"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?" Why don't you answer?
-
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
Sapiens
Polymathematician
The evidence is all there and has been more than adequately demonstrated for you time and time again. If you could find a way to shed your proforma prejudice against anything that does not match your biblical fables you'd understand that.
Science explains why it thinks the ToE "might have" happened. There is no "precisely". It explains what it 'believes' is possible. But it is based on a mountain of guesswork, not on real substantiated evidence. It looks like you haven't really investigated this subject very closely. You appear to trust this branch of science implicitly. I believe that your trust is misplaced, but it's your choice. Nothing in this world is as it seems. Deception is everywhere as we see it being exposed in many once trusted areas of human activity.
Oh but they do.....
Whales supposedly evolved from small furry little critters who lived over 50 million years ago and morphed themselves into a string of different creatures over time to become whales....
"A large, dog-sized mammal that lived around 50 million years ago near a shallow sea in what today is Pakistan, Pakicetus is the earliest known relative of whales and dolphins. It is not technically a direct forbearer of the modern sperm whale, though they would have shared a common ancestor. But given this is a contemplation of the nature of evolution over time and “that we don't know exactly what those ancestors looked like,” Collver said, “I use the known species as stand-ins as they would have likely been quite similar and thus function as plausible intermediates.”
Watch a Startling Animation of a Whale's Evolution (Spoiler: It Used to Walk on Land)
How scientific is the explanation given here? How much conjecture and suggestion are used because no real evidence exists for their assumptions? It's a con.....one, I believe the world will come to lament being talked into believing. It is a classic demonstration of the power of suggestion.
I can say the same for macro-evolution. Show me what evidence you have based your opinions on....I can assure you that adaptation is not responsible for all the various lifeforms on this planet. Adaptation can only create variety within a taxonomic family. It never creates new families no matter how much time elapses. Proof for adaptation is all they have...the rest is just assumption.
Fossils do not speak....they only have the voice that scientists give them. They can make them say whatever will support their pet theory.
Science bases all its "beliefs" about macro-evolution on supposition too....you need to do some more careful research before putting your faith in these people.....everyone does. Read what they actually say, as opposed to what they only imply. You might be surprised.
Sapiens, please don't treat us like science has some superior position in this. The "evidence" is nothing but glorified suggestion couched in scientific jargon so that it sounds convincing even to other scientists. Strip all that away and you have a very badly supported theory. There is no REAL evidence that doesn't require a convoluted explanation as to why such a ridiculous scenario should even sound plausible. It makes intelligent men sound like gullible children.
I don't know what your perceptions of an Intelligent Creator are based on, but if it is the YEC movement, then you have an equally ridiculous scenario that fails to take into account the actual evidence.
We have an old earth and we have millions of creatures that belong to specific taxonomic families that remain the same over millions of years. Adaptation takes many of these creatures into new varieties, but adaptation never creates a new family. Science has no valid evidence for this that is not based on supposition. Supposition is not science.
We were given an example of an ancient species of rabbit that was discovered in a cave in India. It is estimated by scientists that this "rabbit" (or the foot bones that were found,) is 35 million years older than modern rabbits. But the fact is....it is recognised as a species of rabbit! Are we to assume that rabbits were always rabbits even 35 million years ago? What other creatures will be discovered that reinforce this fact? Fossils don't really tell the story unless scientists give them a voice. How accurate is that voice?
Either way, "belief" is what we each have.
gnostic
The Lost One
Now you are making false assumptions about what I said to Subduction Zone, about Deeje refusals to learn science.
In that post, you have quoted from my reply, only talk about science. Learning science and understanding science don’t require God or religion, but in my reply, I didn’t say anything about there being “no God”.
What you are spinning now, is straw man.
All I have been saying to SZ is that she has repeatedly confused proof and evidence, in nearly 9 years. Many here, have corrected her, and have explain the differences to her that in science, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
A person who who refused to learn this simple fact, is only being wilfully ignorance, and worse, dishonest.
