God and Evolution

[ecco]

If evolution is loosely defined, then if I change eating habits...

If pigs could fly...

There are many definitions for the word "evolution". That is one reason one must understand the context in which uit is used. None of your post is valid if we get specific and use terms like "The Theory of Evolution" or ToE.

 

[Valjean]

My working life was in dealing with evidence. Understanding how a theory is alleged to work is a far cry from seeing the evidence to support it.

In a criminal trial the standard is, beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil trial, the standard is the preponderance ( 51%) of the evidence.

I hold the standard for evolution to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are too many flaws, and gaps for me to accept macro evolution as proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Too much of what I learned those years ago was massaged, and flat out false. The really cool chart of the stages of evolution of humans, so smooth and obvious, without the huge gaps of millions of years and unknown creatures. Or the moth adaption I used to try and convince folk of the obviousness of evolution. You remember, light moths on light tree trunks, but the industrial revolution caused the trunks to darken and so the previously rare dark moth became the dominant color. Perfect adaption, perfect example. Except, it was all faked, it never happened, it was a story.

How was it faked, Link, please, and what about all the other examples of the mechanisms underlying evolution? As evidence accumulates details may change, but the basic mechanisms are only strengthened.

What was massaged or false? I understand details change as evidence accumulates -- science is always provisional -- but the basic mechanisms stand, and evidence accumulates.

How is macroevolution any different from microevolution? It's just accumulated microevolution.
At what point did the micro-changes in Latin become French?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Too much of what I learned those years ago was massaged, and flat out false. The really cool chart of the stages of evolution of humans, so smooth and obvious, without the huge gaps of millions of years and unknown creatures. Or the moth adaption I used to try and convince folk of the obviousness of evolution. You remember, light moths on light tree trunks, but the industrial revolution caused the trunks to darken and so the previously rare dark moth became the dominant color. Perfect adaption, perfect example. Except, it was all faked, it never happened, it was a story.

FALSE! You didn't follow the story far enough, you just stopped at the point that satisfied you.

Bernard Kettlewell was the first to investigate the evolutionary mechanism behind peppered moth adaptation, between 1953 and 1956. He found that a light-coloured body was an effective camouflage in a clean environment, such as in Dorset, while the dark colour was beneficial in a polluted environment like in Birmingham. This selective survival was due to birds which easily caught dark moths on clean trees, and white moths on trees darkened with soot. The story, supported by. Kettlewell's experiment, became the canonical example of Darwinian evolution and evidence for natural selection used in standard textbooks.

However, failure to replicate the experiment and criticism of Kettlewell's methods by Theodore David Sargent in the late 1960s led to general skepticism. When Judith Hooper's Of Moths and Men was published in 2002, Kettlewell's story was more sternly attacked, accused of fraud, and became widely disregarded.

And there you stopped. However:

The criticism became a major argument for creationists. Michael Majerus was the principal defender. His seven-year experiment beginning in 2001, the most elaborate of its kind in population biology, the results of which were published posthumously in 2012, vindicated Kettlewell's work in great detail. This restored peppered moth evolution as "the most direct evidence", and "one of the clearest and most easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action".

Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia

 

[ecco]

So why not give it a whirl? Write your own paper, based on your own studies, that demonstrates how species came to be without the involvement of evolution.

I'll take up that challenge.



GodDidIt




Now, do I get a Nobel Prize?

 

[Valjean]

I am doing no such thing. I was rejecting the premise that God is responsible for evolution because it begs the question.

Apologies if I misinterpreted something.
Is there any evidence for this God, active or inactive?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So how is magic more convincing that observable mechanism?

It would seem that it takes a great deal less effort to believe in magic and throw up your hands in amazed awe than it does to actually look at, and then try to understand, observable evidence.

In other words, some people want comfortable certainties and platitudes, others want to actually know things. The latter requires hard work.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'll take up that challenge.



GodDidIt




Now, do I get a Nobel Prize?

That would be the "Nob-El" prize. The god of nobs.

 

[Valjean]

I'll take up that challenge.
GodDidIt
Now, do I get a Nobel Prize?

As soon as you come up with an actual explanation, rather than just an agent.

What alternative is there to the ToE? You seem to be proposing magic.

 

[Wasp]

The people who do know are the ones who have extensive education supported by fieldwork and research. What are your qualifications to say they are wrong? Do you have any at all?

What material?
What are your qualifications for understanding scientific papers dealing with paleontology?

But he is challenging the findings of paleontologists who have advanced educations. If Since he does not, he is in no position to dispute their findings.

The hypocrisy...

Yeah. Let's talk about the mastery of the Arabic language. Let's look at consistency. Let's look at agreement among "scholars".

Does the Qur'an Speak About an Expanding Universe? | Qur'anic Studies
In order to explain certain observations that the view that the universe was static could not explain, astronomers in the twenties of the 20th century developed the theory that the universe is expanding. That the universe is expanding is now considered an established scientific fact.Some Muslims claim that the Qur’an contains a verse that state that the universe has been expanding. This is the verse in question:

And the heaven We built it with might and We lamūsi‘ūn. (51.47)

The term “lamūsi‘ūn” is usually understood as meaning “expanding.” The word “heaven” is taken to mean the “universe” and to be the object of the action of “expanding,” and thus it is claimed that this verse shows that the Qur’an has revealed that the universe is expanding. This, however, is a misunderstanding of the word “lamūsi‘ūn.” I should first note that most translations do not suggest a link between this verse and the concept of expanding universe:

Translator Translation
Pickthall We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).
Palmer And the heaven — we have built it with might, and, verily, we do surely give it ample space!
Rodwell And the Heaven — with our hands have we built it up, and given it its expanse.
Sale We have built the heaven with might; and we have given [it] a large extent.
Shakir And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.
Sher Ali And We have built the heavens with Our own hands, and, verily, We have vast powers.
Yusuf Ali With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.
But some translations allow a link between the verse and the expanding universe concept:

Translator Translation
Arberry And heaven — We built it with might, and We extend it wide.
Hilali-Khan With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof.
Khalifa We constructed the sky with our hands, and we will continue to expand it.​

The writer of this article is not an Islamic scholar and doesn't appear to have any announced education regarding Islam or religion in general. It looks like he isn't proficient even in the arabic language and is a convert to Islam. He often publishes controversial content on his website and this particular article has major problems with it which are frankly emabarassing..

The translations of the meaning of the Qur'an by Rodwell, Sale, Palmer, Sher Ali, Khalifa, Hilali-Khan and Arberry are all considered poor. All except Sher Ali's, Khalifa's and Hilali-Khan's works are considered extremely poor. Sher Ali's, Khalifa's and Hilali-Khan's are just considered very bad.

So there in the article are listed three qualified translation attempts of the meaning of the Qur'an: Pickthall, Shakir and Yusuf Ali. However, all of these three fail to bring the translation of the meaning to express the fact that the verb in Arabic expresses continuousness which is why none of them can be considered entirely accurate.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I see this far too often, and it always, always involves the person who thinks so leaving out something rather important about evolution --- time, and lots and lots and lots of generations! If you had physically lived for a million years or so, you yourself could have seen evolution happen in nature.

And the fact is, that for very short lived species, we are observing evolution happening now, before our very eyes. As we used antibiotics and other medicines to cure a variety of diseases, those diseases have developed resistance to those antibiotics. So now, for example, because we used methicillin, we have MRSA, something that did not exist before we discovered methicillin.

Since I mentioned MRSA earlier, I thought this might be an opportune moment to bring up the question of "why" to all the creationists here. I think it poses a really intriguing problem for those who believe that evolution can't do what it seems to have done, and that therefore God must have done it.

So here's the question: there used to be a pathogen by the name of Staphylococcus aureus that caused a variety of inconvenient infections in humans, but a while ago, we learned that we could treat it very successfully with an antibiotic called methicillin. For some reason (which needs explanation), there is now, suddenly, a new critter in the world that never existed before the use of methicillin...it's basically the same pathogen, but now it is resistant to methicillin. And oddly enough, it now contributes to more deaths in the US than does HIV! So where did it come from?

Well, there seem to be different possible answers. Evolutionists, like myself, will note that pathogens like S. Aureus are very short-lived and very, very plentiful. That means they produce lots and lots of offspring in a short time. What if, in the presence of methicillin, a few of those had a minor variation that allowed them to survive, and more importantly produce offspring with that same variation? Why, in a very short time, in that population (probably in a single individual human at this point), you'd wind up in not too much time with a preponderance of this new variance. Which is, ironically, just what we see.

Now, I'd like an explanation from the "God-did-it" folks as to why God seems to have decided that he needed to tweak his pathogen so that we humans couldn't defeat it. Was His Glorious Purpose to ensure that S. Aureus could continue to kill people (even more than it did before)?

 

[Ellen Brown]

I was just countering your argument that it is Allah who is directing Evolution.

Realistically, that is just your unsupported opinion just as is the Christian viewpoint.

I happen to be of the opinion that GOD, G_d, Allah SWT, YHWH, and any number of designations that signify 'One God' is referring to the same Supreme Being.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I happen to be of the opinion that GOD, G_d, Allah SWT, YHWH, and any number of designations that signify 'One God' is referring to the same Supreme Being.

Me too, except I call it nature, and don't think of it as a "being."

 

[shunyadragon]

Same modus operandi. Attack the poster rather than the post. Pitiful.

Yôu professor are unable to answer a handful of questions.

Unlike you, an expert in all things, my expertise is in a branch of the law.

I rarely ask a question for which I don´t know the answer, criminal investigation 101.

Nice try at the ¨you are too stupid for me to answer your questions ¨ defense.

Denigrating me, to establish yourself as an oracle, won´t work. You do this every time you are questioned.

Self-imposed ignorance is not worth responding to.

 

[shunyadragon]

Subduction Zone recently posted...

Such a pity that @shmogie has me on ignore. Such is the price of refuting him too often. He has only demonstrated that he is totally ignorant of the endless evidence for the theory of evolution. Perhaps a link and quote that sets out what evidence in the first place would help:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

That definition exists partially because scientists are human too and have been known to incorrectly claim "that is not evidence" themselves. This tells one whether or not an idea is evidence. It only needs to pass to basic tests. First is the idea being tested a scientific theory or hypothesis? That is a question whether the concept is falsifiable and the theory of evolution is falsifiable. The second question would be does the observation support the theory or hypothesis? In other words does the observation fit in with the predictions that that theory makes? If the answer to both of those questions is yes then there is endless evidence for the theory of evolution and no evidence at all that I know of for other concepts.


Meanwhile he cannot name a valid "flaw" or "gap". He seems to think that the only evidence for the theory of evolution is fossil evidence when that is only a small part of the evidence for the theory of evolution.​

I thought it was so interesting that I chose to repost it.

SD, I hope that's OK.

Consider it a blessing to be on ignore.

 

[shunyadragon]

But he is challenging the findings of paleontologists who have advanced educations. If Since he does not, he is in no position to dispute their findings.

True, but it takes only a high school education to understand the basic science.

 

[shmogie]

Kind of dismissive, in my view, for somebody who, while presenting no credentials, suggests right here and right now that he knows more than all the science departments of all the universities on earth!

And maybe you do, but you don't present it. What you do is DENY any evidence presented to you. You might not be aware of this, but that is not how it works, and you fail to convince me that you are actually the know-all on this topic that you present yourself to be.

So why not give it a whirl? Write your own paper, based on your own studies, that demonstrates how species came to be without the involvement of evolution. I've no doubt that there would be some academics out there willing to provide "peer review." What's to be afraid of that?

Cute. So now, the criteria to offer an opinion, or ask questions, is based upon credentials. So, since I don´t have the credentials, I can know the answers to questions I ask ?

Again, asking questions that no evolutionist here has attempted to answer, makes me suggest that I know more than all the universities on earth, really ?

Apparently you think you have credentials to explain evolution, since you explained antibiotic resistant bacteria as an example of evolution, it isn´t evolution.

What are your credentials ?

 

[shmogie]

Self-imposed ignorance is not worth responding to.

LOL !!, great dodge ! You weaseled out of answering answering a few questions, that you can´t answer.

The emperor has new clothes.

 

[siti]

I asked how many skeletons of say, Australopithecus , there are. Do you know ?

Hundreds of them - fragments of the skeletons of more than 300 different individuals of just the species australopithecus afarensis have been found.

Did Lucy walk upright ?

Probably - the reasons for believing this are based on the shape and articulation of the pelvis and femur which for australopitecus afarensis are similar to humans AND on the probability that the Laetoli footprints were made by a member of this species - even if that is a bit tentative, it is pretty certain that the footprints were made by a bipedal hominin at the time (about 3.7 million years ago) that austalopithecus afarensis was around. However, later evidence suggests that there were bipedal hominins even before that...but anyways, it seems very likely that Lucy walked upright on two legs.

How do you know these tools that have been found are related to these partial skeletons ?

I'm not sure what you are getting here...but...I know that in recent discoveries of ancient homonins in the Phillipines (for example) tools were found in the same layers of sediments as the fossilized remains of the hominins and also with the bones of animals that showed signs of having been butchered...given that these sediments were laid down 60,000+ years ago, who else do you suppose might have left the tools there?

Was she found with these tools ? Did she use tools ?

Lucy was not found with tools...but fairly recently some evidence has emerged that suggests that australopithecus afarensis might have used tools. Again, this comes from the discovery of bones of animals that show signs of having been butchered - but in this case - and we are now talking about 3.5 million years ago or thereabouts - the evidence is not conclusive...so this one, we just don't know yet...maybe we never will.

Hope the answers help.

 

[Vaziri]

I am not stuck on pigs. The fact that you guys do not eat pigs did not cross my mind at all.

Please note that the word “pigs” has the least amount of letters among the ones you posted, for instance, so I was just trying to optimize my typing.

Ciao

- viole

Right..

 

[Audie]

My working life was in dealing with evidence. Understanding how a theory is alleged to work is a far cry from seeing the evidence to support it.

In a criminal trial the standard is, beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil trial, the standard is the preponderance ( 51%) of the evidence.

I hold the standard for evolution to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are too many flaws, and gaps for me to accept macro evolution as proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Too much of what I learned those years ago was massaged, and flat out false. The really cool chart of the stages of evolution of humans, so smooth and obvious, without the huge gaps of millions of years and unknown creatures. Or the moth adaption I used to try and convince folk of the obviousness of evolution. You remember, light moths on light tree trunks, but the industrial revolution caused the trunks to darken and so the previously rare dark moth became the dominant color. Perfect adaption, perfect example. Except, it was all faked, it never happened, it was a story.

Ah shmog, you have drunk of the creationist site kool-aid,
haven't you?

Everything you say is so obvioysly not of your own learning
but taken predigested and filtered.

Those creosites are so dishonest! Surely you know
that.

You've been in a courtroom, and you know they can
go on and on there. Lawyers manipulating and
misrepresrnting!


Suppose they build and build a case against you!
You see the look in the jury's eyes!

But at the last minute you produce the proof, and
good Queen Elizabeth IIshows up for good measure,
Proof you were having tea at the very moment the
murder was committed with a pipe in a parlour in
Pakistan!

All that about moths and supposed gaps, flaws you
cannot identify and claims of dishonesty, it is pointless,
and generally distorted and misrepresented by creosites
anyway.

IF ToE were false, the disproof of theory woulf be abundantly
evident everywhere.

"Behold, a Cambrian bunny, and a pair of ordovician
oxfords."

Case dismissed no need to trouble the Queen!


The prob. tho is-a Nobel prize awaits anyone
can disprove ToE, but nobody has anything.

Does that not suggest something?