• 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!

Creationists -- Please answer David Attenborough for me...

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Because the micro changes never go beyond their taxonomy. One creature can never morph into another entirely different family, no matter how much time you throw at them. e.g. four legged furry land dwellers would never become whales......Single celled organisms could never become dinosaurs. You cannot use adaptation to prove macro-evolution....they are not the same at all IMO.

That is all utter nonsense. If you believe that is true, then it makes Intelligent Design look way more logical.
Still pushing the Pokemon Evolution strawman?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Because the micro changes never go beyond their taxonomy. One creature can never morph into another entirely different family, no matter how much time you throw at them.
You state this, but why? What prevents small changes from accumulating? Why can't a multitude of small changes accumulate? How is this unreasonable?

Do you think the changes stop at some point, to avoid becoming a new kind? What would stop them?

Given time, can wind and rain not wear down great mountains, grain by grain? Can interstellar dust not accrete into a star? Yet you say small but visible changes can't create changes great enough to produce new "kinds?"

How do you explain the recent speciation we've already seen in nature? Dozens of examples: Some More Observed Speciation Events
How do you explain ring species? Ring species - Wikipedia
e.g. four legged furry land dwellers would never become whales......Single celled organisms could never become dinosaurs. You cannot use adaptation to prove macro-evolution....they are not the same at all IMO.
Seriously? How many times have we explained this? Why can you not learn?
You'll never get proof for anything outside maths or a bottle of whiskey. You're demanding a standard you don't ask for in anything else you believe: Spherical Earth? Germs causing disease? Heliocentrism? -- all unproven.

We see four legged, furry land dwellers in various stages of becoming aquatic everywhere we look: Capybaras, hippos, beavers, manatees, dolphins.... Were they always as they are now? Fossil, anatomic and genetic evidence suggests otherwise.
Again you make grand assertions but back them up with no evidence. The assertions don't even seem reasonable.

That is all utter nonsense. If you believe that is true, then it makes Intelligent Design look way more logical.
Yet it's the unanimous opinion of just about everyone with any training in the natural sciences. Are they all fools, believing nonsense?

So let's consider intelligent design/creationism.
Does magic poofing really sound reasonable? Has anything like this ever been observed? Is there any conceivable mechanism that would account for it?

No, no and no -- yet you seem to think fully formed species magically popping into existence is a reasonable "explanation."
 

night912

Well-Known Member
You think all that is necessary is to read the Bible? That statement is itself, close minded. Its not that kind of book. It requires understanding about what you read including knowing a good bit about its author.....like trying to read a article on astronomy that is full of jargon, not comprehensible to someone untrained in the terminology. Once you understand the terminology the concepts become clearer, especially if they are explained in plain and simple terms.
Actually, closed minded, like what I said earlier, you can't accept the reality that a nonchristian has read and understand what is written in the bible and still disagree with you. And I'm opened minded enough to see that when coming across jargon terminology that I can't fully comprend right away, I do something that a reasonable person would do, I do some searching around for other sources to help me understand what it means. By the way, concerning the bible, many of those sources came from Christians. I don't just cover my eyes and ears and pretend that I understand what it means. Constantly repeating something that you don't understand while pretending like you do understand it, will only result in you remaining to be ignorant. Now that you failed at coming up with excuses for me not understanding, let's move on.

Like I said, I'm going off of your simple terms.


Human conscience has to do its job. God does not require anyone to go against their conscience.
If God's law stated that a certain crime deserved capital punishment, did the executioner stand condemned before God as a murderer? No...because he carried out the requirements of the law under the authority of his Sovereign. Its not a nice job, but someone has to do it. Eliminating the perpetrator means one less criminal in the world...guaranteed not to re-offend.

Well, the criminal serpent wasn't executed, so...... Down the drain goes your guaranteed not to re-offend.


You have completely misunderstood the meaning of what I said....

If we are created in God's image, then as free moral agents, we have the capacity to choose between right and wrong...but we also have the capacity to mess up the definition. To some people, right is wrong, good is evil, and vice versa. To override that possibility, humans were never given the option to decide for themselves what was right and wrong...good or evil....that is what God placed in his own jurisdiction.
Backpedaling and throwing a strawman at me doesn't help you. In fact, it only shows yet another failure of yours, since you just contradicted yourself.

If they had just simply obeyed their Creator, (and it wasn't as if the command was difficult) nothing evil would ever have touched them.
I don't have a degree in temporal physics, but I understand enough to tell the difference between what comes first and what comes after. For instance, they were touched by evil before they themselves disobeyed their creator. The evil serpent, told them a lie, which would be considered as a sin and/or an evil act. After being touched by evil, they then, committed a sin, disobedience.


The "evil one" was not evil in the beginning, and he was "stationed" in paradise. He was a Guardian Angel (which is what Cherubs were) posted in a position of responsibility, but who began to harbor ambitions that were not in keeping with his status.
Nice of you to throw another strawman at me. It once again show how you failed. Saved me some time by not having to explained that evil was in paradise before their act of disobedience. :thumbsup:

His traits and defection are described in Ezekiel 28:13-17....
"You were in Eʹden, the garden of God . . . I assigned you as the anointed covering cherub. . . .You became filled with violence, and you began to sin. . . .So I will cast you out as profane from the mountain of God and destroy you, O covering cherub . . .
17 Your heart became haughty because of your beauty.

You corrupted your wisdom because of your own glorious splendor
You were on the holy mountain of God, and you walked about among fiery stones.
15 You were faultless in your ways from the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you..."


So, no one is created evil.....both the devil and the humans choose to practice it, even when they are warned not to. The dire consequences did not seem to disturb them...because the 'evil one' lied to them about it.

