is genetic drift. It happens to ALL populations — there's no avoiding the vagaries of chance."
Genetic drift
Good 'ol chance eh? Does this sound like science fact or science fiction? Is "luck" part of the science?
Natural selection is programmed into living things to ensure that reproductively is genetically successful. Selecting for the best genes is not an accident....it ensures that the gene pool remains optimal.
Humans, unfortunately, do not practice by choice what animals demonstrate by nature. Our gene pool is now a genetic cespool. How intelligent are we really?
That doesn't bode well for the future of the human race, does it?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I can't resist....where did the chemicals come from?
Can you build anything without materials? Did they just appear from nowhere?
Do you need a being with intelligence to assemble materials to form a useful product, or to make a robot that performs functions for which it was designed and programmed? Can the components accidentally come together on their own to accomplish these things? What does logic dictate?
Evolution not only fails to address, but completely overlooks the most basic questions.....where did matter come from? How did life originate? You all speak about what you believe happened to matter once it somehow came to life (no idea how that happened, but it can't possibly involve a Creator) but once you pull your head out of the sand on that issue, you run away with a notion you cannot prove whilst accusing ID proponents of believing in fairy tales. Seriously it's time to get real on this issue.
Evolution sounds good when applied with liberal amounts of scientific jargon and great computer generated imaging, but as for actual evidence, there is a very short supply.
FACT: Adaptation is what science can prove......macro-evolution is a scientific fairy tale that requires as much, if not more "faith" and "belief" than those who see evidence for Intelligent Design.
^ that's pretty much the 21st C scientific reality with all the window dressing removed
'Chemical evolution' was the only obvious retreat after conceding that the first replicator could not itself be accidentally constructed from available materials- it is not based on any known viable mechanism whatsoever, like much of Darwinian belief, it is a phenomena that the theory demands should exist, not any evidence.
Some proponents concede they would rather wait indefinitely for a naturalist explanation, than entertain the possibility of any alternative- that's about as close to conceding defeat as it's going to get..
gnostic
The Lost One
Again you are being illogical to the point of absurdity.
That because Evolution isn’t about the formation of first matters in the universe or the origin of Earth or even the origin of first life on Earth.
You keep forgetting that Evolution is only the study of biology where changes occurred to the population of species over time, and what mechanisms cause the changes.
If you want to talk about first matters, then you would look into cosmology, astrophysics and particle physics, all of which have nothing to do with biology, let alone Evolution. Then you have created damn wrong topic, Deeje.
If you want to talk about the origin of FIRST LIFE, then you have created the damn wrong thread. Your topic should be “Creation and Abiogenesis compatibles...Questions”.
One of the important and underlying factors of Evolution, it required genes that’s carrying the “changes” required to be pass from generation to generation, OVER population.
Why are you insistent in creating a topic about evolution, but what you really want to talk about is abiogenesis?
When are you going to learn evolution isn’t abiogenesis?
If you haven’t learn the difference between abiogenesis and evolution by now, then I would guess that you will never learn.
Clearly you are incapable of learning from your mistakes. And you certainly cannot admit you have made mistakes.
Deeje. Wilful ignorance isn’t a virtue, and yet it all creationists seem to suffer from it.
gnostic
The Lost One
Science doesn’t say something come from nothing.I can't resist....where did the chemicals come from?
Can you build anything without materials? Did they just appear from nowhere?
It is painfully obvious that you have never studying particle physics, quantum physics and nuclear physics.
But that isn’t the real problem here. Your ignorance is really beside the point, because that has already been for years now.
No, the real problem is that with your lack of science education, you think that you are the authority on the topic you bring up.
Why do you claim to know something that you know nothing about?
How many times has others told you that science don’t say something don’t come from nothing. You are not reading their explanations, and yet you keep bringing the same straw man, again and again.
That you keeping up the same mistakes, seriously speak volume that you are not paying attention.
Really, show us the case where science say something come from nothing.
What is absurd about wanting to know the origin of the materials used to construct the universe and this planet? The questions are valid. Your response is not.
I know that....but what is the point of trying to understand the alterations of a building if you have no idea where the original materials were sourced or the history of the construction?
The fact that this question bothers evolutionists is telling. They so want to be able to offer a "scientific explanation" for this vital question....but they already know that none exist.
LOL...I am not forgetting anything...you guys just want to run away from the questions you cannot answer, as if they don't matter. I believe they matter more than the silly things evolutionists "suggest" "might be" true about how life changed millions of years ago when no one was around to document anything....except the Creator of course. If you want to believe that amoebas morphed into dinosaurs then that is your prerogative.
