Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Deeje]

And you repeat your self defeating argument. Only creationists that are either incredibly ignorant or incredibly dishonest make the error of describing evolution as random.

And there it is...the inevitable, tell tale sign that evolutionists have run out of ammo....."attack" when you have no "defense". Text book. Seriously mate, derision and insults about honesty and ignorance don't support your arguments at all.....they just make you look like you're out of any real evidence to support your theory. I believe your own arguments are self defeating. You can believe whatever you like.

 

[Deeje]

I see evolutionary processes like sexual selection (ducks, the colorful fish), camouflage by natural selection (leaf insect, zebra), eye evolution (owl), evolution of maternal care (panda) and predator-prey competition (tiger, poison frog).

People see what they want to see.....I see design...you see random accidents. We are all free to choose what to believe.

 

[Deeje]

There is no "proof" in science.

Yes, I know...galling isn't it?

Again, there is no "proof" in science, unless you mean proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We do have that. Science is evidence based, not "proof" based.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Who created the measuring line for reasonable doubt? Don't tell me...let me guess.....

We know that there was no Exodus for example.

How do you know? The Egyptians were notorious for not recording any event that painted them in a bad light.
Jehovah humiliated every god the Egyptians had, including the Pharaoh's own firstborn son who would have succeeded him as a deity.

Recent history is not bad, but I am betting an actual historian could find flaws in the Bible.

You do understand that what is recorded as history could probably all be rewritten because it is a load of garbage. You only have to read American history to see how skewed it is compared to what the indigenous people experienced. Australian history is likewise skewed to paint the white man in a favorable light....the good guys....we know they were nothing of the sort. You want to talk about flaws?

But we are not discussing the historical claims of the Bible, we are discussing the mythical claims of the Bible.

Since the Bible is historically accurate in all the ways count. I have no reason to doubt that what you claim is "mythical" is in fact, simply things science has not yet discovered ways to interpret.

Macro-evolution has been observed.

Please give examples that don't rely on suggestion or conjecture or faith....adaptation has been observed....anything more is pure guesswork and wishful thinking.

Macro-evolution is evolution at the species level and that has been observed.

I have heard that many times....give us the examples.....without resorting to guesswork. Show us what real evidence science has that doesn't require faith to believe an assumption.

No, you have a belief system. We have knowledge and evidence, something lacking in your mere belief.

LOL.....keep telling yourself....if you say anything often enough you'll believe it. I have seen no evidence at all for macro-evolution....not a shred.

 

[Deeje]

Paleontology is not my area, and I can assume it's not yours either.

Metis I am not the one linking to absurd information that is supposed to support your beliefs. You really think that passes as science? It was a joke.

but one thing I don't do is to use my religious beliefs as a set of blinders to what should be obvious, namely the life forms evolve, usually in unpredictable ways

We know that lifeforms can adapt....we know this is true from experimentation, but what science is suggesting that goes outside of what can be demonstrated by experimentation is merely supposition. Supposition about what "might have" or "could have" happened in the past is not the same as provable facts. How can you deny that? How are my beliefs creating a bigger set of blinders than yours?

And since no one has shown that there's a supposed magical wall that stops the evolutionary process at some point, then denying the process of "speciation" that has been well established, which is not a mark of knowledge on this process.

Speciation has been discussed many times metis....it never produces anything outside of its taxonomic family and science has no proof that it ever could. It makes assumptions about what it cannot prove. People are free to believe it.....I cannot. My God and my eyes don't lie.

As you know, I grew up in a Christian denomination who taught such ignorance and dishonesty on the subject, but it became very clear to me after a while that I was being sold the equivalence of "snake oil".

So did I. I left that sham 4 decades ago. I found something that makes way more sense with less reliance on what humans think, and more reliance on what is demonstrated in nature. The design is undeniable and it exhibits purpose and planning.....these require intelligence and that Intelligence is the Creator. You can disbelieve him all you like....it makes no difference if we believe in him or not....his plans will go ahead with us or without us. He wants to include everyone but not everyone wants what he is offering. So be it.