You finally agreed with me.

We have free will...so do the angels, apparently. God is not just a punisher...he's a teacher. Life lessons are better experienced than simply stated.
So god as a teacher, orchestrated the whole thing. He wanted Adam and Eve to experience evil firsthand.



Again you misunderstand his motives.....its not unusual for atheists to condemn anything about God on flimsy evidence. Yet they will believe in evolution, which also has very flimsy evidence IMO...Go figure. :shrug:
It's not unusual for YOU to go off topic and give your opinion about atheists and evolution whenever you failed to come up with anything to support your argument.

God allowed them to experience first hand, what happens when you misuse your knowledge and abuse your free will.....when you go against the commands of your Sovereign. You think there should have been no consequences? Do you have children? Do you let them do whatever they want? Do you discipline them? What happens if you don't?

The first humans were not children...but they were somewhat inexperienced, so if they chose to "experience" evil, then God, as a good parent, allowed them to see what happens when you disobey someone in authority, who is infinitely wiser than yourself.
Since you repeated it again. It must mean that you agree with me that evil existed before Adam and Eve's disobedience. That's why it's good to have these discussions.


You see how that makes no sense? If the first humans had simply obeyed God's command, mankind would only have experienced good things. They would never have experienced evil because God would never have allowed it to enter their lives.
Well, it was good while it lasted.

What would you rather have...a world where evil is perpetrated every day by people who don't give a damn about you....where you can be the victim of a random crime or accident....or a world where the people who perpetrate such things did not exist? Its a bit of a no-brainer, if you ask me.
I already told you my preferred world. But since you keep repeating that evil existed in paradise.......
And it's a no-brainer which is better, a world where it's possible to be a victim of evil and know that an evil act is bring done to you. Or a world where it's possible to be a victim of evil and believe that the evil act is actually something good being done to you.

What makes paradise "paradise"? It isn't just nice surroundings.


The Sovereign is not capable of abuse....he is the epitome of love. Its hard to be brainwashed by love, generosity and good will unless there is an ulterior motive....God does not have ulterior motives.
It is easy to be brainwashed by evil though, because the world demonstrates that on a daily basis.

If evil had never entered the world, I don't believe that we would be having this conversation.
Reality is that evil does exist. Accepting that it exists and taking actions against it is a way to prevent it from happening before it does happen. Wishing it away won't help.

To be brainwashed by an abuser is to believe that the abuser is not and cannot abuse you.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Still pushing the Pokemon Evolution strawman?
Ahhh....the sniper returns. :rolleyes:

Still nothing from you but cheap shots. When you have some evidence....real verifiable evidence to contribute, we may take your sniping as adding something to the discussion/debate. :)

But I won’t hold my breath......
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Ahhh....the sniper returns. :rolleyes:

Still nothing from you but cheap shots. When you have some evidence....real verifiable evidence to contribute, we may take your sniping as adding something to the discussion/debate. :)

But I won’t hold my breath......
*yawn*
Still the drama queen as well.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
You state this, but why? What prevents small changes from accumulating? Why can't a multitude of small changes accumulate? How is this unreasonable?

Do you think the changes stop at some point, to avoid becoming a new kind? What would stop them?

Can you provide verifiable evidence that the small adaptive changes in any observed creature, resulted in anything but a new “variety” of an established species?

What stops them, is the genetic roadblock that prevents them from becoming something that is outside of their established taxonomy. Claiming that a four legged furry land animal became a whale, with no real evidence, is a classic example of science’s version of a fairy tale....yet you believe it.

Given time, can wind and rain not wear down great mountains, grain by grain?

You do understand the difference between “destructive” change and “constructive” change...don’t you?
When science can establish that genetic mutations can produce the kinds of constructive change necessary to result in all the life forms that have ever existed, let me know. We all know that most mutations are “destructive”. Google beneficial mutations in humans and see how many life altering changes science can establish....?

Can interstellar dust not accrete into a star? Yet you say small but visible changes can't create changes great enough to produce new "kinds?"

I don’t think science really knows too much about how stars are formed. Our own sun is still somewhat of a mystery to them. Besides the fact that you are comparing inorganic things to biological ones. Nice try.

So adaptation does not support macro-evolution...and neither do mutations account for what was necessary to produce, not only life, but all of the habitats that these creatures call home. Complex integrative systems don’t just magically happen. They are designed....you see, we don’t believe in magic, but apparently science has no trouble believing what they cannot prove.....? How then is science any different to any other “belief” system?

How do you explain the recent speciation we've already seen in nature? Dozens of examples: Some More Observed Speciation Events
How do you explain ring species? Ring species - Wikipedia

OK...what is a “species”

Definition...
“BIOLOGY
1. a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.

2. a kind or sort.”

So......“species” means a “kind”.

Darwin did not observe finches that had become another species. He saw adapted finches. They would always be finches. Just as the iguanas were still iguanas and the tortoises were still tortoises. When would they stop being members of their own taxonomy?

Science assumes that evolution produced all the creatures that exist, beginning with a single celled organism that magically popped into existence one day for no apparent reason, and somehow had the ability to become every form of life in existence....including plants......and you have real evidence for that?.....or do you have far fetched assertions and ridiculous suggestions on which to base that belief? Be honest.

Yet it's the unanimous opinion of just about everyone with any training in the natural sciences. Are they all fools, believing nonsense?

LOL....could it be that all are brainwashed with the same strongly promoted misinformation? When do you have to pull yourselves up and actually demand something concrete to back up your “beliefs”?

