The Miracle of Water.

[metis]

The overwhelming assumptions are what makes the evidence. I gave these before - 1. a proposition; 2. what is being looked for; 3. natural science.

That's a non-sequitur since it's the "scientific method" we use, not the above.

One may believe it's an assumption, if one does not accept the scriptures in its entirety.

Which is a compilation of myriads of assumptions.

We cannot categorically prove there's a god beyond a shadow of doubt, but we may believe in God based on faith.

This is different to making assumptions about the past, with little or no evidence that is confirmed by anything, other than more assumptions.

We don't do that and, as a matter of fact, in science we are far more prone to use objectively-based evidence that theists are.

They can build bacteria, and replicate it, but it will always be bacteria.

Another assumption that's not supported by the evidence. If we go back 3 billion years ago in the fossil record, for example, we don't find any multi-celled organisms, and yet these organisms must have come from somewhere, such as that which we see during the Cambrian Explosion, and there's isn't a shred of evidence that proposes that somehow God did this at that time.

Do you have any observable data that says otherwise?

Yes, both the immense fossil record and the d.n.a. testing that show patterns of change. Now, where's your evidence for such ongoing divine creation whereas Genesis says that God created all in six days (yom), and these had to be literal days if using a literalist approach since God created Shabbat on the 7th day? The Sabbath is one day out of the week, not an epoch nor an era.

So you don't trust the Bible. Only the parts that you choose to use, and interpret in the way you want. Is that what you are saying?

I don't have a blind belief in any source, and that also includes scientific ones, plus I see JW's pick & choose all the time so they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[nPeace]

That doesn't demonstrate it happening in nature. Try again.

Sorry, no. It does.
Try again. That's funny.

It's the perfect demonstrate.
It demonstrates that you cannot have design without a designer. Nothing is created without a creator.
Mankind can only mimic what is possible to mimic. He calls himself a creator which technically he is not, because he cannot create anything from what is not already there. He mimics the already existing designer, and he copies the design already designed - in nature.

No one can dispute what is obvious to everyone. No one can demonstrate that anything can be designed without a designer, or come into existence without being created. Sure they can appeal to illogical arguments, but shutting one's eyes to reality won't make it go away.

Persons who want to believe contrary to what is evidently true fr which deniers have no excuse. What a terrible position to be in, especially for those who call themselves Christian and choose Scientism over faith in God. Romans 1:18-23
18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.
21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. 22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles.

Actually people who claim to believe in God but yet are really hopping around on two opinions, by 1. trying to mesh religious based science with their religion; 2 replace the Bible with religious based science, I think they had better wake up and open their eyes, and realize who has them by the scruff of the neck, or the throat. Revelation 12:9

It is in my view quite interesting the wording the apostle Paul used when he spoke of those who were sleeping, and have their eyes shut.
Romans 11:7, 8
7 The rest had their senses dulled, 8 just as it is written: “God has given them a spirit of deep sleep, eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear, down to this very day.”

1 Thessalonians 5:6-9
6 So, then, let us not sleep on as the rest do, but let us stay awake and keep our senses. 7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. 8 But as for us who belong to the day, let us keep our senses and put on the breastplate of faith and love and the hope of salvation as a helmet 9 because God assigned us, not to wrath, but to the acquiring of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Timothy 2:25, 26
25 Perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the Devil, seeing that they have been caught alive by him to do his will.

2 Timothy 4:3-5
3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories. 5 You, though, keep your senses in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelizer, fully accomplish your ministry.

Wow! Wow. I always marvel at how accurate the Bible is - how it accurately describes events, and people's situations - especially today.
What a darkness people are willing to put themselves in, and why? Satisfying their fleshly cravings - They want to be free to smoke their cigarettes, engage is sexual immorality and illicit lusts... without being made to feel guilty, either by the Bible, or people who live by its standards. How sad and deplorable.

The even more sad part about it is that the "wolves" that they allow to mislead them know full well - they know the truth. Romans 1:21 is no joke. They know there is a creator, but they mask the truth, to live their life as they please.
...and they dupe the masses into taking that leap of imagination, with them - into the darkness.