I truly hope some day that you also open your eyes to what you are being fed by people who twist things and lie while collecting your money.

My eyes are wide open metis.....what about yours? If you had been a good Jew in the first century would you have sided with Jesus or would you have sided with the majority who accused him of being a fraud? We will all believe someone who tells us what we want to hear. God lets that be our choice.

Contributions for spiritual work have been with us since Israel was a boy.
Your wife doesn't contribute to her church?

In essence, you're paying them to be dishonest and to mislead you and others.

That is nonsense. I am not paying them to do anything. You do understand that giving is entirely voluntary and according to what one can afford. Believe me they would be hard pressed to buy anything with the small contribution I can make. Science is misleading you IMO....and someone is misleading science. I have a biblical based theory about that.....wanna hear it?

Life forms evolve-- period-- end of story.

Only for you evolutionists. Life was created for a purpose as I understand things, and that purpose will be realized when God is ready to bring this world system down, (soon according to the Bible.) I trust that way more than I trust the guesswork of men with large egos strutting around the temples of academia. You can believe them if you wish. I'll give it a miss.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see that Deeje is back to her "proof" errors. I seriously hoped that she would have tried to learn for once. Amazingly she does not see how her running away supports my claims about her fears.

 

[Deeje]

Once again I have offered to support my claims.

Knock yourself out. But don't post anything that relies on suggestion, conjecture or supposition...and nothing that requires faith or belief....OK?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Knock yourself out. But don't post anything that relies on suggestion, conjecture or supposition...and nothing that requires faith or belief....OK?

I won't lecture into the air. If you want to learn and improve yourself you need to participate. If you don't bother at least trying to learn there is no point in me trying to help you. And of course if you don't try to learn it only underscores your ignorance***edit***.

Are you ready to learn? I am ready to help you.

And misusing the funny rating is against the rules here. I have been rather patient with you, but you need to quit breaking the rules of the forum.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Some of us are definitely incapable of looking honestly at the evidence and how it is interpreted.

When one is promoting a belief (macro-evolution is a belief, lets be honest about that) you have to know the difference between a fact and an unprovable idea. There is no way to prove that evolution, on the scale that science suggests is even possible. There is no way to look 'dispassionately' at a subject for which we have developed a 'passion'. The responses here are proof that an almost religious passion drives evolutionists just as much as it drives ID proponents.

You are promoting a belief system just as much as I am. You just can't seem to admit it.

Not true. Just look for the evidence. There are numerous examples of evolution being seen in practice - which I believe have been posted here or in another thread. Can you answer the question I posed? Why are there so many examples of creatures differing by very small amounts from their cousins? Evolution explains this perfectly.

 

[ArtieE]

What makes you think that I subscribe to the belief that we are all individually created by God? The Bible does not teach that.

Because otherwise your existence would just be down to random chance and the odds of you existing by chance is practically zero. The Odds Of You Being Alive Are Incredibly Small

What you have said is exactly why we should value life...not every egg and sperm gets to make a living human or animal. The odds against us being here as the individuals we are, is infinitely small.....but the odds of you being a human by chance are absolute zero.

Exactly the point. You are claiming that the odds of you being human by chance are absolute zero therefore god but the odds against you personally as an individual being here are just as big therefore also god. Otherwise you just have to admit that if you personally are possible by chance against infinite odds then also being human by chance is possible against the same odds.

What future do you see if things don't change?

I'll be dead. I let others predict the future. I just do my best today to mess up the world as little as possible.

 

[ArtieE]

People see what they want to see.....I see design...you see random accidents. We are all free to choose what to believe.

No, you don't see design... when you look in the mirror you weren't designed to look the way you do you see a random accident that happened against infinitely great odds... unless you claim you were personally designed by a god just like you claim the animals were...?

 

[Deeje]

Not true. Just look for the evidence. There are numerous examples of evolution being seen in practice - which I believe have been posted here or in another thread. Can you answer the question I posed?

Do you personally have any evidence for what science claims or are you just parroting what others have said?