You all throw God under the bus with so very little real reason for your defection. Though, when you consider Christendom’s teachings and the nonsense proffered byYEC’s, I can understand how you could misunderstand the Creator, but could there be an alternative? Is there a middle ground that allows science and theBible to be compatible? I found that there is....and I did not have to sacrifice one for the other.

Sticking with what you believe is your choice, of course.....but at least you should have something better than what you assume that we have.

So let's consider intelligent design/creationism.
Does magic poofing really sound reasonable? Has anything like this ever been observed? Is there any conceivable mechanism that would account for it?

Doesn’t your version of things require way more ‘magical proofing’ than we do? At least we have a highly intelligent mind designing what to us is clearly not accidental.

Evolutionists are quick to divorce themselves from abiogenesis....but, where life came from is the answer to this whole issue. The existence of a powerful Creator leaves no unanswered questions. Your flawed theory is full of holes, and has no solid foundation....yet you cling to it like your life depends on it. Why? Only you can answer that.

No, no and no -- yet you seem to think fully formed species magically popping into existence is a reasonable "explanation."

If a powerful entity exists that science cannot detect because it is not quite as advanced as it assumes itself to be, then why can’t this entity use his massive energy to create matter? Why can’t he use his superior intellect to design all of the complex systems that function in an amazingly harmonious way on this planet and in the laws he designed to keep everything in place? Is gravity “magic”?
Did gravity design itself?

Apparently God wills it to magically stop.

God wills a lot of things......but I believe we will all find that out soon enough.....
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Can you provide verifiable evidence that the small adaptive changes in any observed creature, resulted in anything but a new “variety” of an established species?
Did you click on the links in post #242?

What stops them, is the genetic roadblock that prevents them from becoming something that is outside of their established taxonomy. Claiming that a four legged furry land animal became a whale, with no real evidence, is a classic example of science’s version of a fairy tale....yet you believe it.
Genetic roadblock? You're just paraphrasing your original assertion.
What is this roadblock? What's it's mechanism.

Evidence? There are whole libraries of evidence, with new studies being published every day.
What evidence do you have that whales popped into being fully formed, from nothing? Why do they have vestigial leg bones?
You do understand the difference between “destructive” change and “constructive” change...don’t you?
When science can establish that genetic mutations can produce the kinds of constructive change necessary to result in all the life forms that have ever existed, let me know.
Sure. Destructive, ie: maladaptive change is what natural selection removes from a species' gene pool; constructive is what's selected for.
Mutations aren't even needed. Most of the variation natural selection works on are the natural variations among offspring caused by two sexes shuffling genes at conception.
Why don't you believe mutations can be beneficial? Examples of Beneficial Mutation
We all know that most mutations are “destructive”.
We do? I haven't heard this. I thought most were neutral.
Google beneficial mutations in humans and see how many life altering changes science can establish....?
Low oxygen adaptations in Himalayan natives? A different adaptation in Andean natives? Malaria, sickle cell, plague and HIV resistance? Lactose tolerance? -- Every feature we have is a beneficial adaptation.
What are your criteria for "science can establish?" No matter what I post you'll cry "Not established!"
I don’t think science really knows too much about how stars are formed. Our own sun is still somewhat of a mystery to them. Besides the fact that you are comparing inorganic things to biological ones. Nice try.
What's the difference?
And universal gravitation is a pretty simple and easily observed mechanism.
So adaptation does not support macro-evolution...
Wait -- was this established somehow? Where did you get that?
and neither do mutations account for what was necessary to produce, not only life, but all of the habitats that these creatures call home.
Sorry, not following.
Complex integrative systems don’t just magically happen. They are designed....you see, we don’t believe in magic,
Complexity is a product of natural laws and observable, natural mechanism. You're arguing from personal incredulity and ignorance. Again, you're just pulling an unsupported assertion out of your hat.
You don't believe in magic? So what mechanisms are you proposing, and what's your evidence for them? Keep in mind, a creator is not a mechanism. A creator's an agent. How is a whale popping into existence with no discernible mechanism not magic?
but apparently science has no trouble believing what they cannot prove.....? How then is science any different to any other “belief” system?
Nobody can "prove" anything outside of mathematics.You can't prove the Earth is round, but I bet you believe it.
Science accumulates and tests evidence. It's predictive. It's the best method we have for determining truth/reality. Religion makes unevidenced assertions and resists testing or even questioning them -- not so reliable.

OK...what is a “species"
Definition...
“BIOLOGY
1. a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.

2. a kind or sort.”
So......“species” means a “kind”.
OK -- What point are you making, here?
Definition of kind
1a : a group united by common traits or interests : category
b : a specific or recognized variety what kind of car do you drive
c : a doubtful or barely admissible member of a category a kind of gray
-- Merriam-Webster.
Darwin did not observe finches that had become another species. He saw adapted finches. They would always be finches. Just as the iguanas were still iguanas and the tortoises were still tortoises.
You expect him to observe change in an instant? Darwin proposed a mechanism to explain the curious variety of what appeared to have once been a single "kind" (if you prefer ;)).
When would they stop being members of their own taxonomy?
When they changed enough to be considered something else.
See examples of observed, recent speciation in the links I referred to above.

OK, gotta go somewhere. I'll get back to this later
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Science assumes that evolution produced all the creatures that exist, beginning with a single celled organism that magically popped into existence one day for no apparent reason, and somehow had the ability to become every form of life in existence....including plants......and you have real evidence for that?.....or do you have far fetched assertions and ridiculous suggestions on which to base that belief? Be honest.
Evolution doesn't "produce" so much as change, it needs existing organisms to work with.
It's unlikely life began with a single celled organism, and no-one but creationists believe in magic.