A third respect in which our brains seem predisposed to resist Darwinism stems from our great success as creative designers. Our world is dominated by feats of engineering and works of art. We are entirely accustomed to the idea that complex elegance is an indicator of premeditated, Grafted design. This is probably the most powerful reason for the belief, held by the vast majority of people that have ever lived, in some kind of supernatural deity. It took a very large leap of the imagination for Darwin and Wallace to see that, contrary to all intuition, there is another way and, once you have understood it, a far more plausible way, for complex 'design' to arise out of primeval simplicity. A leap of the imagination so large that, to this day, many people seem still unwilling to make it. It is the main purpose of this book to help the reader to make this leap.
- Richard Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker" Preface

The language Dawkins used is noteworthy - quite interesting.
...predisposed to resist - not truth, not scientific fact - Darwinism.
It took a very large leap of the imagination for Darwin and Wallace to see ...A leap of the imagination so large that, to this day, many people seem still unwilling to make it.

Wow. A leap of what? How large?
It amuses me. So take the leap. We've only got one life to live right? Curse God and die.

The way I am seeing it, the ultimatum is in our face, plain as day. It's not a case of "hidden in plain sight". This is the final episode. The final chapter is about to close.
I've argued that we are 100 percent now dependent on science for survival of our species. In part, science of today has to overcome the scientific breakthroughs of previous years because we've advanced internal combustion engines, because we're so good at burning carbon that we take out of the ground, we did it blindly without any consequences of, that it might totally affect the future of the planet. - Craig Venter

Psalm 118:8, 9
8 It is better to take refuge in Jehovah Than to trust in humans.
9 It is better to take refuge in Jehovah Than to trust in princes.
Psalm 146:3, 4
3 Do not put your trust in princes Nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation.
4 His spirit goes out, he returns to the ground; On that very day his thoughts perish.
Psalm 37:3-6; Psalm 40:4, 5; Psalm 62:8, 9;

Apparently, the stakes are high, and we have to put in the whole stack. There is no holding back now. It's game over.

Can Science Answer?
Where did the information originate?
CRAIG VENTER: One of the exciting elements that people who are interested in the digital world here may find is we can use the genetic code to watermark chromosomes. You can use it in a secret code, or you can - basically what we're using is the three-letter triplet code that codes for amino acids. There's 20 amino acids, and they use single letters to denote those. Using the triplet code, we can write words, sentences, we can say, "This genome was made by Richard Dawkins on this date in 2008." A key hallmark of man-made species, manmade chromosomes, is that they will be very much denoted that way.

RICHARD DAWKINS: What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. It is pure information. It's digital information. It's precisely the kind of information that can be translated digit for digit, byte for byte, into any other kind of information and then translated back again. This is a major revolution. I suppose it's probably "the" major revolution in the whole history of our understanding of ourselves. It's something would have boggled the mind of Darwin, and Darwin would have loved it, I'm absolutely sure.

Not man-made. Not a product of human intellect. Mindless or Of a mind - an intelligence?
Where did instinct, and intelligence originate?
Where did life originate?
What is the purpose of life - why are we here? Where are we going - is there life after death?

In my view, intelligent design answers these questions, provided we connect to its source.
To deny intelligent design is the same as a gaps argument - "I don't see a designer, therefore selection (natural selection) did it."

 

[nPeace]

A logical fallacy
...Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Physics is the study of simple things that do not tempt us to invoke design. At first sight, man-made artefacts like computers and cars will seem to provide exceptions. They are complicated and obviously designed for a purpose, yet they are not alive, and they are made of metal and plastic rather than of flesh and blood.

Physics appears to be a complicated subject, because the ideas of physics are difficult for us to understand. Our brains were designed to understand hunting and gathering, mating and child-rearing: a world of medium-sized objects moving in three dimensions at moderate speeds.
[wait. Our brains were what???]

The process by which an airliner came into existence is not fundamentally mysterious to us, because humans built it. The systematic putting together of parts to a purposeful design is something we know and understand, for we have experienced it at first hand, even if only with our childhood Meccano or Erector set.

What about our own bodies? Each one of us is a machine, like an airliner only much more complicated. Were we designed on a drawing board too, and were our parts assembled by a skilled engineer? The answer is no. It is a surprising answer, and we have known and understood it for only a century or so. When Charles Darwin first explained the matter, many people either wouldn't or couldn't grasp it. I myself flatly refused to believe Darwin's theory when I first heard about it as a child. Almost everybody throughout history, up to the second half of the nineteenth century, has firmly believed in the opposite - the Conscious Designer theory.
[Yes Dawkins, it is not only a surprising answer, but an illogical one as well.]

Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in .nature, it is the blind watchmaker.
- Richard Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker" CHAPTER 1

Thank you Richard Dawkins. Our brains were designed. So who was the designer? No. It was not natural selection. This sounds like an argument for natural selection.
Design requires a designer. a designer is not unintelligent. Logical fallacy.

 

[ecco]

One need not assume that the Bible is true in what it says, since they have supportive evidence.

Please do show your supportive evidence for just the following...

• Supportive evidence to show that Moses ever existed.
• Supportive evidence for a flood that covered Mt. Everest.
• Supportive evidence that a small wooden vessel and its passengers survived the most horrific storm imaginable.
• Supportive evidence that all humans are descended from seven people.
• Supportive evidence that animals spread across the entire earth in just 4300 years.
• Supportive evidence that 1,000,000 people walked from Egypt to Canaan.
• Supportive evidence to show who wrote the Gospels.
• Supportive evidence to show how people could have recorded all the words of Jesus put into the Gospels.
• Supportive evidence to show that Jesus ever existed.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Sorry, no. It does.

No. It doesn't. It demonstrates that "intelligent design" CAN occur, with humans and laboratories and so on. Show us how intelligent design occurs without humans, and we'll talk.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Design requires a designer.

A design does indeed require a designer. There is no evidence that naturally occurring biological life is designed, however.

 

[nPeace]

No. It doesn't. It demonstrates that "intelligent design" CAN occur, with humans and laboratories and so on. Show us how intelligent design occurs without humans, and we'll talk.

How can we talk if you don't read my post?

 

[ecco]

you do not know that anything in the universe is not functioning without an intelligent designer.

If you want to make such an assertion then you must explain how an intelligent designer functioned and functions without an intelligent designer.

 

[ecco]

Show us how intelligent design occurs without humans, and we'll talk.

 

[nPeace]

It is an ID argument. I've seen it made many times.

There you go. This is a nice demonstration of such an argument.

What do we rightly conclude when we see a pattern, such as the form of a cumulus cloud, or waves repeatedly lapping onto a shoreline? Do creationists posit intelligent patterners to account for them, or just write them off to blind forces?

This is why apologists prefer the word design. It implies agency the way that the word pattern does not, and that is the intent. It facilitates slipping an intelligence in through the back door with a circular argument that assumes a designer just by using the word design, then concludes that since there is a design, there must be a designer, ostensibly demonstrated what has been assumed.

I guess not.

You have written a few times that this or that is not the ID argument, but you seem to decline to want to make that argument yourself. That's your prerogative, but I'm sure that you understand that the rational skeptic isn't affected by claims unaccompanied by a compelling, evidenced argument.

You don't seem interested in what is explained to you, this is the reason you will never be right about what you say, even though you believe it.
For that same reason you also probably won't see that I did make the argument
Repeat... ID argument is not about patterns.

I think so.

Darwin proposed that genetic variation + natural selection + time leads to biological evolution, with more time corresponding to more evolution. That is the mechanism driving the changes in life over single generations as well as over geological time.

Those that argue that this process is not up to that task because of an unseen and undemonstrated barrier halting the process right where microevolution is poised to become macroevolution need to explain to the rational skeptic what could do that - but only if he wants to be believed. You have no burden of proof for your claims if you are content to have them viewed as unsubtantiated beliefs.

Let me add here that there are processes that are self-limited. They can't continue indefinitely because they stop themselves. Consider a rising body temperature in a febrile patient. The temperature cannot continue to rise indefinitely. At some point, the patient will become cooked and die, putting an end to his rising temperature.

Or consider an icicle growing downward from your eave to your doormat. This process cannot continue indefinitely. Eventually, either the icicle breaks off due to its own weight, or it reaches the ground and ceases growing downward, or the spring thaw put an end to it. The process of the icicle growing downward has a natural barrier that limits its growth.

Although it may be, there is nothing to suggest that evolution is such a process. Simply claiming that it is is not persuasvie.

No one is talking about a process halting.
It is whether the process can accomplish the speculated result.
It is only speculated that it can. So let's not go there.
You would not want Creationist to.

Actually, I do know that.