Why are there so many examples of creatures differing by very small amounts from their cousins? Evolution explains this perfectly.

So does adaptation...do you know the difference? You do understand that a virus that adapts or mutates is still a virus? This is an example of adaptation, not evolution. A rabbit that adapted to a changed environment by changing color or a bear that did the same thing, are still within their own taxonomic family. Darwin's finches had different shaped beaks that were adaptations for a different food source...but they were still finches. All the Galapagos creatures had merely become varieties of the same kinds as their mainland cousins....none of them change into a different kind of animal....no matter how much times had elapsed. Science fudges what it cannot prove.

Do you believe that whales evolved from four legged furry land animals? Have you seen the evidence they present for this? I find it difficult to understand how any intelligent person could believe that, whilst pointing fingers at creationists for believing that life was purposely designed. There are powerful forces working in the universe that are unseen to the human eye, but scientists know that they are there because of the effects they produce....why would God be any different?

A being capable of producing these forces, as well as the universe, must be an incredible force himself. Science just doesn't have the ability to comprehend or to understand who or what he is.

 

[Deeje]

No, you don't see design

But I do......every time I look at living things I see design....brilliant design. In fact some designs in nature are so incredible that scientists have developed the science of biomimetics. They are so impressed with the designs in nature that they want to copy them. Since it takes intelligence to copy the original, it doesn't seem logical that the original didn't need any intelligence to design it in the first place.

If they could develop a rope with the same tensile strength as a spiders web, they could stop and capture a jumbo jet in mid flight. The gecko's feet were the inspiration for velcro. Squid were the inspiration for jet propulsion in boats. Sonar was developed from marine creatures and bats. There are many more....

Who Designed It First? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

when you look in the mirror you weren't designed to look the way you do you see a random accident that happened against infinitely great odds... unless you claim you were personally designed by a god just like you claim the animals were...?

I as an individual, might be the product of a random selection of genes that came together at conception, but the design of the process was anything but random. The cells that started to become me, knew exactly where their programming was to take them. Nine months of those cells forming the various parts of my body in the relative safety of my mother's womb, ensured that a viable human being was born into the world, fully functioning and with genetic input that predetermined the color and texture of my hair, my skin tone and my eye color....my height and aspects of my personality were also present as well as any genetic traits inherited from either parent like color blindness or heart problems.

All creatures are the product of a brilliantly designed system that ensures their survival and reproductive capabilities continue on indefinitely. You can think its a fluke.....I can't.

 

[ArtieE]

But I do......every time I look at living things I see design....

No you don't. You even claim your designer wasn't designed but exists just because of a fluke... or do you have a third alternative... did your designer evolve?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Do you personally have any evidence for what science claims or are you just parroting what others have said?

Oooh, nasty. I believe that is your realm.

So does adaptation...do you know the difference? You do understand that a virus that adapts or mutates is still a virus? This is an example of adaptation, not evolution. A rabbit that adapted to a changed environment by changing color or a bear that did the same thing, are still within their own taxonomic family. Darwin's finches had different shaped beaks that were adaptations for a different food source...but they were still finches. All the Galapagos creatures had merely become varieties of the same kinds as their mainland cousins....none of them change into a different kind of animal....no matter how much times had elapsed. Science fudges what it cannot prove.

Hardly. The ToE explains precisely why such happens.

Do you believe that whales evolved from four legged furry land animals? Have you seen the evidence they present for this?

Of course not, because they didn't.

I find it difficult to understand how any intelligent person could believe that, whilst pointing fingers at creationists for believing that life was purposely designed.

Erm, because they don't?

There are powerful forces working in the universe that are unseen to the human eye, but scientists know that they are there because of the effects they produce....why would God be any different?

Lack of evidence?

A being capable of producing these forces, as well as the universe, must be an incredible force himself. Science just doesn't have the ability to comprehend or to understand who or what he is.

Supposition - and not required.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Deeje has been here, at least 8 years now, almost 9.

She didn’t understand the differences between proofs and evidences, back then, so I highly doubt she will understand now...or ever.