Life began with the components of life forming by ordinary chemical reactions we can see every day. Chemistry, physics, competition and environment then work to create the changes we call evolution. Nothing magical, farfetched or ridiculous involved, that would be the domain of ID. All perfectly ordinary, familiar mechanisms, with mountains of tested, supporting evidence -- as opposed to the magical, unevidenced folklore of religion.
LOL....could it be that all are brainwashed with the same strongly promoted misinformation? When do you have to pull yourselves up and actually demand something concrete to back up your “beliefs”?
No "brainwashing" neededed, any more than heliocentrism or germ theory are the result of brainwashing.
The chemistry is familiar and ordinary, and the observed, tested evidence is there for anyone to examine and draw his own conclusions. There is no "strongly promoted misinformation." There is no need for any. The evidence is there for all to see - save those who refuse to see. You, yourself, seemed to have avoided it entirely.
You all throw God under the bus with so very little real reason for your defection.
There is no defection. We're not apostates from Team Religion. No-one's throwing God under the bus. God never even comes up, as he's not a necessary component of evolution. He's extraneous.

Creationists often seem to believe in God by default: "I don't understand all this complicated biology. I don't want to understand it, ergo: it's nonesense, and goddonit is the only 'explanation' remainig" -- ignoring the fact that goddonit doesn't explain anything, it just attributes.
Though, when you consider Christendom’s teachings and the nonsense proffered byYEC’s, I can understand how you could misunderstand the Creator,
We don't misunderstand him. He doesn't even come up.
As soon as we find evidence he exists we'll include him in our calculus, till then, we work with what we have. It seems sufficiently explanitory, so we don't feel any pressure to look for him
could there be an alternative? Is there a middle ground that allows science and theBible to be compatible?
I don't see how. they're totally different things, doing totally different jobs by totally different methods.

One is an investigative and testing modality, the other a doctrine. One investigates, the other attributes. One studies mechanism, the other attributes agency. One is evidence driven, the other faith based. One is falsifiable, the other writ in stone.
I found that there is....and I did not have to sacrifice one for the other.
Oh but you have. You don't even understand one of them, as is evidenced by your repeated misstatements, after repeated corrections, by myself and others over the past months.
Sticking with what you believe is your choice, of course.....but at least you should have something better than what you assume that we have.
We have the best evidenced explanations. Science is the gold standard.
Doesn’t your version of things require way more ‘magical proofing’ than we do? At least we have a highly intelligent mind designing what to us is clearly not accidental.
You have folklore about an intelligent mind. You have no empirical evidence. You're trying to twist reality to fit your folklore.

The first hint of a magical attribution would get any scientist laughed out of the room.
We have an explanation. You have an attribution. We have useful information, you have an unneeded, unevidenced, untestable, unfalsifiable "highly intelligent mind" that produces nothing.
Evolutionists are quick to divorce themselves from abiogenesis....but, where life came from is the answer to this whole issue.
There you go again, with previously corrected misunderstandings and silly terms like "evolutionist." Abiogenesis is a hot topic in biology. It's an active field of study.
I can understand how you could misunderstand the Creator, but could there be an alternative? Nobody's avoiding it.
As soon as we find evidence of a creator we'll include him. Thus far there isn't even a need for him.

Where life came from or, rather, how life began, is one event nearly four billion years ago. It's not "the answer to this whole issue." I'm not even clear on what this whole issue is.
The existence of a powerful Creator leaves no unanswered questions. Your flawed theory is full of holes, and has no solid foundation....yet you cling to it like your life depends on it. Why? Only you can answer that.
A creator answers only "who?" It says nothing about "how?" It doesn't explain anything. It's just an attribution. It addresses nothing in the entire field of science. Science studies only how?

What is my flawed theory? I'm talking about mechanism. You're talking about agency -- apples and oranges. I'm not trying to answer, or even deal with, anything creationists are talking about.

Full of holes? The ToE is solidly based on objective evidence and testing. That's what science does. It's Creationism that's built on sand.
Please show me a scrap of objective creationist "evidence." Creationism doesn't even seek evidence of mechanism.
If a powerful entity exists that science cannot detect because it is not quite as advanced as it assumes itself to be, then why can’t this entity use his massive energy to create matter?
Science is not even looking for a powerful entity. Nor is it looking for faeries or Cthulu. You're falsely attributing your own concerns to a group that's entirely indifferent to them
Why can’t he use his superior intellect to design all of the complex systems that function in an amazingly harmonious way on this planet and in the laws he designed to keep everything in place?
He could, but there's no evidence for him other than 'he could conceivably exist'. Well, so could the flying spaghetti monster.
To posit something's existence you need something more than 'he could exist'. You at least need a need for him -- which you don't have.
Complexity does not require a designer. This is a false premise.
Is gravity “magic Did gravity design itself?
Gravity just is. It's a fundamental constant. Positing an intentional designer doesn't explain it.
Who designed this intelligent designer? We could regress this forever.
God wills a lot of things......but I believe we will all find that out soon enough.....
God willing... but thus far he shows little concern about who believes in him. He could easily provide clear evidence for himself, if he wanted to. He could put an end to discussions like this with a flick of his finger. He hasn't -- for all of human history. He's entirely conjecture.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I’m not going to bother addressing all that because we have hashed this out so many times already. I’ll never convince you....you’ll never convince me. The readers will make up their own minds. All I want people to do is consider the "real" evidence...and not be talked out of belief in God because of another more acceptable "belief" system, that requires just as much, if not more, "faith" than we do.
No matter how you dress it up...at the end of the day its all assumptions based on very little real evidence....