No scientific theory incorporates an intelligent designer, and none would be made more useful by so doing. If you think otherwise, you can make the opposite case. How can you make either of Einstein's relativity theories more effective by adding an intelligent designer. Or atomic theory. Or plate tectonics. Or any other scientific theory of your choosing. I'm pretty sure that you can't.

Well how would we make anything without a beginning? The universe had a beginning. If the cause is an intelligent designer, what the problem?

 

[metis]

Well how would we make anything without a beginning? The universe had a beginning.

"Beginnings" are arbitrarily fixed.

For example, when did I begin this post? When I first typed it? When I thought about what you wrote? When I read what you wrote? When I got on this page? When I got into the RF website? When I turned on my computer? Etc.

Most cosmologists today feel it likely that our universe is likely not the only one and may be a by-product of previous actions, such as what Brane Theory suggests.

 

[nPeace]

This is a frequent criticism from apologists - language that is not emphatic enough.

But this is the proper way to express what we know. Its a way of saying that there is no apparent barrier to nature generating the tree of life from a last universal ancestral population, while leaving room for the possibility that there may be one as yet unidentified. The disciplined critical thinker does not rule out the possibility of gods, nor other things that have never been seen, but can't be demonstrated to be impossible.

I would also add that if you read into the word seems what is meant by the words can't without help, then you have projected your own thoughts onto mine.

Okay, but I assumed that if you were certain, you would say is, but I understand. I probably got a bit technical.

Nothing. Such life very likely exists somewhere.

I am not claiming that there is no intelligent designer, just that we have no need for that hypothesis at this time, and of course, if no such thing exists, all of reality is explainable without invoking one.

Great. Welcome to our world. We existed fine for centuries without Darwin's hypotheses.

Evolutionary theory is based on observation and other evidence already presented such as the theory's ability to successfully predict things that can and cannot be found, and its applicability to various fields such as medicine and agriculture. In the world of reason and evidence, such things are viewed as evidence of a correct idea. Wrong ideas can't do that. If we have two competing ideas, one that can accurately predict and at times control outcomes, and another that can't, we're going to consider that evidence that the first idea more correct. That's a long way past assumption. That's empiric support.

Is that how you see science - scientists fraudulently manipulating evidence to stage the appearance of something having happened that never did? Scientists have no reason to do that. The odd rogue scientist might assemble a Piltdown man, but not only is that not typical of science or scientists, it will be scientists that expose the matter and make the correction.

I don't imagine you will stop saying what you believe, on my account.
I respect that, as I am the same.

Extrapolation is a fundamental process in much of academia and rigorous thought. It's how NASA decided where Pluto would be when New Horizons got to the outer solar system. It's how scientists knew that the earth would be warming more, its ice melting more, its sea levels rising more, and its extreme weather becoming more frequent and more severe over time. One just follows projects past trends into the future.

Extrapolation is the underlying process occurring when somebody says, "At this rate, ..." and is a sound basis for much argumentation. Look at America's debt problem. We can extrapolate the past into the future and argue that if nothing is done to modify the matter, "at this rate," certain consequences can be expected - a clear example of extrapolation helping an argument.

Ah yes. It's also how we know there are supernatural beings that perform powerful works that we call miracles.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry, no. It does.
Try again. That's funny.

It's the perfect demonstrate.
It demonstrates that you cannot have design without a designer. Nothing is created without a creator.
Mankind can only mimic what is possible to mimic. He calls himself a creator which technically he is not, because he cannot create anything from what is not already there. He mimics the already existing designer, and he copies the design already designed - in nature.

No one can dispute what is obvious to everyone. No one can demonstrate that anything can be designed without a designer, or come into existence without being created. Sure they can appeal to illogical arguments, but shutting one's eyes to reality won't make it go away.

Persons who want to believe contrary to what is evidently true fr which deniers have no excuse. What a terrible position to be in, especially for those who call themselves Christian and choose Scientism over faith in God. Romans 1:18-23
18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.
21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. 22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles.

Actually people who claim to believe in God but yet are really hopping around on two opinions, by 1. trying to mesh religious based science with their religion; 2 replace the Bible with religious based science, I think they had better wake up and open their eyes, and realize who has them by the scruff of the neck, or the throat. Revelation 12:9

It is in my view quite interesting the wording the apostle Paul used when he spoke of those who were sleeping, and have their eyes shut.
Romans 11:7, 8
7 The rest had their senses dulled, 8 just as it is written: “God has given them a spirit of deep sleep, eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear, down to this very day.”