Evolution has nothing to do with biology???
Really?Well, actually if you read the OP I was addressing a post on the subject of this thread. But like all threads.....it naturally progressed as all threads do. No one is forcing you to read it....or to whine about it.
Why is it so annoying to you? Abiogenesis is the basis for the whole topic of evolution. If life had not begun, evolutionary scientists would have had nothing to study.....if the universe was never created, you would have nothing to mull over either since you would not even be here. Is that hard to understand? There is an obvious connection IMO.
Oh dear....does the fact that science has no solidly based answers to even the basic questions of life make you feel uncomfortable? Inadequate? Frustrated? That is the way you are coming across....like a petulant child actually.
Instead of whining, how about posting some proof for your assumptions......? Can you prove me wrong without using supposition, suggestion or belief in what cannot be proven? If not then you have nothing more than a belief, like I have.
I have read enough to know that science is good at smoke screening. It presents suggestions as if they were facts and teaches that there is no intelligence behind creation....I believe there is no real intelligence behind evolutionary science. I see a 'blindness' that will not allow common sense to penetrate.
I am not paying attention? Could it be that you are not paying attention, as you keep harping on about the same things as well. I have exposed your silly theory as a monumental fraud and you can't produce anything that proves otherwise....otherwise you would have.
No one said science claims that something can come from nothing....what I said is that science doesn't believe that matter came from an Intelligent Designer. They don't know where it came from, but that doesn't stop them from making wild guesses about it, now does it? They have to believe there is no Creator because of what it means for them if there is. They have gone way out on a limb on this issue....and what happens if it breaks?
Many Christians who refuse to compromise and adopt this unprovable theory, believe that people are literally staking their lives on its authenticity. But people are free to believe whatever they wish......I don't believe that God would have it any other way.
1) The Cambrian Explosion, revealing fully formed organisms spontaneously, without precursors. Not predicted by Darwinism...discovered even before Darwin, but the expected precursors still eluding the scientists, Lol.
2) The extreme variety and huge number -- in the billions -- of discovered species of both fauna and flora, in only c.600 my, the results of an unguided, mindless mechanism? Give me a break!
3) The precise, functional 'dual language' regulating proteins in the DNA. The discovery "stunned" scientists -- what, not 'predicted'?
Lol.
Yes, as you would expect if these were mostly separate creative acts.
1) False its a gradual evolution lasting over 50 million years.
2)Your incredulity counts for nothing
3) Predicted to exist since 1930...discovered in 1960, as predicted.
Audie
Veteran Member
And what might an organism be other than 'fully formed"?
Audie
Veteran Member
No, you do not agree with the researchers. You agree with yourself, what the research actually says be d----d. They say learned, you say innate. They say maybe, you say cut and dried.
All of the other articles you linked to say the fear has to be learned. But you say it is innate, disagreeing with them.
You also profoundly disagree with what this last article says. They say might, maybe,
caveat etc, and you say, " cut and dried."
Why cite research, it makes no difference what it actually says, you have your conclusion,and are going to stick to it.
Right there is the difference between a researcher, and a creationist. The creationist
already knows the answer, and whatever the research may actually say, the creo-conclusion is exactly what they chose ahead of time.
Pretty well defines intellectual dishonesty, dont you think so?
From the cut n' dry paper-
Of course, there are some caveats. For one, the sample size was quite small. They also note that it might be better to use more similar images in future, like a spider and something that looks like a spider.
Also, it’s not super clear what pupil dilation actually means. “It is difficult to interpret some of the characteristics of the response,” the authors note. And they add that they can’t be certain the infants hadn’t been exposed to snakes or spiders before.
We may need a creationist dictionary to interpret creationist response to research!
"cut and dried" means "not super clear, difficult to interpret, cant be certain"
"Innate" means "learned"
Last edited:
cladking
Well-Known Member
I think others have challenged these views adequately. The first few sentences are merely speculation. My knowledge in this area is necessarily limited though - having no background or education is such things. My understanding comes purely from what I have researched, and I just don't see the problems that you (and others) seem to see - as in the ToE being grossly inadequate.
I don't believe anyone has successfully challenged anything at all, and especially not the simple fact that all known changes to life occur rapidly. Darwinian evolution as an explanation for speciation flies in the face of what is observed and is not supported by experiment. All science by definition is founded in experiment so "natural selection" is interpretation and not actually experiment or science.