But this I will address....
God willing... but thus far he shows little concern about who believes in him. He could easily provide clear evidence for himself, if he wanted to. He could put an end to discussions like this with a flick of his finger. He hasn't -- for all of human history. He's entirely conjecture.

You really have no idea who or what God is or why he is allowing anything....and apparently you don't want to know...that is entirely your prerogative. Yet you assume to know that he shows little concern about who believes in him.....nothing could be further from the truth......that is not at all unusual for those who already base their own beliefs on conjecture.

The evidence for his existence is all around us, yet with blinded eyes and hearts, the godless continue to see past it, and attribute it all to the blind forces of random chance. "Nature" is the creator....but what is "nature"....how is it "natural"? Where did "natural" come from and who defined it?
How many fortunate flukes in "nature", is too many? Yet to keep your theory alive you must believe that they are infinite.

It is my belief that the Creator will put an end to this discussion once and for all, because he has told us exactly what he will do....just not when he will do it.....but those who are forced to believe when his judgment comes, will not be considered for citizenship in the new world order that he will establish.

You don't have to "believe" me, but it is my understanding that all 'unbelievers' will believe in him eventually. I am patient...what about you? No one needs to learn the hard way....but for some reason they are selective about what constitutes "evidence". All it has to be is a believable suggestion apparently...you are welcome to them.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I’m not going to bother addressing all that because we have hashed this out so many times already. I’ll never convince you....you’ll never convince me.
Exactly my point. No matter how many times I and others have disabused you of your misunderstandings, it seems to go in one ear and out the other. You continue to make the same mistakes no matter how often we explain the errors to you.
The readers will make up their own minds. All I want people to do is consider the "real" evidence...and not be talked out of belief in God because of another more acceptable "belief" system,
That's all I want, as well. But you have no real evidence; nothing backed up empirically. Science, on the other hand, rejects anything but real evidence.
that requires just as much, if not more, "faith" than we do.
No! You don't seem to understand scientific theory or methodology at all. "Faith" is a dirty word in science. We're skeptical of everything. We base all our beliefs on objective, testable evidence.
No matter how you dress it up...at the end of the day its all assumptions based on very little real evidence....
No it's not.
Science tests assumptions, it attempts to disprove them -- that's its function.
You really have no idea who or what God is or why he is allowing anything....and apparently you don't want to know...that is entirely your prerogative.
You have no idea, either. There is no evidence of him either way. Your own belief is based on tradition and folklore. The logical thing is to withhold belief in a thing till there's actual evidence of it.
As soon as anyone has any hard evidence, science will take note. Till then, it can only study the tangible.
Yet you assume to know that he shows little concern about who believes in him.....nothing could be further from the truth......that is not at all unusual for those who already base their own beliefs on conjecture.
Based on your beliefs on his omniscience and omnipotency, wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that he's not particularly concerned with correct belief or our awareness of him? He is, after all, perfectly capable of achieving this should he want to.
The evidence for his existence is all around us, yet with blinded eyes and hearts, the godless continue to see past it, and attribute it all to the blind forces of random chance.
I keep hearing this, but you have yet to produce any of this evidence. I don't see anything that can't be attributed to chemistry, physics or other natural causes. If such evidence exists, why does science not believe in it? Scientists aren't idiots.
Please tell us what this "evidence all around us" is.
"Nature" is the creator....but what is "nature"....how is it "natural"? Where did "natural" come from and who defined it?
How many fortunate flukes in "nature", is too many? Yet to keep your theory alive you must believe that they are infinite.
There is no who, how or why. None are needed for things to be as they are.

It is my belief that the Creator will put an end to this discussion once and for all, because he has told us exactly what he will do....just not when he will do it.....but those who are forced to believe when his judgment comes, will not be considered for citizenship in the new world order that he will establish.
You're belief that he's communicated with you is based on folklore. Adherents of every religion make similar claims, but don't agree on his message.
Where are you getting this communication?

You don't have to "believe" me, but it is my understanding that all 'unbelievers' will believe in him eventually. I am patient...what about you? No one needs to learn the hard way....but for some reason they are selective about what constitutes "evidence". All it has to be is a believable suggestion apparently...you are welcome to them.[/QUOTE]A hundred different religions could make the same claim, and all disagree with each other. Without empirical evidence all claims carry equal weight. If evidence actually were all around us, all would be in agreement; all would believe.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
You state this, but why? What prevents small changes from accumulating? Why can't a multitude of small changes accumulate? How is this unreasonable?

Do you think the changes stop at some point, to avoid becoming a new kind? What would stop them?

Given time, can wind and rain not wear down great mountains, grain by grain? Can interstellar dust not accrete into a star? Yet you say small but visible changes can't create changes great enough to produce new "kinds?"

How do you explain the recent speciation we've already seen in nature? Dozens of examples: Some More Observed Speciation Events
How do you explain ring species? Ring species - Wikipedia
Seriously? How many times have we explained this? Why can you not learn?
You'll never get proof for anything outside maths or a bottle of whiskey. You're demanding a standard you don't ask for in anything else you believe: Spherical Earth? Germs causing disease? Heliocentrism? -- all unproven.

We see four legged, furry land dwellers in various stages of becoming aquatic everywhere we look: Capybaras, hippos, beavers, manatees, dolphins.... Were they always as they are now? Fossil, anatomic and genetic evidence suggests otherwise.
Again you make grand assertions but back them up with no evidence. The assertions don't even seem reasonable.

Yet it's the unanimous opinion of just about everyone with any training in the natural sciences. Are they all fools, believing nonsense?

So let's consider intelligent design/creationism.
Does magic poofing really sound reasonable? Has anything like this ever been observed? Is there any conceivable mechanism that would account for it?