Dishonest, because she keeping making claims, as if no one has corrected her before.
Apparently many creationists refused to learn the differences.
Science seek evidences to verify the knowledge (scientific theory) is true. Science rely on evidences, not proof.
It is the “evidences” that determine if any hypothesis is true or false, not proof.
The more empirical evidences scientists, the more probable is the hypothesis.
If (A) there are more evidences are against hypothesis, or there are lack of evidences, then the hypothesis is false and debunked.
If (A) there are more evidences are against hypothesis, or there are lack of evidences, then the hypothesis is false and debunked.
The evidence has to be any one or combination of the following:
- measurable,
- detectable (or observable),
- quantifiable (eg counting the numbers of evidences or the numbers of test results, using statistics and probability),
- testable,
- verifiable (eg repeated testings or discovering many independent evidences)
Mathematical equations are proofs, not evidences.
In non-science environment, proof and evidence are synonymous, but in the world of science and mathematics, they are not.
Since, you are in Science and Religion” debate forums, and this topic is about creation and evolution, then anyone who participate and contribute in these topics, should at least know how they are different, thus the differences between “evidence” and “proof”.
Biologists are only interested in evidences (eg morphology or physical characteristics of the anatomy, genetic characteristics and DNA or RNA), for or against evolution; they are not interested some abstract mathematical proofs (eg equations).
People have been explaining to her (Deeje) and other like-minded creationists that science needs evidences, not proofs, but they refused to learn simple basic science concepts and terminologies.
Are you one of these creationists, who refuses to learn?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And yet you are using the science that you deny right now. What does that make you?
OEC, is only slightly more correct than YEC which is only slightly better than those that believe in a Flat Earth. Extremely wrong is still extremely wrong.
I am not a fluke. I am the result of a random selection of genes inherited from my parents. Different eggs and different sperm produced my siblings. They are not flukes either, but planned offspring resulting from a well known process designed for that very purpose. Each human is formed by the same process and science knows how it works....very predictably. The code is all there in the DNA. It is like an inbuilt instruction manual......how many instruction manuals do you know of that were written by no one?
You didn't answer my question....are gravity and magnetism just flukes? What are they and where did they come from?
If you can answer that, then you can also answer what God is and where he comes from. We can't see gravity or magnetism, but they are extraordinarily powerful forces in the universe....we can't see God either, but we can see what he has done by creating matter and then forming a universe out of the raw materials he produced. He chose one planet to prepare for living beings to inhabit. The variety of earth's inhabitants boggles the mind. Their habitats were prepared for them long before they arrived. I cannot see all of that as just a fluke. There are too many amazing components brought together in such a purposeful way to ever be the product of blind chance IMO.
You, of course are free to form your own opinions.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.
And when you deny that you are a fluke you deny that evolution is a fluke. You are not being consistent.
gnostic
The Lost One
Actually I think it is your own hubris that matches “the size of Texas”.
Science required evidences.
Evidences that will either refute a hypothesis or verify and validate a hypothesis. There are 3 possible scenarios or outcome for new hypothesis:
- If there are no evidences to “support” or “refute” or the hypothesis is untestable, then the hypothesis is false and debunked, and would be considered “pseudoscience”. In this scenario, it is not even “hypothesis”, because it is “unfalsifiable” and “untestable”.
- If there are lot of evidences that refute the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is false, it is debunked, and listed as failed hypothesis, and the papers should be thrown into trash bin.
- If there are lot of evidences that support, then this hypothesis been tested and verified, and have the potential of being accepted as “scientific theory”.
For one. It is possible that another different scientist who may have better alternative hypothesis, with better explanation, and more rigorously tested predictions, and therefore better evidences, can become scientific theory.
Two. For it to be officially scientific theory, the hypothesis must go through even more rigorous testings, and then more testings by independent scientists who are specialised in that field, hence “peer review”. Only by passing the peer review, and the consensus of scientific community has been reached.)
Getting back to point on the 3 possible outcomes:
Intelligent Design falls under scenario 1, because it is unfalsifiable and untestable, therefore pseudoscience.
Your claim on science and religion, and the supposed “Ancient Language” that support even better ancient science than modern science, would fall under point 1, your claim being “pseudoscience”.
(A) ...because you have no evidences to support your claim,
and (B) ...you are using and have been using circular reasoning.
and (B) ...you are using and have been using circular reasoning.
And you are wrong about a few things, but I will bring up one of them in my next reply.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
But ... the truth is that science does hold a superior position.
No one should take you seriously. You are self-admittedly anti-intellectual and similarly proud of the fact that you do not understand science.
Convoluted? No! Sometimes complex and meandering? That is to be expected and it would be troublesome were it not so. It is the nature of adaption to an ever changing environment and niche space, especially since each adaptation, feeds-back and results in a change in the niche which selects for a different adaptation. Today's adaptation is tested against tomorrow's conditions. This is part of Leigh Van Valen's Red Queen hypothesis which proposes that organisms must constantly adapt, evolve, and proliferate not merely to gain reproductive advantage, but also simply to survive while pitted against ever-evolving opposing organisms in an ever-changing environment. The hypothesis explains two different phenomena: the constant extinction rates as observed in the paleontological record caused by co-evolution between competing species, and (as often asked in threads here and on similar boards) the advantage of sexual reproduction (as opposed to asexual reproduction) at the level of individuals.
Perhaps to you, but then you tell us that you are proud of your ignorance.
That's an irrelevant red herring. YEC or ID, doesn't really matter, they differ in some specifics but both get it wrong.
Families are human creations that exist, today, as reflections of what is known concerning their evolutionary relationships. To deny evolution and invoke taxonomic families is oxymoronic.
In a single generation, of course not, but is has been shown to create species and genomic analysis of these changes at the species and higher level clearly indicate that it does.
No supposition required. In fact, there is no place for supposition in science at the hypothesis or higher level.
As accurate as the available data permits. When there is new data, often what is known is further confirmed and occasionally it is altered. So what? You can't do that for your bible, even though critical items like Genesis and Exodus are demonstrably horse puckey and can not be taken seriously without the invocation of direct godly hocus pocus.
Once again you try to pretend that there is a level playing field. It just is not so. You have belief, I have something ever-so-much better. But, to understand that you really need to get yourself to the point where you can understand Peirce’s Harvard Lectures in which he draws a clear distinction, for all to see, between premises and conclusions (a major problem of yours), as well as between data and inference.
Last edited:
Sapiens
Polymathematician
No, trial and error are no involved, evolution of social insect is, and that flies in the face of any form of invention per se. Read E. O. Wilson's "The Insect Societies."
Correct, but ... so what?
Claims without evidence.
Words are cheap, how about actually providing all those things?
That's because while you may think you do (ad Deeje also does), neither of you actually do so.
I am skeptical of all things, but you have made me more skeptical of your views rather than less.
Have you any idea of what meta experimental actually is? If so, please explain it.
Is the calculation of the moon's orbit and it's eclipses of the sun science? Is it experimental? Is testing the predictions an experiment?
A claim without evidence.
Complaining that no one can take you seriously does not mean that anyone should take you seriously. You should ask yourself why you and those whom you run with are not taken seriously ... try to avoid conspiracy theories, they are almost always wrong, people are neither that closed-mouth or that smart.
If you learn nothing else today, you can keep the day from being a complete waste by learning that the genus is always capitalized, the species is in lower case, and the entire term is either underlined or italicized, as in Homo omnisciencis.
Speaking of Homo omnisciencis, Graham Hancock has nothing meaningful to contribute save, perhaps, a good supply of recreational pharmaceuticals and a passel of unsupported extraordinary claims.
Last edited:
No sapiens...science just thinks it does. Supposition, wishful thinking and biased interpretation of evidence doesn't = truth. It = an opinion...and a poorly based one at that. The foundations are so weak that this elaborate castle that science has built on matchsticks, will come crashing down eventually.
Of course they should take me seriously.....the desperate attempts to discredit what I post here is enough to demonstrate that a bit of damage control is warranted...otherwise why would you bother?
The defense is often made by disparaging comments about a person's intellectual capacity or educational status. I am not anti-science, nor am I ignorant of the facts. I have read enough links provided by "scientists" to know unsubstantiated guesswork when I see it. If you want to believe it then go ahead.....those who want to check out the evidence honestly for themselves will see what I see, if they have not been blinded by the sheer volume of the propaganda....or the credentials of the ones supporting a theory that science cannot validate with real substantive proof.
The changes that adaptation produces are not even close to what science is suggesting. Adapting to a changing environment probably produced what Darwin witnessed on the Galapagos....new varieties of the same species of creatures. They had not morphed into something else but were clearly identifiable with their mainland cousins.
I am proud of the fact that I haven't swallowed the same 'cool ade' as you guys. I can see design and assign credit to a master designer. You can assign it to Mr Nobody if you like...it doesn't change anything. You can't make a Iie into truth just because you want to believe something. One of us is going to be very disappointed one day, I think.
That maybe your opinion, but again who says you have to be right? ID makes logical sense to those who don't believe in blind chance being able to achieve anything so deliberately purposeful. Purpose demonstrates intelligence. Design indicates planning, so the accidental nature of your belief system flies in the face of genuine logic....unless of course people have tampered with logic itself.
What evolutionary relationships? You mean the ones assigned by those who promote evolution? Seriously? Science invented those relationships as the foundation of a flawed theory. There is nothing to substantiate any of those relationships. They are assumed, not proven....not even provable.
Does it.....on whose say so? Science can, by experimentation, demonstrate small adaptive changes within a species, which creates nothing but variety in a family of creatures. But it cannot demonstrate that one species morphed into another....the real evidence is missing and has been replaced by horribly biased, educated guesswork. No truth can survive in such a hostile environment.
The whole theory of macro-evolution is based on nothing but supposition. Every piece of so called evidence that has ever been presented by any evolutionist on this forum has had no substantive backup. The power of suggestion is never more powerful than when you want to believe something badly enough. Evolutionists demonstrate a kind of religious fervour whenever this subject is raised. They treat any kind of criticism as tantamount to 'blasphemy'.
Available data can change overnight. Where does that leave the data from yesterday, when people argued black and white about something that was supposed to be true...but now it isn't? The truth doesn't change.
They are only 'horse puckey' to people like you. Genesis and Exodus continue to shed light on man's relationship with his Creator. There is no hocus pocus....just a power you have no explanation for. You cannot dismiss a Creator just because you have never seen him or can't quantify him. There is so much more to creation than scientists in this world will ever know.
No, I'm afraid you don't. What you have is a collective illusion of something better. You have to depend on belief just as much as I do.....denial is as much a part of science as you believe faith is to creationists.
All that does is allow you to learn the lingo of the ones who speak this foreign language. It apparently makes you members of some exclusive club. The 'secret handshake' is the ability to hold any opposers in complete contempt and to insinuate a low level of intelligence in comparison to your learned selves. People who put themselves or others on pedestals, have a long way to fall though.
There are no clear distinctions between premises and conclusions in this branch of science....they are all pointed in one direction. There is a vast difference between data and inference. Data is simply interpretation of evidence and inference is what skews the data, not facts.
You have no more conclusive evidence for your theory than I have for my Creator. That is a fact.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
I have marked your clams in red. I have marked your supporting evidence for your claims in blue.
A logical fallacy, there are thousands of possible reasons that are more likely, let's start with the possibility that it is a rainy day and I'm bored.