1 Thessalonians 5:6-9
6 So, then, let us not sleep on as the rest do, but let us stay awake and keep our senses. 7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. 8 But as for us who belong to the day, let us keep our senses and put on the breastplate of faith and love and the hope of salvation as a helmet 9 because God assigned us, not to wrath, but to the acquiring of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Timothy 2:25, 26
25 Perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the Devil, seeing that they have been caught alive by him to do his will.

2 Timothy 4:3-5
3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories. 5 You, though, keep your senses in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelizer, fully accomplish your ministry.

Wow! Wow. I always marvel at how accurate the Bible is - how it accurately describes events, and people's situations - especially today.
What a darkness people are willing to put themselves in, and why? Satisfying their fleshly cravings - They want to be free to smoke their cigarettes, engage is sexual immorality and illicit lusts... without being made to feel guilty, either by the Bible, or people who live by its standards. How sad and deplorable.

The even more sad part about it is that the "wolves" that they allow to mislead them know full well - they know the truth. Romans 1:21 is no joke. They know there is a creator, but they mask the truth, to live their life as they please.
...and they dupe the masses into taking that leap of imagination, with them - into the darkness.

A third respect in which our brains seem predisposed to resist Darwinism stems from our great success as creative designers. Our world is dominated by feats of engineering and works of art. We are entirely accustomed to the idea that complex elegance is an indicator of premeditated, Grafted design. This is probably the most powerful reason for the belief, held by the vast majority of people that have ever lived, in some kind of supernatural deity. It took a very large leap of the imagination for Darwin and Wallace to see that, contrary to all intuition, there is another way and, once you have understood it, a far more plausible way, for complex 'design' to arise out of primeval simplicity. A leap of the imagination so large that, to this day, many people seem still unwilling to make it. It is the main purpose of this book to help the reader to make this leap.
- Richard Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker" Preface

The language Dawkins used is noteworthy - quite interesting.
...predisposed to resist - not truth, not scientific fact - Darwinism.
It took a very large leap of the imagination for Darwin and Wallace to see ...A leap of the imagination so large that, to this day, many people seem still unwilling to make it.

Wow. A leap of what? How large?
It amuses me. So take the leap. We've only got one life to live right? Curse God and die.

The way I am seeing it, the ultimatum is in our face, plain as day. It's not a case of "hidden in plain sight". This is the final episode. The final chapter is about to close.
I've argued that we are 100 percent now dependent on science for survival of our species. In part, science of today has to overcome the scientific breakthroughs of previous years because we've advanced internal combustion engines, because we're so good at burning carbon that we take out of the ground, we did it blindly without any consequences of, that it might totally affect the future of the planet. - Craig Venter

Psalm 118:8, 9
8 It is better to take refuge in Jehovah Than to trust in humans.
9 It is better to take refuge in Jehovah Than to trust in princes.
Psalm 146:3, 4
3 Do not put your trust in princes Nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation.
4 His spirit goes out, he returns to the ground; On that very day his thoughts perish.
Psalm 37:3-6; Psalm 40:4, 5; Psalm 62:8, 9;

Apparently, the stakes are high, and we have to put in the whole stack. There is no holding back now. It's game over.

Can Science Answer?
Where did the information originate?
CRAIG VENTER: One of the exciting elements that people who are interested in the digital world here may find is we can use the genetic code to watermark chromosomes. You can use it in a secret code, or you can - basically what we're using is the three-letter triplet code that codes for amino acids. There's 20 amino acids, and they use single letters to denote those. Using the triplet code, we can write words, sentences, we can say, "This genome was made by Richard Dawkins on this date in 2008." A key hallmark of man-made species, manmade chromosomes, is that they will be very much denoted that way.

RICHARD DAWKINS: What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. It is pure information. It's digital information. It's precisely the kind of information that can be translated digit for digit, byte for byte, into any other kind of information and then translated back again. This is a major revolution. I suppose it's probably "the" major revolution in the whole history of our understanding of ourselves. It's something would have boggled the mind of Darwin, and Darwin would have loved it, I'm absolutely sure.