No, no and no -- yet you seem to think fully formed species magically popping into existence is a reasonable "explanation."

Its always enlightening to ask a creationist to read up on the formation of the White Cliffs of Dover.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
You continue to make the same mistakes no matter how often we explain the errors to you.
Funny, I feel the same way about you guys....no matter how much I stress the fact that adaptation can never produce anything but a new variety of an existing species, all I get is silence....not science.

Speciation is the creation of a new variety of a creature that already exists. No matter how much time elapses or how many adaptations take place, they will always remain within their own taxonomy.

you have no real evidence; nothing backed up empirically. Science, on the other hand, rejects anything but real evidence.

What a load !....you have no real evidence for evolution, except for adaptation, which we have no problem with at all. You can't make adaptation = to macro-evolution without a whole lot of smoke and mirrors.

No! You don't seem to understand scientific theory or methodology at all. "Faith" is a dirty word in science. We're skeptical of everything. We base all our beliefs on objective, testable evidence.

Oh, if only that were true.....that is what you assume to have. Your skepticism is only exercised outside of your own acceptable parameters.

Science tests assumptions, it attempts to disprove them -- that's its function.

Now that is funny....How do you test assumptions when you have no facts to provide proof for them? Just add a generous helping of suggestion and voila! You can believe anything that is assumed as if it was established fact.
Trouble is....it could all change in a heartbeat and what you argued about today could be shown to utter nonsense tomorrow.

You have no idea, either. There is no evidence of him either way. Your own belief is based on tradition and folklore. The logical thing is to withhold belief in a thing till there's actual evidence of it.
As soon as anyone has any hard evidence, science will take note. Till then, it can only study the tangible.

Creation is tangible...it didn't just popup out of nowhere. My belief is based on communication from the Creator himself. You don't have to believe him....I choose to because creation is the only logical explanation that leaves no unanswered questions....no gaps in the story. It solves the mystery of abiogenesis as well.

Based on your beliefs on his omniscience and omnipotency, wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that he's not particularly concerned with correct belief or our awareness of him? He is, after all, perfectly capable of achieving this should he want to.

He is perfectly capable...but we are not. We are in the throes of a valuable life lesson so that abuse of free will can never be tolerated or excused in the future. We learn more from experience than we ever do from just being told. We are designed to be educated by the one who made us. This life is our classroom. But some students are not interested in the curriculum and want to disrupt others from learning as well.

I keep hearing this, but you have yet to produce any of this evidence. I don't see anything that can't be attributed to chemistry, physics or other natural causes. If such evidence exists, why does science not believe in it? Scientists aren't idiots.

I actually sometimes wonder how people with supposedly superior intelligence can be so gullible.

Please tell us what this "evidence all around us" is.

images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images


I could fill pages.....these are not genetic accidents.

There is no who, how or why.

There is, but you just don't believe he exists because you can't 'test' for him. The test for God does not require instrumentation.....it requires communication with the human spirit. Science has no test for that.

None are needed for things to be as they are.

You assume that none are needed because you have convinced yourself of it. No one could 'unconvince' me....

Where are you getting this communication?

Straight from the source. Preserved through thousands of years, and still as reliable today as when it was written. Believers have a two way communication with the Creator that needs no words....but their relationship is enhanced by them.

A hundred different religions could make the same claim, and all disagree with each other. Without empirical evidence all claims carry equal weight. If evidence actually were all around us, all would be in agreement; all would believe.

Now there's another odd statement, since scientists disagree about things all the time. And since 'empirical evidence' is obtained through the senses and by observation and experimentation.....how can science claim to observe and experiment with things that took place millions of years ago when no one was around to document or observe anything?

I can guarantee you that there are 99.9% of religions that are are in error......because there is but one truth....I believe that God will guide the right people to draw the right conclusions.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Funny, I feel the same way about you guys....no matter how much I stress the fact that adaptation can never produce anything but a new variety of an existing species, all I get is silence....not science.
But it's not a fact that adaptation can't produce something new. Declaring something wrong doesn't make it wrong.
Please explain away the speciation that's already been observed. Please propose an alternative and provide supporting evidence.
Speciation is the creation of a new variety of a creature that already exists. No matter how much time elapses or how many adaptations take place, they will always remain within their own taxonomy.
You're bloviating. Your declarations have no evidence backing them. We show you actual examples of new species and and they don't even register.
....and what does "within their own taxonomy" mean, anyway?
What a load !....you have no real evidence for evolution, except for adaptation, which we have no problem with at all. You can't make adaptation = to macro-evolution without a whole lot of smoke and mirrors.
We have mountains of evidence -- which we've explained to you a hundred times. It's you making unevidenced assertions. You're claiming organisms just poofed into existence fully formed, from thin air, and you seem to think this is an obvious truth.
....and what do you mean by "adaptation," anyway?
Now that is funny....How do you test assumptions when you have no facts to provide proof for them?
By having voluminous, tried and tested facts, of course.
Creation is tangible...it didn't just popup out of nowhere. My belief is based on communication from the Creator himself. You don't have to believe him....I choose to because creation is the only logical explanation that leaves no unanswered questions....no gaps in the story. It solves the mystery of abiogenesis as well.
Wait a minute -- Isn't the universe popping out of nowhere pretty much the definition of biblical creation? Don't creationists believe life popped out of nowhere, as well?
It's the "evolutionists" who hold that creation was a gradual, step-by-step process.

How is creationism logical? Show me your reasoning. It's certainly no explanation. It's simply attribution. How many times do we have to point this out before it sinks in?