A logical fallacy, there are thousands of possible reasons that are more likely, let's start with the possibility that it is a rainy day and I'm bored.
You made the disparaging remarks about yourself in previous posts, so I have to wonder just how you will square that circle without lying.
But ... they had "morphed" as you put it into different species, time to introduce you undefined and indefinable crackpot concept of "kinds."
I am tired of your inability to grasp the meaning of the word "theory."
I see a whole lot more red than blue. Why don't make an honest attempt to provide actual evidence for your claims?
Whatever. As per @cladking, I'm done with you. Unless one can actually demolish a brick wall by doing so, it is hardly worth while bashing one's head against it.
You know that I agree with you, and I even think the fossil record is more complete than scientists want to accept! What is actually revealed, is evidence of Jehovah's generosity in creating such fascinating species! (I often wonder, in preparing the Earth for humans, how many species became extinct before God created us?) All organisms having the same building blocks (genes) found within DNA testifies, not to kinship between these living things, but rather to there being one Creator designing all of them, using one 'blueprint', as it were.
Even as far back in time as the Cambrian, we've discovered well-preserved organisms, even with finely detailed soft-tissued anatomy, clearly observed!
There are no gaps, it's all supposed.....of the millions of complete fossils found, only fully-formed species that are already well-adapted to their environment have been discovered.
Anything else, is conjecture.
That's a straw man. The entire time of this explosion lasted maybe 40-50 million years, I'm well aware of the alleged duration. But the organisms themselves, which are from almost all the major phyla in existence today -- the species appear suddenly, with no accepted transitional precursors. (From the Ediacaran, either.)
I'm getting tired of constantly explaining this, apparently to people who don't want to look at the evidence.
Cooper & Fortey (1998) write:
"The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today. To be sure, there are fossils in older strata, but they are either very small (such as bacteria and algae), or their relationships to the living fauna are highly contentious, as is the case with the famous soft-bodied fossils from the late Precambrian Pound Quartzite, Ediacara, South Australia."
-- Alan Cooper and Richard Fortey, “Evolutionary explosions and the phylogenetic fuse,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13 April, 1998: 151-156.
Duly noted.
Actually you made my remarks into a strawman and proceeded to bash the strawman senseless, assuming some kind of victory. No idea how your comprehension skills let you down there....
Its a Biblical term designed for believers who understand exactly what God meant. Science apparently has difficulty grasping the meaning of the term because it doesn't fit their theory. You think God might change it to accommodate you?
And I am tired of evolutionists who moved the goalposts to redefine the word "theory" so that they could get away with calling unsubstantiated conjecture, "facts". I grasp the meaning alright...and the reason for it.
The dictionary defines a "theory" as..."
noun
- a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion. - a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
"a theory of education" - an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
"my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
- a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
I could provide lots of blue, but they would all be Bible quotations....as riveting and as valid to you as your pseudo-science articles based on supposition, are to me.
I can provide reams of them if you like.....
So you explain the existence of different organisms with the existence of one Creator of these organisms. Then the next question is how do you explain the existence of this Creator? Was it designed and created? Did it evolve from something? Does it exist by chance? None of the above?
Just for the record.....
These are basic "kinds" as referred to in the Bible...
Bears
Cats
Birds
Dogs
Horses
Insects
Fish
There are lots more....
Its really not a difficult concept, surely....? There are many varieties within a "kind" but as long as they recognize a mate and reproduce themselves, that ensures that their "kind" will remain in existence regardless of any adaptive change triggered by environmental factors or altered food sources.
These are basic "kinds" as referred to in the Bible...
Bears
Birds
Dogs
Insects
There are lots more....
Its really not a difficult concept, surely....? There are many varieties within a "kind" but as long as they recognize a mate and reproduce themselves, that ensures that their "kind" will remain in existence regardless of any adaptive change triggered by environmental factors or altered food sources.