One side suggests all is known and the other that God is in the gaps. I believe everyone is wrong and the reality is everything is a gap. There's too little known about the chemical, physical, mechanical, or other processes to even speculate about how life arose or how the universe arose. To suggest it was caused by any Entity or process is simply a matter of faith. To suggest that we have the answers and those answers are related to ToE is simply wrong. To suggest that the framework of reality is fixed and known is not in agreement with experiment and metaphysics.
Of the infinite number of worlds how can we be sure we aren't on the one that is the result of a Creator?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
We've been through this all before and the issue of "speciation" is that new species can and have emerged that cannot reproduce with the originals, therefore they are of different "kinds". What you cannot and have not ever produced is the supposed magical wall that prevents "micro-evolution" from going into "macro-evolution". Until you or others can produce that, then one logically must assume that this "wall" simply does not appear to exist.
Also, you ignore what the fossil record shows, thus making up or parroting stories about there being "no transitional forms" when each of us is a "transitional form". And then you ignore the results of the massive gnome testing that clearly shows an evolutionary pattern.
But they're certainly not always and that's the point, plus you are ignoring the fact that many mutations may be neutral but could become important later.
BTW, why would a loving God create miscarriages and severe birth defects? And don't come back and try to blame that on "the Fall" because why would a loving God punish children with death or birth defects because someone a long time ago did some wrong?
The complete absurdity of your position is that you demand "proof" for evolution and yet you do not apply that same principle to your own religious beliefs. When you can establish without a doubt that there is only one creator-god and that it's the God of the Bible, please let us know. I can guarantee that you cannot do that through any objectively-derived evidence.
As you know, I left the anti-science church I grew up in many decades ago because it taught ignorance over the reality of what scientific research has clearly shown us. I did so after getting my undergrad degree but before my graduate degree in anthropology, and the reason is that any religion or denomination that is anti-science has to be considered bogus. If they are lying to you on that, how many other lies are your leaders trying to convince you of?
Fortunately, most Christian churches and Jewish synagogues and their theologians and their pastors don't teach such anti-science nonsense, such as the synagogue I had belonged to and the church that I go to with my wife. They actually embrace science and not make up or parrot stories to ignore it.
Anyhow, we been through this ad nauseum, and I really have no interest in rehashing the hash, so I'll give you the last word.
Take care.
Audie
Veteran Member
Where on earth do you even get this thing about
rapid changes?
Calling it a "simple fact' is to utter a simple falsehood!
ToE (not this hundred years out of date "Darwin" stuff)
in no instance is a mismatch for the data.
Saying it is, is to just make things up.
"All science is founded in experiment" is also untrue, made up. There is no such definition.
"I believe everyone is wrong" (but you)
Do you have any sense of how likely that is?
"One side suggests that all is known"? What side is that? Weird.
The closest I know to that is the goddists who claim to have a known god, and an infallible book about him.
Science is about "this is what I think I see as now it seems to me to be."
I think you are making things up, about this "side"
of things known..
To suggest that the framework of reality is fixed and known-whatever exactly that means- is essentially the position of the goddists, as I see it.
Goddidit with magic. Immutable and eternal.
cladking
Well-Known Member
We've been through most of this so doing it again will change nothing.
Science is merely the definitions, axioms, and experiments that comprise human knowledge. "Experiment" is simply fundamental to modern science. What isn't founded in experiment is opinion or extrapolation. It is a model and not science.
No. Everyone is wrong. Every single time anyone comes to a conclusion, he is wrong. However to the degree he can make predictions it shows understanding. It doesn't show he is right, merely that prediction is a test of understanding. Just as reality affects experiment to keep us on the right track, prediction tests proper interpretation and proper modelling. Reality imposes itself on the future. But no amount of understanding is likely to ever be able to predict the long terms or small scale.
Everyone seems to have all the answers. I was referring to those with faith in Science, however.
This is everyone's position and has been for a very long time. .....Long before the invention of science.
Audie
Veteran Member
You might look up something about the role of observation in science,
You might also check on the role of models and theories, or, even, (gasp)
a dictionary!
science
NOUN
mass noun
- 1The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"Everyone seems to have all the answers" is just your, ahem, opinion.
I sure dont. I can, tho often enough spot bs and that which is facile.
It is fundamental to science to understand that all is a matter of probabilities, not certainties. You somehow do not know that?
No absolutes, no certainties, no special abilities conferred by "god" no "truth"
and no "faith". ( your equivocation game with the word "faith" is silly and tiresome
"faith" is for people with no data, ie, the goddists.)
Last edited: