Let's go over this again, shall we, about chances--

[YoursTrue]

All three.

What have you learned that led you to consider evolution less believable?

I have looked into the pro's and con's of the theory, especially after I have studied the Bible. In this conversation, I am not going to argue about the Bible, so going on to my rejection of the theory of evolution, here is what I will say: Considering that despite the research into the specifics of chromosomes, genetics, and physical similarities, the possibility that it happened by means of natural selection is in no way conclusive. One reason is that beyond the specifics of actuality (such as DNA and similarity from one organism such as chimpanzees to humans), there is no real evidence of micro or macro transformation as claimed by many, including many scientists. The conclusion that the various organisms came about by evolution is conjecture beyond the examination and identification of the genetics. I realize many will not accept this as a viable reason to reject the idea of evolution by natural selection as if molecules and DNA transformed from one organism to another, but that's how I see it now.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it isn't.

Science is based on observation, experiment, and prediction.

Which of those three things correlates with macroevolution?

All of them.

Well, that is what it shows YOU. That isn't what it shows ME.

No.
That is what it shows to educated paleontologists who actually have the proper qualifications to study those things.

What your willfully ignorant & religiously inspired opinion is of fossils, is as useful as a bike is to a snake.

That is where you are WRONG. There are plenty of theistic-evolutionists out there.
I am just not one of them.

He didn't say there aren't.
He was talking about people of your particular religious flavor. Theists who hold to religious dogma's to whom those dogma's supercede rationality and evidence.

Well, from where I'm sitting...the kind of Deity described in the Christian Bible (and the creation account), rules out the theory of evolution.

Exactly. This is literally a confirmation of what I just said concerning religious dogma's.
You are literally acknowledging here that your religious belief rules out evolution.

It's not evidence that rules it out. It's not the science that rules it out.
It's your dogmatic a priori religious belief that does.

Nonsense. Even if evolution was proven to be true, that still doesn't undermine the necessity of an Intelligent Designer.

Aka "heads I win, tails you lose".

So I can remain strong in my Christianity while at the same time believing in evolution...so I can accept evolution while maintaining my faith.

2 quotes above, you said something different.
There, you said that what you read in the christian bible (= your faith) rules out evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have looked into the pro's and con's of the theory, especially after I have studied the Bible. In this conversation, I am not going to argue about the Bible, so going on to my rejection of the theory of evolution, here is what I will say: Considering that despite the research into the specifics of chromosomes, genetics, and physical similarities, the possibility that it happened by means of natural selection is in no way conclusive. One reason is that beyond the specifics of actuality (such as DNA and similarity from one organism such as chimpanzees to humans), there is no real evidence of micro or macro transformation as claimed by many, including many scientists. The conclusion that the various organisms came about by evolution is conjecture beyond the examination and identification of the genetics. I realize many will not accept this as a viable reason to reject the idea of evolution by natural selection as if molecules and DNA transformed from one organism to another, but that's how I see it now.

Do you know how reproduction works?
How during reproduction the DNA of parents is inherited by off spring, plus a few mutations?

It sounds like you don't, or you are just ignoring it.

If you did, you would realize that those genetic similarities fall into the exact pattern it would fall in, if species shared ancestry, as it forms nested hierarchies. Or a tree. A family tree.

Meanwhile, there would be zero reason for DNA similarities to follow such a pattern if species did NOT share ancestry.


If that isn't evidence of common ancestry, then I don't know what is.

If that isn't evidence of common ancestry, then we should also throw out DNA testing to determine the family connection between individuals (biological fathers, biological siblings, etc), as those tests are based on the exact same thing... that DNA is inherited and that you can therefor determine the family relations between individuals by comparing the DNA and plotting out the matches.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have looked into the pro's and con's of the theory, especially after I have studied the Bible. In this conversation, I am not going to argue about the Bible, so going on to my rejection of the theory of evolution, here is what I will say: Considering that despite the research into the specifics of chromosomes, genetics, and physical similarities, the possibility that it happened by means of natural selection is in no way conclusive. One reason is that beyond the specifics of actuality (such as DNA and similarity from one organism such as chimpanzees to humans), there is no real evidence of micro or macro transformation as claimed by many, including many scientists. The conclusion that the various organisms came about by evolution is conjecture beyond the examination and identification of the genetics. I realize many will not accept this as a viable reason to reject the idea of evolution by natural selection as if molecules and DNA transformed from one organism to another, but that's how I see it now.