He is perfectly capable...but we are not. We are in the throes of a valuable life lesson so that abuse of free will can never be tolerated or excused in the future. We learn more from experience than we ever do from just being told. We are designed to be educated by the one who made us. This life is our classroom. But some students are not interested in the curriculum and want to disrupt others from learning as well.
You're preaching again, and, rather than experience, you claimed above that your beliefs are based on voices in your head.
I actually sometimes wonder how people with supposedly superior intelligence can be so gullible.
You're the one attending to mystical communications. We're the ones drawing logical conclusions from tested, empirical evidence.
I could fill pages.....these are not genetic accidents.
Who's claiming they are?
You really don't have a clue about the mechanisms of the ToE.
There is, but you just don't believe he exists because you can't 'test' for him. The test for God does not require instrumentation.....it requires communication with the human spirit. Science has no test for that.
So the voices are also the test -- and you call us illogical?
You assume that none are needed because you have convinced yourself of it. No one could 'unconvince' me....
A fixed, persistent belief resistant to reason or facts, eh?
4. Psychiatry: a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.

Straight from the source. Preserved through thousands of years, and still as reliable today as when it was written. Believers have a two way communication with the Creator that needs no words....but their relationship is enhanced by them.
The voices, again?
Don't most religions make similar claims? How is yours any more authoritative?
Now there's another odd statement, since scientists disagree about things all the time. And since 'empirical evidence' is obtained through the senses and by observation and experimentation.....how can science claim to observe and experiment with things that took place millions of years ago when no one was around to document or observe anything?
You're questioning something you apparently know nothing of. Better look into the methodology before declaring it impossible.

Scientists always dispute research at the cutting edge. Eventually further research and testing establish a reliable interpretation, and the cutting edge moves on.
Scientists once disagreed about heliocentrism and the germ theory. Now they don't. This isn't a weakness in science, it's its strength.
I can guarantee you that there are 99.9% of religions that are are in error......because there is but one truth....I believe that God will guide the right people to draw the right conclusions.
It's lucky you have those voices to clarify things, then.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Funny, I feel the same way about you guys....no matter how much I stress the fact that adaptation can never produce anything but a new variety of an existing species, all I get is silence....not science.
That's simply not true. In your "Just Accidental" thread I showed you an example of the observed evolution of a new species that is completely unable to interbreed with its parent species (due to chromosomal differences). All you could do was complain that you couldn't understand the jargon, and then you accused the scientists of deliberately using jargon to confuse and mislead the public.

Such blatant lying on your part doesn't speak well of you.

you have no real evidence for evolution
And here's yet another of your dishonest arguments. In other places you argue that you have the same evidence as "evolutionists", but you just interpret it differently. But then in other places (such as here) you argue that there's no evidence at all! Both cannot be true.

I could fill pages.....these are not genetic accidents.
In other threads you and the other Witnesses argue that Jehovah only created at the very beginning in Eden, and after that everything happened without Jehovah's guidance. But here you're posting pictures of modern species, many of which have only been around for a relatively short time and implying that Jehovah made them. Both cannot be true.

Your position and beliefs require you to repeatedly lie and put forth inherently contradictory arguments. That should tell you something.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Because the micro changes never go beyond their taxonomy. One creature can never morph into another entirely different family, no matter how much time you throw at them. e.g. four legged furry land dwellers would never become whales......Single celled organisms could never become dinosaurs. You cannot use adaptation to prove macro-evolution....they are not the same at all IMO.

That is all utter nonsense. If you believe that is true, then it makes Intelligent Design look way more logical.
Evolution doesn't work that way. So your "argument" against it is moot.

Next.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Can you provide verifiable evidence that the small adaptive changes in any observed creature, resulted in anything but a new “variety” of an established species?

What stops them, is the genetic roadblock that prevents them from becoming something that is outside of their established taxonomy. Claiming that a four legged furry land animal became a whale, with no real evidence, is a classic example of science’s version of a fairy tale....yet you believe it.



You do understand the difference between “destructive” change and “constructive” change...don’t you?
When science can establish that genetic mutations can produce the kinds of constructive change necessary to result in all the life forms that have ever existed, let me know. We all know that most mutations are “destructive”. Google beneficial mutations in humans and see how many life altering changes science can establish....?



I don’t think science really knows too much about how stars are formed. Our own sun is still somewhat of a mystery to them. Besides the fact that you are comparing inorganic things to biological ones. Nice try.

So adaptation does not support macro-evolution...and neither do mutations account for what was necessary to produce, not only life, but all of the habitats that these creatures call home. Complex integrative systems don’t just magically happen. They are designed....you see, we don’t believe in magic, but apparently science has no trouble believing what they cannot prove.....? How then is science any different to any other “belief” system?



OK...what is a “species”

Definition...
“BIOLOGY
1. a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.

2. a kind or sort.”

So......“species” means a “kind”.

Darwin did not observe finches that had become another species. He saw adapted finches. They would always be finches. Just as the iguanas were still iguanas and the tortoises were still tortoises. When would they stop being members of their own taxonomy?

Science assumes that evolution produced all the creatures that exist, beginning with a single celled organism that magically popped into existence one day for no apparent reason, and somehow had the ability to become every form of life in existence....including plants......and you have real evidence for that?.....or do you have far fetched assertions and ridiculous suggestions on which to base that belief? Be honest.



LOL....could it be that all are brainwashed with the same strongly promoted misinformation? When do you have to pull yourselves up and actually demand something concrete to back up your “beliefs”?