The funny thing is that she will lecture us on matters, like the differences between microevolution and macroevolution, and between evolution and adaptation, and yet she cannot learn the differences between evolution and abiogenesis, or between evidences and proofs. And it is not that she don’t have the capacity to learn, is that she doesn’t want to learn or refuse to learn.

This is why we repeat the same answers to her, explaining the differences, and that she refused to learn, most people consider her dishonest.

Religions - who'd have one (the ones taking literal interpretations of what was written long ago) - especially when they produce such nonsensical thinking.

 

[cladking]

Do'h.

 

[cladking]

Except you haven’t presented any evidence.

All you have done has been presenting your presuppositions (eg claims about the history of language, about the Tower of Babel, about the last nephilim, about the bible) and you are rationalising, trying to mix history and contents of the bible.

I've been talking principally about what my theory (and ancient science) says about evolution and religion. I'm talking about the nature of science because people don't understand the nature of science. A few scientists have a pretty good idea but even they can only mull the nature of modern science rather than the commonalities of modern and ancient science. I believe that without seeing these commonalities it is difficult to even see the relationship of math and science. It is impossible to model the nature of epistemology without looking at it from the outside and exterior perspectives may not be possible without "understanding" more than a single science. Scientists may have an "ego the size of Texas" and nobody is holier than thou than are evolutionists.

None of these claims are evidences; they are just a bunch of statements of what you believe in, but you haven’t backed up of your claims.

Actually I did back them up by pointing out that my theory makes prediction.

People don't understand that prediction is the hallmark of science so going over this again will serve no purpose. People don't understand that even weak evidence can be determinative if it is sufficiently broad and leads to hypotheses that make prediction so even showing the overwhelming physical evidence will serve no purpose.

I can give you A+ for imagination, but a much lower mark on reality and big fat F for failing to produce a single evidence.

Thank you. If I'm engaging in a circular argument it is certainly one of the most original and fantastic of all time.

It also is the first circular argument to affect virtually every single human pursuit and all of human history. How ironic that it also extends human history back 40,000 years.

Evidence is more than just your supposition or you personal belief, because that’s all you have given us.

I've attacked this from many angles. The most direct is reverse engineering of ancient constructions but people can't give up their beliefs and nowhere is this more pronounced than when those beliefs are without a real foundation. How ironic that this leads me to a discussion of the two most well founded beliefs in the world; religion and science.

Of course from my perspective just about everything flows with irony.

 

[cladking]

And it is not that she don’t have the capacity to learn, is that she doesn’t want to learn or refuse to learn.

Nobody can learn anything if they don't accept the assumptions, definitions, and axioms that lie at its heart.

You are starting with the assumption that no God is necessary at any stage of the processes that we call evolution. You are beginning with change in species being axiomatically caused by things that affect the species rather than individuals and that are not related to consciousness or behavior.

How can a "God fearing" man sit down and "learn" evolution. He can merely look at your evidence and show where it deviates from his own beliefs.

It should be easy to create a religious version of evolution and it does seem one has been being cobbled together over the last four decades or so.

 

[ArtieE]

You are starting with the assumption that no God is necessary at any stage of the processes that we call evolution.

Biologists start out with the assumption that the existence of living organisms is due to purely natural causes. In the same way seismologists start out with the assumption that earthquakes are due to natural causes not Poseidon, and meteorologists start out with the assumption that weather phenomena are due to natural causes, not Thor. Now, if substantial evidence should turn up later during our scientific investigations that some god was/is responsible for the existence of living organisms, or earthquakes, or thunder, we can deal with that then.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Biologists start out with the assumption that the existence of living organisms is due to purely natural causes. In the same way seismologists start out with the assumption that earthquakes are due to natural causes not Poseidon, and meteorologists start out with the assumption that weather phenomena are due to natural causes, not Thor. Now, if substantial evidence should turn up later during our scientific investigations that some god was/is responsible for the existence of living organisms, or earthquakes, or thunder, we can deal with that then.

Where might the first thoughts as to there ever being anything like a god have come from?