The first problem is that what you describe is not how the sciences of evolution have determined how evolution works. The second problem is you lack the scientific knowledge to make the negative judgments you are making. concerning evolution. Third, you are avoiding your clinging to the literal interpretation of ancient scripture, nonetheless your objections to the sciences of evolution is based on a religious agenda and not science.

 

[shunyadragon]

The more I learn about the theories of evolution the less believable it becomes.

Based on your lack of knowledge of science, and a religious agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

We can actually detect God but not by science. We detect God by what He has done.
This can be seen in nature and in events in the past. The Bible tells us of events and prophecy that has come true and it is evident that if those stories are true that God exists.

The Bible is an ancient text without science. The events and prophecy are so subjective that the interpretations of scripture have been wrong hundreds of times at least in Christian history.

The only thing that is objectively 'seen' in nature is the processes based on Natural Laws and natural processes. Subjective claims of religious beliefs cannot be 'seen' in nature, is just subjective claims, which are highly variable from different religious and very fallible human perspectives

It needs no conductor because it was designed to work without one.
There is no known reason why and there is no how for nature to design a system that does what you describe. Was it accidental that DNA became a data storage place where molecules access the data so to use to build a body?
So that is the sort of evidence for a God. It is evident to some and others can't see it.

Terrible lack of understanding of the basics of science. There is no evidence that anything takes place 'accidentally; in nature. By the 'objectively verifiable evidence has determined that all cause and effect outcomes in nature are determined by Natural Laws and natural processes. Odds or chance play no role in the outcome of all-cause and effect events in nature. The only thing found to be random is the timing of the event within the limitations of Natural Laws and natural processes.
I made this very clear early in the thread from the scientific and math perspective. You apparently missed it. I can provide good references concerning the role of probability, odds, and chance in science if it would be helpful. I have addressed this issue in a number of threads in the past,

There are probably a lot of agnostic theists who say they don't know but still believe. If people know God exists then it is no longer faith. Faith can lead to greater certainty or even to lesser certainty, but it remains faith.

The certainty of religious belief including God cannot be objectively verified, A witness to this is the many variables conflicting religious beliefs from the fallible human perspective. ALL claiming their belief is the one true belief.

The odds are made up by each .
It's the same with the odds for finding more life in the universe. We let people influence us in one direction or another for some reason. Atheists usually teach the atheist position and theists the theist position.

It has been objectively determined that the abiogenesis and evolution of life are based on Natural Laws, natural processes, and the right environment.

Virtually 95%+ of ALL scientists in scientific fields related to evolution and abiogenesis support these scientific conclusions regardless of their religious beliefs. This includes Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, agnostics, and atheist scientists.

 

[YoursTrue]

Based on your lack of knowledge of science, and a religious agenda.

I first started looking more carefully at the theory certainly after I studied the Bible. Before that I believed whatever I was taught in school about evolution, as I said, I was an honor student and learned well. I have come to realize, however, that the theory of evolution is not based on truly accurate knowledge, although scientists try to make it seem so. Such ones take a set of circumstances (such as chromosomal evidence from an organism) without really seeing micro or macro evolution and subsequently figure these organisms must have evolved to or from another set of chromosomes to a different organism.
P.S. Scientists themselves have not seen the functional evolution of any organism, even if the claim is made about one molecule or more combining in a test circumstance, even if that molecule did combine with another. At this point I am convinced that the theory of evolution is not substantiated by truth of reality, but rather claims by some scientists and pontificators that the differences between beings like gorillas and humans demonstrate that they had some "Unknown Common Ancestor" from which the similar looking organisms must have evolved. No proof. All conjecture. (No proof.)