You all throw God under the bus with so very little real reason for your defection. Though, when you consider Christendom’s teachings and the nonsense proffered byYEC’s, I can understand how you could misunderstand the Creator, but could there be an alternative? Is there a middle ground that allows science and theBible to be compatible? I found that there is....and I did not have to sacrifice one for the other.

Sticking with what you believe is your choice, of course.....but at least you should have something better than what you assume that we have.



Doesn’t your version of things require way more ‘magical proofing’ than we do? At least we have a highly intelligent mind designing what to us is clearly not accidental.

Evolutionists are quick to divorce themselves from abiogenesis....but, where life came from is the answer to this whole issue. The existence of a powerful Creator leaves no unanswered questions. Your flawed theory is full of holes, and has no solid foundation....yet you cling to it like your life depends on it. Why? Only you can answer that.



If a powerful entity exists that science cannot detect because it is not quite as advanced as it assumes itself to be, then why can’t this entity use his massive energy to create matter? Why can’t he use his superior intellect to design all of the complex systems that function in an amazingly harmonious way on this planet and in the laws he designed to keep everything in place? Is gravity “magic”?
Did gravity design itself?



God wills a lot of things......but I believe we will all find that out soon enough.....
I'll say it again, you do not understand evolution.

And I think it's because you don't want to, because it's not for a lack of having multiple people over multiple years explaining to you how it works, that's for sure.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I’m not going to bother addressing all that because we have hashed this out so many times already. I’ll never convince you....you’ll never convince me. The readers will make up their own minds. All I want people to do is consider the "real" evidence...and not be talked out of belief in God because of another more acceptable "belief" system, that requires just as much, if not more, "faith" than we do.
No matter how you dress it up...at the end of the day its all assumptions based on very little real evidence....

But this I will address....


You really have no idea who or what God is or why he is allowing anything....and apparently you don't want to know...that is entirely your prerogative. Yet you assume to know that he shows little concern about who believes in him.....nothing could be further from the truth......that is not at all unusual for those who already base their own beliefs on conjecture.

The evidence for his existence is all around us, yet with blinded eyes and hearts, the godless continue to see past it, and attribute it all to the blind forces of random chance. "Nature" is the creator....but what is "nature"....how is it "natural"? Where did "natural" come from and who defined it?
How many fortunate flukes in "nature", is too many? Yet to keep your theory alive you must believe that they are infinite.

It is my belief that the Creator will put an end to this discussion once and for all, because he has told us exactly what he will do....just not when he will do it.....but those who are forced to believe when his judgment comes, will not be considered for citizenship in the new world order that he will establish.

You don't have to "believe" me, but it is my understanding that all 'unbelievers' will believe in him eventually. I am patient...what about you? No one needs to learn the hard way....but for some reason they are selective about what constitutes "evidence". All it has to be is a believable suggestion apparently...you are welcome to them.

And neither do you.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I'll say it again, you do not understand evolution.

And I think it's because you don't want to, because it's not for a lack of having multiple people over multiple years explaining to you how it works, that's for sure.
Yup. It's the ol'.....understanding might lead to acceptance, acceptance would lead to a crisis of faith, and (specific to JWs) a crisis of faith would mean social and emotional ruin.

So the safest thing to do is head that whole thing off and remain deliberately ignorant. After all, they'd rather take the slings and arrows from the likes of you and me, than be disfellowshipped by their own brothers and sisters in Christ.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Funny, I feel the same way about you guys....no matter how much I stress the fact that adaptation can never produce anything but a new variety of an existing species, all I get is silence....not science.

Speciation is the creation of a new variety of a creature that already exists. No matter how much time elapses or how many adaptations take place, they will always remain within their own taxonomy.



What a load !....you have no real evidence for evolution, except for adaptation, which we have no problem with at all. You can't make adaptation = to macro-evolution without a whole lot of smoke and mirrors.



Oh, if only that were true.....that is what you assume to have. Your skepticism is only exercised outside of your own acceptable parameters.



Now that is funny....How do you test assumptions when you have no facts to provide proof for them? Just add a generous helping of suggestion and voila! You can believe anything that is assumed as if it was established fact.
Trouble is....it could all change in a heartbeat and what you argued about today could be shown to utter nonsense tomorrow.



Creation is tangible...it didn't just popup out of nowhere. My belief is based on communication from the Creator himself. You don't have to believe him....I choose to because creation is the only logical explanation that leaves no unanswered questions....no gaps in the story. It solves the mystery of abiogenesis as well.



He is perfectly capable...but we are not. We are in the throes of a valuable life lesson so that abuse of free will can never be tolerated or excused in the future. We learn more from experience than we ever do from just being told. We are designed to be educated by the one who made us. This life is our classroom. But some students are not interested in the curriculum and want to disrupt others from learning as well.



I actually sometimes wonder how people with supposedly superior intelligence can be so gullible.



images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images


I could fill pages.....these are not genetic accidents.



There is, but you just don't believe he exists because you can't 'test' for him. The test for God does not require instrumentation.....it requires communication with the human spirit. Science has no test for that.



You assume that none are needed because you have convinced yourself of it. No one could 'unconvince' me....



Straight from the source. Preserved through thousands of years, and still as reliable today as when it was written. Believers have a two way communication with the Creator that needs no words....but their relationship is enhanced by them.



Now there's another odd statement, since scientists disagree about things all the time. And since 'empirical evidence' is obtained through the senses and by observation and experimentation.....how can science claim to observe and experiment with things that took place millions of years ago when no one was around to document or observe anything?

I can guarantee you that there are 99.9% of religions that are are in error......because there is but one truth....I believe that God will guide the right people to draw the right conclusions.
And now we've come full circle, right back to the start again, with pretty pictures and arguments from incredulity. Again.
 
Top