Different Opinions....Who is right?

Valjean said:

They are not founded on science or reason. They sound reasonable, on the surface, but they are scientifically unsupported.

Click to expand...

Much of theoretical science is not based on anything but speculation and educated guessing. As for "reason"...that is wide open to interpretation as well. My reasoning is not your reasoning. We shall all find out sooner or later whose position was reasonable and whose wasn't.

Valjean said:

You seem unable to reconcile yourself to the possibility that there is no purpose, or that "fulfillment" is a product of your own efforts.

Click to expand...

Nothing happens for no reason. Cause and effect states that whatever you see happening is the effect of a cause.
The Bible gives me purpose and reason.....it is very acceptable to me, but it might not be to you. That's OK.

Valjean said:

Why do you feel there must be a 'why?'

Click to expand...

Because that is the way our brains are wired. What do you think science is for? Isn't it to formulate a reason for all the "whys"? You turn to science for your answers....I turn to the Bible for mine. You have questions you can't answer because science can't provide anything but suggestions on many of its theories....but I don't have gaps in my understanding.

It is actually very satisfying not to have to rely on man for the future of planet Earth.

Dan From Smithville said:

It is an interesting notion that God made all animals herbivores and some of these later became carnivores. Carnivory, or herbivory for that matter, require more than just a switch in what is eaten. Both food source options require a host of physical, physiological and biochemical systems in order to secure nutrition. Then the question would be why allow such a change. The fall of man is often the go to reason, but what did the poor animals do.

Click to expand...

Yes. I would imagine that the changes that had to have happened would be way more than just variation or adaption to the environment.

I also dont understand the why of it. I think that the writer of Genesis wanted to make as if Eden was a true paradise in which man and animals didnt have to fear for their life. A perfect world. And then contrast that to how messed up the current world of his time was.

The weird claim is also that the current world was designed because it is fine tuned and perfect in its design. But a part of that is how carnivores work and the equilibrium created by the "circle of life" wouldnt there have been overpopulation of certain creatures if God all creatures herbivores?

Israel Khan said:

Yes. I would imagine that the changes that had to have happened would be way more than just variation or adaption to the environment.

I also dont understand the why of it. I think that the writer of Genesis wanted to make as if Eden was a true paradise in which man and animals didnt have to fear for their life. A perfect world. And then contrast that to how messed up the current world of his time was.

The weird claim is also that the current world was designed because it is fine tuned and perfect in its design. But a part of that is how carnivores work and the equilibrium created by the "circle of life" wouldnt there have been overpopulation of certain creatures if God all creatures herbivores?

Click to expand...

If humans were just herbivores would there be an overpopulation on Earth?

Who is the Judge about natural life, when natural life exists naturally?

Now if you said to self once animals never needed to eat the flesh of other animals.

And that history would be when the Earth atmosphere owned its original one seasoned atmosphere natural. We just lived with natural light.

Now if you then make a further historical claim, what was life like before science.

It is a high possibility that humans never even ate or drank.

For water owning microbial energy was natural energy and natural food.

And you would be far more spiritual in that form of first existence.

Many humans today believed in the memory of that status. Not needing to eat or drink. Why it was expressed for a human to think upon.

If you asked a human who nuked the ground mass and polluted their water supply and removed tree/grass/crops in burning...why did you begin to eat animals. It would be because organic bio life survived, some of the bodies were sacrificed laying on the ground so you ate them.

If you ask a human why did you do science for...there is no true logical answer other than they wanted to. For need was always present in our natural life.

Real answer, if I wanted to, I could choose to be a vegetarian and live that form of life.....as proof that I lie to self about the reason why animals began to eat the flesh.

If a human imposes the statements about over population, your answer is to stop having human sex.

Dan From Smithville said:

I understand that you willfully choose to not understand science, promote misinformation about science and reject it for reasons that are entirely based on the doctrine of the sect you follow.

The facts of evolution are the evidence of change over time. To deny this is the face of these facts would be foolish.

Click to expand...

Focus on evolutions predictive capability perhaps?

If someone believes that evolution is a lie then they have to explain the above.

Deeje said:

No, no, no....you have to understand that science requires no "proof"......they just need "evidence" which they can interpret to suit what they want to believe. There is NO PROOF for any of it. Its a monumental con job.

Things really have not changed much down through the ages. Evolution is in vogue now because people have been convinced that it is a scientific fact. But the fact is...there are no facts.

In the first century C.E., when Greek philosophy and Roman law were in vogue, the apostle Paul was inspired to write: “The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: ‘He catches the wise in their own cunning.’ And again: ‘Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.’ Hence let no one be boasting in men.” (1 Corinthians 3:19-21)

I believe that there will be no unbelievers in the world in the near future....."the reasonings of the wise men" will come to nothing....and so will all who swallow their unproven theories.

Click to expand...

You really have swallowed the creationist kool-aid.
I have seen evolution in action in my garden over the last 10-years. We have a plant called the dandelion, it grows about 150mm high and has a yellow flower, it is a bit of a nuisance, especially when it gets in the lawn. Hence I mow them down; but I have now noticed that a strain has emerged that is about 20mm high and still flowers.
I can't believe that you criticise science for 'interpreting' results/facts. Religion is built on that.
If I quoted Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris at you, would you be impressed, I'm not impressed by 2000 year old quotes from the Bible.
Evolution isn't in 'vogue' it is proven like Gravity and Germ Theory - do you dispute those?
The numbers suggest you are wrong about there being no unbelievers in the near future, with the Christian Right behaving like they are in the US, I think the opposite is more likely.

Does time change on Earth today.

Are the gases and water mass/oxygen and Nature using water and oxygen mass to live still the same atmospheric mass and body today as it ever was?

Yes.

So where does evolution be interposed today, when you all only own a 100 year review of who lived before you as another human life.

Your life is first traced by DNA genetics and not by animal Kingdom genetics...HUMAN.

And it could be millions of years ago....just being a human.

You however in biological themes place natural order as one human to one string theme about lineage of animals to the presence of a human life.

Yet for you to do that you claim you were living as a human first, human consciousness as a human being claiming and then life de evolved and all of the animals after me....to all of the animals after me...back in time.

For you have not shifted time your own self consciously.....yet life on Earth did shift time by nuclear irradiated converting.

What the problem is....you are the original human scientist who changed all life on Earth and have come back to the exact position that you personally left a long time ago.

Between the original human self, de evolution....to be looking back today to say that evolution then allowed you to come back. But you never came back through evolution of animals.

Reasoning of fact. Each animal owns a living life presence as the END of their form. To own a form is to own a body and be present.

The problem is human consciousness because you only live for 100 years biologically, yet your human DNA information used to exist before Nature denatured, as the fact of it.

If you calculated how much radiation converted your life body into thinking about all animal forms...to their continued destruction, to their re emergence into higher life forms....you would realize that the conscious identification of self in Nature places you as the Creator of the species of de evolution itself via science cause.

Knowledge of, if a higher species or specialised species owns self presence as that body form...then it does. If science says it was attacked and mutated like an ape....then an ape would be today the highest conscious identity on Earth and not a human being, if you claim we came from their act of animal sex as a baby.

Science does not in fact include the act of sex when it discusses science, another reason why it is wrong. For it does not include sex.

Fact of conscious self identification to not lie.

As you think back in human history for self where does your owned string go back to...yet you are not there?

A teenager....back to a child, back to a baby, back to ovaries and sperm.

In natural self existence.

Your claim is that sperm and an impregnated ovary owns about 100 years of evolving and surviving. Yet does not actually own 100 years if the atmospheric conditions do not support its health.

Science does not apply NATURAL ORDER.

Just a question to anybody:

To me it seems like intelligent design and evolution are two different categories.

Intelligent design is dealing with who created life, but isnt dealing with processes of how life changed over time.

Evolution explains processes only.

Since they explain different things doesnt that mean that evolution cant be debunked by someone saying that a designer created everything?

It is like trying to debunk the validity of painting processes by claiming that an artist created the painting.

Deeje said:

Yes I do.....but it doesn't explain how all the diverse creatures on this planet supposedly came from a single celled organism.....that just happened to pop into existence in the primordial soup one day, for no apparent reason.

Can you tell me how that works?

Click to expand...

No, no, no. You clearly do not understand what natural selection is or how it works. It does explain the diversity of life on Earth.

"Just happened to pop into existence" says everything about what you continue to refuse to understand.

Israel Khan said:

Just a question to anybody:

To me it seems like intelligent design and evolution are two different categories.

Intelligent design is dealing with who created life, but isnt dealing with processes of how life changed over time.

Evolution explains processes only.

Since they explain different things doesnt that mean that evolution cant be debunked by someone saying that a designer created everything?

It is like trying to debunk the validity of painting processes by claiming that an artist created the painting.

Click to expand...

What males as the scientist TITLED use of thinking as a human states is that all of his thoughts are the only reality, as a human.

When nature says microbes existed first....not you thinking.
Garden nature by the billions of self presence forms.....not you thinking.
Animals the same.
Humans the same.

Your conscious self owns self presence for 100 years only.

No sex, no presence, as simple as an ego has to agree.

Everything you discuss as self presence before your own self is actually self presence before your own self. And you do not own it, you just think about it.

If you ask what the conscious perception problem is...DNA is a human pattern that might live a multi adult human communicated recording of multi lifetimes...and communicate that information historically into a conscious perception.

Yet 100 years is all that the self owns.

Biological self teachings said the value C 100 life span with life being sacrificed was that proof as a Genetic themed story.

All thoughts about a Creator is said only by the Creator of the thoughts, the use of words being a human male group of scientists in an agreement actually.

Why you taught God the concepts was a male as a human male group invented human statements for human sciences....thoughts.

What I was taught as the atmosphere does record both image and voice, as proven in science, then that state exists in historic atmospheric conditions before you do. Yet if you were not bio living you would not own a bio conscious recording.

Israel Khan said:

Focus on evolutions predictive capability perhaps?

If someone believes that evolution is a lie then they have to explain the above.

Click to expand...

I agree. The success of predictions based on the theory need to be explained. The usual response is some variation of denial of the predictions or to ignore the question entirely.

Dan From Smithville said:

I agree. The success of predictions based on the theory need to be explained. The usual response is some variation of denial of the predictions or to ignore the question entirely.

Click to expand...

As appears to be the case on this thread.

Its predictability is validity of the process.

It is the answer which creationists are looking for but they dont even want to look at it.

If a process is proven to be able to consistently ( not necessarily perfectly) predict something in the real world, then there is truth to it.

I would think that Christians would understand this point as they say that certain predictions (prophecies) made in the Bible have occurred (not all) therefore it shows that the bible is true.

Israel Khan said:

Just a question to anybody:

To me it seems like intelligent design and evolution are two different categories.

Intelligent design is dealing with who created life, but isnt dealing with processes of how life changed over time.

Evolution explains processes only.

Since they explain different things doesnt that mean that evolution cant be debunked by someone saying that a designer created everything?

It is like trying to debunk the validity of painting processes by claiming that an artist created the painting.

Click to expand...

Broadly, the former is a religious belief system incorporating technical elements to appear as science and the latter is science based on a rational explanation of the evidence.

The theory of evolution does not and is not intended to debunk the existence of any deity. Intelligent designer is just a generic name for God. The ID movement is an attempt to give a false scientific basis to Christianity so that it can be taught in public schools as an alternative explanation. In a sense it is an attempt to debunk evolution with facts not in evidence.

Israel Khan said:

Focus on evolutions predictive capability perhaps?

If someone believes that evolution is a lie then they have to explain the above.

Click to expand...

Microbes and bacteria exists in the same water oxygenated atmosphere as all other forms in the exact timed moments.

Natural light for 12 hours of the day, the cycle of light on Earth.

Earth travel around the Sun says a cycle that owns the status of 12 also.

Why O a circle and a cycle is said to denote time.

Each life form however owns a variable life existence.

So a Tree for example is said to exist before we did....yet it can live for hundreds of years.

And that status is lowest life forms as compared to what consciousness claims is evolution of the species we should live the longest.

As we do not then we are provided with a theory about how all spirit bodies came from exactly the same place. Were sung in the same moment, were released as a song and owned a spirit presence, out of the body eternal.

Where God in natural history had been released from.

Claiming the atmospheric life/gases had to be created and formed and present to own the oxygenated and water use of its natural mass.

So then you say, as the spirit uses microbial bodies as food cell energy, then it does...which proves we came from else where spiritually.

Which says that each spirit was released as a song in its owned life form...which the Garden Nature is proven to own the evidence of.

We factually came out after the Garden Nature, yet it spiritually owns a longer living presence than what we bio lives do.

Israel Khan said:

As appears to be the case on this thread.

Its predictability is validity of the process.

It is the answer which creationists are looking for but they dont even want to look at it.

If a process is proven to be able to consistently ( not necessarily perfectly) predict something in the real world, then there is truth to it.

I would think that Christians would understand this point as they say that certain predictions (prophecies) made in the Bible have occurred (not all) therefore it shows that the bible is true.

Click to expand...

A very interesting observation. Almost a paradox. Acceptance of one on claims of its predictive power, while rejecting the other that has evidence of its predictive power. Another "Welcome to the confusing world of irrational and contradictory creationist views".

Dan From Smithville said:

Broadly, the former is a religious belief system incorporating technical elements to appear as science and the latter is science based on a rational explanation of the evidence.

The theory of evolution does not and is not intended to debunk the existence of any deity. Intelligent designer is just a generic name for God. The ID movement is an attempt to give a false scientific basis to Christianity so that it can be taught in public schools as an alternative explanation. In a sense it is an attempt to debunk evolution with facts not in evidence.

Click to expand...

So basically ToE is just leading us to where the evidence points whereas ID uses am assumption about the world to pick and choose what suits its agenda?

Ok. So ID was created specifically to debunk ToE?

I find the whole notion of teaching ID in schools very weird because it doesnt seem to be scientific at all.

Dan From Smithville said:

A very interesting observation. Almost a paradox. Acceptance of one on claims of its predictive power, while rejecting the other that has evidence of its predictive power. Another "Welcome to the confusing world of irrational and contradictory creationist views".

Click to expand...

To me they are being inconsistent with their arguments.

I suspect i know why as I was in that position at one point. It is purely confirmation bias because the agenda is to prove ones viewpoint right at all costs whereas it is the objective to discredit all those who contradict you.

It is the same reason why certain muslims and christians think that the other religions holy book has so many contradictions and errors while maintaining the belief that their own holy book is flawless.

Israel Khan said:

Yes. I would imagine that the changes that had to have happened would be way more than just variation or adaption to the environment.

I also dont understand the why of it. I think that the writer of Genesis wanted to make as if Eden was a true paradise in which man and animals didnt have to fear for their life. A perfect world. And then contrast that to how messed up the current world of his time was.

The weird claim is also that the current world was designed because it is fine tuned and perfect in its design. But a part of that is how carnivores work and the equilibrium created by the "circle of life" wouldnt there have been overpopulation of certain creatures if God all creatures herbivores?

Click to expand...

The adaptations for carnivory or herbivory would be in response to the environment. The environment includes other members of a species, competitive species, prey species, and all the other biotic and abiotic components that impact a population.

I agree. I think that the authors of Genesis were describing an idealized state and interjecting their own ideas of what that means into the story, including very fanciful notions. It is a shame that only fragments of some of the oral tradition exist, pieced together in Genesis. It would be fascinating and useful to have had all of them captured in writing, for us to review and compare.

The reality is that the environment changes and evolution moves to optimize life to those changes with the materials on hand. Populations of herbivores would eventually over-produce and overwhelm their food supply leading to massive starvation and death. Without a mechanism for change or population regulation beyond famine, the cycle would likely just repeat over and over.

Israel Khan said:

So basically ToE is just leading us to where the evidence points whereas ID uses am assumption about the world to pick and choose what suits its agenda?

Ok. So ID was created specifically to debunk ToE?

I find the whole notion of teaching ID in schools very weird because it doesnt seem to be scientific at all.

Click to expand...

iD is just religion disguised as science or piggy-backed into a straw version of science. The movement uses it to get a specific version of religion taught at public expense. Debunking evolution is a part of it, but not all of it. Attempts have been made to claim evidence for God, but these have all failed. Irreducible complexity is a prominent failure.

Theory is derived from the evidence, while ID religion is preconceived and attempts to bend or break the evidence to fit.

Deeje said:

I came across this today....its a Flower Mantis.....beautifully designed to be camouflaged on the flowers it lives on.

Science would describe how this just evolved with no intelligent direction at all.

Believers would see an exquisitely crafted creature designed by an intelligent Creator to be invisible to predators but facilitating catching prey of its own.

This creature is as beautiful as the flowers that it walks on.....so what makes the most sense....deliberate and thoughtful creation....or just an accident of nature?

What about this one...

Who could imagine that such beauty could be hidden under a living leaf?

Or this guy who just perfectly blends in with his surroundings....?

How about a bit of floating seaweed?

Spot the owl...

Chameleons are just incredible...

Did nature just fluke these? Or was this camouflage clever and deliberate creation?

Click to expand...

Not ducks this time around?

Just Accidental?