 

[Jose Fly]

I can't give you actual post numbers, but trust me, I won't like to you. They are there.

Nope, sorry that's not how this works. Empty assertions are worthless. If I post "the moon is made of cheese", does that establish that the moon is made of cheese?

It is...because basically what it is saying is; if it contradicts Scripture, then it is invalid evidence.

So to sum it up, Answers in Genesis doesn't follow invalid evidence.

You can't be serious. You honestly think declaring up front that it is impossible for any data to contradict one's religious beliefs = "following the evidence wherever it leads"?

You really think that?

My answer is indeed "no" to those questions. However, those paleontologists are human beings, last I checked.

So? Are you arguing that because you're all human beings, that makes you just as qualified to speak about fossils as professional paleontologists?

And human beings have biases and presuppositions...and most of them are either naturalists, agnostics, and atheists.

Citation please.

Therefore, how they interpret the evidence will not be without bias. For them, evolution MUST be true, because that is the only naturalistic way to explain the origins of species.

So, every thing they they find as it relates to their field, they will automatically assume evolution.

We see populations evolve all the time. Every new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've seen arise has done so via evolution. So when paleontologists look at the fossil record and see traits and species appearing, it's reasonable to conclude that they came about via evolution. It's no different than geologists concluding that certain types of ash they find came from volcanoes (because we see volcanoes producing those kinds of ash today).

But that aside, lets just look at the presented evidence...fossils...fossils absolutely cannot be used as evidence for evolution.

The moon is made of cheese.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why would I be?

Okay, you don't know much about genetics.

Now, how about answering the other questions....

Do you think "a gap of DNA between gorillas and humans" is significant? If so, why?

What have I distorted?

Do you know a lot about genetics?

I'm a biologist and I have spent a fair amount of time on genetics (some molecular, more on population genetics). But I'm certainly not a professional geneticist.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Bible is an ancient text without science. The events and prophecy are so subjective that the interpretations of scripture have been wrong hundreds of times at least in Christian history.

Since you bring that up, are you saying the Bahai faith you claim to adhere to is based on absolute truth and nothing but?

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope, sorry that's not how this works. Empty assertions are worthless. If I post "the moon is made of cheese", does that establish that the moon is made of cheese?


You can't be serious. You honestly think declaring up front that it is impossible for any data to contradict one's religious beliefs = "following the evidence wherever it leads"?

You really think that?


So? Are you arguing that because you're all human beings, that makes you just as qualified to speak about fossils as professional paleontologists?


Citation please.


We see populations evolve all the time. Every new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've seen arise has done so via evolution. So when paleontologists look at the fossil record and see traits and species appearing, it's reasonable to conclude that they came about via evolution. It's no different than geologists concluding that certain types of ash they find came from volcanoes (because we see volcanoes producing those kinds of ash today).

The moon is made of cheese.

Are you a professional paleontologist?

 

[shunyadragon]

I first started looking more carefully at the theory certainly after I studied the Bible. Before that I believed whatever I was taught in school about evolution, as I said, I was an honor student and learned well. I have come to realize, however, that the theory of evolution is not based on truly accurate knowledge, although scientists try to make it seem so. Such ones take a set of circumstances (such as chromosomal evidence from an organism) without really seeing micro or macro evolution and subsequently figure these organisms must have evolved to or from another set of chromosomes to a different organism.
P.S. Scientists themselves have not seen the functional evolution of any organism, even if the claim is made about one molecule or more combining in a test circumstance, even if that molecule did combine with another. At this point I am convinced that the theory of evolution is not substantiated by truth of reality, but rather claims by some scientists and pontificators that the differences between beings like gorillas and humans demonstrate that they had some "Unknown Common Ancestor" from which the similar looking organisms must have evolved. No proof. All conjecture. (No proof.)