Not man-made. Not a product of human intellect. Mindless or Of a mind - an intelligence?
Where did instinct, and intelligence originate?
Where did life originate?
What is the purpose of life - why are we here? Where are we going - is there life after death?

In my view, intelligent design answers these questions, provided we connect to its source.
To deny intelligent design is the same as a gaps argument - "I don't see a designer, therefore selection (natural selection) did it."

No, it's not obvious to everyone that the universe is designed. That needs to be demonstrated. Bible quotes won't get you there, since they are just assertions as well. To paraphrase Hitchens, even if you could show that a designer is required (which nobody has managed to do in thousands of years), but you'd still have all your work in front of you to get to the God you personally believe in. Falsifying evolution wouldn't get you there either. You still have to provide evidential support for your own God hypothesis.

What is evidently true is that organisms evolve over time. That is demonstrable. The "persons who want to believe contrary to what is evidently true" refers to persons like you.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

How can we talk if you don't read my post?

I read it. I'm responding to the relevant part. Now, rather than obfuscation and general tapdancing, are you going to respond to the question at the crux of all this, or post random Bible verses and attempt debate by word redefining?

 

[nPeace]

That's a non-sequitur since it's the "scientific method" we use, not the above.

Pardon me? So they don't make assumptions, and many wrong ones at that... despite using the scientific method?
Would you like me to link a whole page, or would one suffice?
Genetic analysis rewrites salamander family tree
BERKELEY – Biologists take for granted that the limbs and branches of the tree of life - painstakingly constructed since Linnaeus started classifying organisms 270 years ago - are basically correct. New genetic studies, the thinking goes, will only prune the twigs, perhaps shuffling around a few species here and there.
Hence the surprise when a new University of California, Berkeley, study of the largest family of salamanders produced a genetic family tree totally inconsistent with the accepted classification, which is based primarily on physical features.

Salamanders formerly classified together because of similar characteristics, such as a tail that breaks at only one spot as opposed to anywhere when stressed, now appear not to be close relatives at all. And salamanders that go through an aquatic larval stage are scattered about on different branches instead of grouped on one limb of the tree: Apparently some salamander lineages lost the larval stage and then reacquired it again.
........
Though results from this one family of vertebrates can't necessarily be generalized to other families, Mueller said, "this does tell us that, when reconstructing evolutionary relationships, you have to be careful which morphological features you assume are conservative and haven't evolved much, and which you think are likely to have changed over time."

Which is a compilation of myriads of assumptions.

Could you explain please, in what way are they assumptions?

We cannot categorically prove there's a god beyond a shadow of doubt, but we may believe in God based on faith.

Okay.

We don't do that and, as a matter of fact, in science we are far more prone to use objectively-based evidence that theists are.

Another assumption that's not supported by the evidence. If we go back 3 billion years ago in the fossil record, for example, we don't find any multi-celled organisms, and yet these organisms must have come from somewhere, such as that which we see during the Cambrian Explosion, and there's isn't a shred of evidence that proposes that somehow God did this at that time.

It doesn't matter. They still rely on assumptions, suppositions, speculations, etc. - like assuming a starting point, assuming the geographical columns, etc. There is no way to get away from this, in the same way we can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our spirit is connected in one way or other.
We can assume, but how would we prove these things.
Why do you believe your belief system is better than any other?

Yes, both the immense fossil record and the d.n.a. testing that show patterns of change. Now, where's your evidence for such ongoing divine creation whereas Genesis says that God created all in six days (yom), and these had to be literal days if using a literalist approach since God created Shabbat on the 7th day? The Sabbath is one day out of the week, not an epoch nor an era.

The link above shows why patterns are no help to Darwinist.
How long is the 7th day?

I don't have a blind belief in any source, and that also includes scientific ones, plus I see JW's pick & choose all the time so they don't have a leg to stand on.

Pick and choose what, may I ask?

"Beginnings" are arbitrarily fixed.

For example, when did I begin this post? When I first typed it? When I thought about what you wrote? When I read what you wrote? When I got on this page? When I got into the RF website? When I turned on my computer? Etc.

Most cosmologists today feel it likely that our universe is likely not the only one and may be a by-product of previous actions, such as what Brane Theory suggests.

Are you making assumptions, as well as them?

 

[nPeace]

I read it. I'm responding to the relevant part.

Then you missed a relevant part. I know because you asked a redundant question.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Then you missed a relevant part. I know because you asked a redundant question.

Indeed? How about you cite the "relevant part" than, without the attendant cut n paste wall o' text?

Of course, I rather suspect this is all further distraction and tapdance to try to avoid the fact you can't support your earlier claim about explaining how intelligent design works, but I'm happy to be shown to be wrong.

Based on the previous 20 years of having this discussion, and the way you're hitting all the exact same notes as your fellows, all of whom, without exception, failed to deliver promised evidence whe it came to the crunch, I'm fairly confident that I'm not wrong, but please, I'm open to being surprised.

 

[nPeace]

Indeed? How about you cite the "relevant part" than, without the attendant cut n paste wall o' text?

Of course, I rather suspect this is all further distraction and tapdance to try to avoid the fact you can't support your earlier claim about explaining how intelligent design works, but I'm happy to be shown to be wrong.

Based on the previous 20 years of having this discussion, and the way you're hitting all the exact same notes as your fellows, all of whom, without exception, failed to deliver promised evidence whe it came to the crunch, I'm fairly confident that I'm not wrong, but please, I'm open to being surprised.

It's too bad that there are some persons on these forums who can't seem to deal with posts of users, without accusing them of not knowing what they write.
Every word I wrote is directly mine, and for a purpose. The copy and pasted parts are specifically selected for a purpose. I don't post to distract. I post to be exact.

I have been on forums where persons had no problem reading posts, and when they posts were long, it was no problem for anyone.
I see OPs here that are 2 or 3 pages long. I don't hear anyone complain, and if the topic interests me, I take the time to read them.
When persons break up my posts and stretch their responses. I go through them and respond.
There is a user on here whom I realize is not on regularly, and when he does, his post sometimes cover two pages. I read through and respond.

Personally, I think the reason persons have a problem taking the time to go through certain posts, is that they are not really interested in what the person is explaining, among other reasons.
I'm sorry, but I have explained myself quite clearly, and I made the point as clear as mud, so that the question was precisely addressed.
I am sure my brothers on here will honestly confirm that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's too bad that there are some persons on these forums who can't seem to deal with posts of users, without accusing them of not knowing what they write.
Every word I wrote is directly mine, and for a purpose. The copy and pasted parts are specifically selected for a purpose. I don't post to distract. I post to be exact.

I have been on forums where persons had no problem reading posts, and when they posts were long, it was no problem for anyone.
I see OPs here that are 2 or 3 pages long. I don't hear anyone complain, and if the topic interests me, I take the time to read them.
When persons break up my posts and stretch their responses. I go through them and respond.
There is a user on here whom I realize is not on regularly, and when he does, his post sometimes cover two pages. I read through and respond.

Personally, I think the reason persons have a problem taking the time to go through certain posts, is that they are not really interested in what the person is explaining, among other reasons.
I'm sorry, but I have explained myself quite clearly, and I made the point as clear as mud, so that the question was precisely addressed.
I am sure my brothers on here will honestly confirm that.

It's because your posts are not only long, but all over the place on several different topics at once, hence the reason people keep referring to them as Gish Gallops.

All of that, and you still didn't cite the relevant part.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It's too bad that there are some persons on these forums who can't seem to deal with posts of users, without accusing them of not knowing what they write.
Every word I wrote is directly mine, and for a purpose. The copy and pasted parts are specifically selected for a purpose. I don't post to distract. I post to be exact.

I have been on forums where persons had no problem reading posts, and when they posts were long, it was no problem for anyone.
I see OPs here that are 2 or 3 pages long. I don't hear anyone complain, and if the topic interests me, I take the time to read them.
When persons break up my posts and stretch their responses. I go through them and respond.
There is a user on here whom I realize is not on regularly, and when he does, his post sometimes cover two pages. I read through and respond.

Personally, I think the reason persons have a problem taking the time to go through certain posts, is that they are not really interested in what the person is explaining, among other reasons.
I'm sorry, but I have explained myself quite clearly, and I made the point as clear as mud, so that the question was precisely addressed.
I am sure my brothers on here will honestly confirm that.

So rather than a simple answer, a wall o' text arguing why you shouldn't have to bother answering. Precisely as expected, precisely following the same path of all before you, and precisely confirming my suspicions.

And people wonder why I'm cynical.

TL;dR? You couldn't support your earlier claim. Understood.