Your ignorance of science is astounding. It remains you studied the Bible first and were convinced. It is obvious you were raised, Christian,

Again, again and again . . . science does not prove anything.

Again . . .

The first problem is that what you describe is not how the sciences of evolution have determined how evolution works. The second problem is you lack the scientific knowledge to make the negative judgments you are making. concerning evolution. Third, you are avoiding your clinging to the literal interpretation of ancient scripture, nonetheless, your objections to the sciences of evolution is based on a religious agenda and not science.

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you a professional paleontologist?

Nope.

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay, you don't know much about genetics.

Now, how about answering the other questions....

Do you think "a gap of DNA between gorillas and humans" is significant? If so, why?

What have I distorted?


I'm a biologist and I have spent a fair amount of time on genetics (some molecular, more on population genetics). But I'm certainly not a professional geneticist.

As a biologist, but not a professional geneticist, do you assert that the differences between gorillas and humans is not significant? If so, can you explain why? If not, let the matter go.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope.

I go to doctors. Should I, in your professional opinion, believe what every doctor with a degree asserts?

 

[shunyadragon]

Since you bring that up, are you saying the Bahai faith you claim to adhere to is based on absolute truth and nothing but?

I never claimed that religious belief in any religion including my own is based on any sort of 'absolute truth.' Nonetheless, the Baha'i Faith accepts the Harmony of science and religion, and accepts science as the physical description of the nature of our existence, and religion the spiritual guidance for the wise use of science,

Changing the topic does not help your case of rejecting science based on an ancient religious agenda.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your ignorance of science is astounding. It remains you studied the Bible first and were convinced. It is obvious you were raised, Christian,

Again, again and again . . . science does not prove anything.

Again . . .

The first problem is that what you describe is not how the sciences of evolution have determined how evolution works. The second problem is you lack the scientific knowledge to make the negative judgments you are making. concerning evolution. Third, you are avoiding your clinging to the literal interpretation of ancient scripture, nonetheless, your objections to the sciences of evolution is based on a religious agenda and not science.

Again -- since you are a member of the Bahai religion, are you saying that you believe everything that Bahaullah tells you? Since you make assertions about truth and non-truth, can you back up your ideas as to what Bahaullah claims and you say as truth? Thank you.

 

[shunyadragon]

I go to doctors. Should I, in your professional opinion, believe what every doctor with a degree asserts?

People are human and fallible and yes every doctor or scientist may not be good and ethical, but both the field of medicine and the sciences of evolution are reliable and soncestentWell . . . ah, you go to doctors if you do not trust doctors don't go. In general as in scientists in the sciences of evolution are reliable sources of knowledge, The science of medicine is based on the same science as the scin=ences of evolution. Science is science nothing less and nothing more.

 

[YoursTrue]

I never claimed that religious belief in any religion including my own is based on any sort of 'absolute truth.' Nonetheless, the Baha'i Faith accepts the Harmony of science and religion, and accepts science as the physical description of the nature of our existence, and religion the spiritual guidance for the wise use of science,

Changing the topic does not help your case of rejecting science based on an ancient religious agenda.

You claim to be a believer in Bahaullah and mentioned the Bible as unbelievable. So since you mentioned it, can you say without question that the revelations of Bahaullah are truthfully based? Yes, or no. Be a man.
As I said, I take vaccines and go to doctors and get x-rays. Do you think that means I believe what any accredited, board certified doctor tells me? Do me a favor. Please guess the answer. Thank you very much.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again -- since you are a member of the Bahai religion, are you saying that you believe everything that Bahaullah tells you? Since you make assertions about truth and non-truth, can you back up your ideas as to what Bahaullah claims and you say as truth? Thank you.

Again . . .

I never claimed that religious belief in any religion including my own is based on any sort of 'absolute truth.' Nonetheless, the Baha'i Faith accepts the Harmony of science and religion and accepts science as the physical description of the nature of our existence, and religion the spiritual guidance for the wise use of science,

Changing the topic does not help your case of rejecting science based on an ancient religious agenda.