Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Subduction Zone]

A great many hypotheses called the theory of evolution are testable and have been "proven" by experiment. But much of it is not testable and have not been shown. They are accepted because they are a logical explanation for observed facts. This especially applies to the concept of gradual change through natural selection. I'm saying this does not exist in most instances and is not the basis of most change in species.

You keep making claims but you cannot be specific. What parts of the theory do you think cannot be tested? You make claims but you cannot support them. That implies there is nothing to your complaint.

 

[cladking]

You keep making claims but you cannot be specific. What parts of the theory do you think cannot be tested? You make claims but you cannot support them. That implies there is nothing to your complaint.

You are simply ignoring the evidence because it doesn't match your beliefs.

Again; natural selection says species change is slow but ALL OBSERVED CHANGE IN ALL LIFE AT ALL LEVELS IS ALMOST ALWAYS SUDDEN.

If you view reality from the perspective of such a sudden change then more things become visible and, to my knowledge, it is supported by all experiment. No experiment contradicts the hypothesis that all change is sudden. "All" observation supports the hypothesis that all change is sudden.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are simply ignoring the evidence because it doesn't match your beliefs.

Again; natural selection says species change is slow but ALL OBSERVED CHANGE IN ALL LIFE AT ALL LEVELS IS ALMOST ALWAYS SUDDEN.

If you view reality from the perspective of such a sudden change then more things become visible and, to my knowledge, it is supported by all experiment. No experiment contradicts the hypothesis that all change is sudden. "All" observation supports the hypothesis that all change is sudden.

I am waiting for the supporting evidence. All you have given are unsupported claims to date. Please support your claims with valid sources.

By the way, you do know there is a big difference between "geologically sudden" and sudden on a biological time scale, don't you? I hope that is not your error.

 

[cladking]

I am waiting for the supporting evidence. All you have given are unsupported claims to date. Please support your claims with valid sources.

By the way, you do know there is a big difference between "geologically sudden" and sudden on a biological time scale, don't you? I hope that is not your error.

ALL valid sources support my contention. You need to show anything that doesn't.

You could show something like rabbits slowly changing from one stratum to the next. I'm pretty sure there's not much out there to support your belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ALL valid sources support my contention. You need to show anything that doesn't.

You could show something like rabbits slowly changing from one stratum to the next. I'm pretty sure there's not much out there to support your belief.

If that was the case you would have linked them by now. When you can't support your claims after evidence was demanded it tells us that you can't support your claims.

By the way, you do not understand fossilization, you need to learn how to make logical demands. But then if you do not understand the sciences involved you will not be able to do so.

 

[metis]

You could show something like rabbits slowly changing from one stratum to the next.

Maybe check here: Fossil of Oldest Rabbit Relative Found

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe check here: Fossil of Oldest Rabbit Relative Found

It won't do any good. He has false expectations of what can be found in the fossil record. Land based fossilization is a very rare event. Though with hundreds of millions of years we still have countless fossils that can be found, but what is not found is the strata by strata record that he seems to think is reasonable. That was never expected to be the case. But in sea life we can see such examples. There are examples of several microfauna whose evolution can be documented step by step, but then he will make another lame excuse for that.

Right now he is making claims and running away when evidence is demanded for his claims.

 

[metis]

It won't do any good. He has false expectations of what can be found in the fossil record. Land based fossilization is a very rare event. Though with hundreds of millions of years we still have countless fossils that can be found, but what is not found is the strata by strata record that he seems to think is reasonable. That was never expected to be the case. But in sea life we can see such examples. There are examples of several microfauna whose evolution can be documented step by step, but then he will make another lame excuse for that.

Right now he is making claims and running away when evidence is demanded for his claims.

Ya, I've been dealing with this kind of stuff for about 50 years now. Gotta tell ya a true story.

As you may remember, I taught an Introduction to Anthropology class for roughly 30 years, and at the beginning of each semester I had my students take a confidential questionaire asking them if they believed in evolution, didn't believe in it, or didn't know/had no opinion. The results overall came back around 1/3 for each response.

Then I asked them at the end of the semester in the same survey mixed on with a course evaluation what they thought, and after all those years only one student checked that (s)he didn't believe.

Now, either I'm the world's best salesman or the evidence speaks for itself, and it ain't the former, let me tell ya.

 

[cladking]

Maybe check here: Fossil of Oldest Rabbit Relative Found

You aren't looking for evidence that species change.

You need evidence that species change gradually.

 

[cladking]

It won't do any good. He has false expectations of what can be found in the fossil record. Land based fossilization is a very rare event. Though with hundreds of millions of years we still have countless fossils that can be found, but what is not found is the strata by strata record that he seems to think is reasonable. That was never expected to be the case. But in sea life we can see such examples. There are examples of several microfauna whose evolution can be documented step by step, but then he will make another lame excuse for that.

Right now he is making claims and running away when evidence is demanded for his claims.

I've presented extensive evidence of my claims and have more. But it's all been ignored and it will continue to be ignored.

You need evidence I'm wrong and you can't find it probably because I'm right.

 

[Deeje]

Ya, I've been dealing with this kind of stuff for about 50 years now. Gotta tell ya a true story.

As you may remember, I taught an Introduction to Anthropology class for roughly 30 years, and at the beginning of each semester I had my students take a confidential questionaire asking them if they believed in evolution, didn't believe in it, or didn't know/had no opinion. The results overall came back around 1/3 for each response.

Then I asked them at the end of the semester in the same survey mixed on with a course evaluation what they thought, and after all those years only one student checked that (s)he didn't believe.

Now, either I'm the world's best salesman or the evidence speaks for itself, and it ain't the former, let me tell ya.

Metis, if you present a story to anyone that has convincing arguments, (the argument doesn't even have to be true) made by the right people, you can basically sell anything to anyone. The commercial system operates its advertising on that principle. They have proven that people will accept that information because they have been led to trust the people who promote it (celebrities or "experts" are often used). Science is no different. They know how to sell a product for which no real evidence exists. Theories and hypotheses are not facts....they are unprovable ideas, sold by 'science celebrities' as substantive truth. Who could stand against such people in the hallowed halls of academia, when ridicule is then used to make 'unbelievers' sorry that they ever questioned the so called evidence (which of course, is interpreted by scientists to support their theory)

Derision is used to make any 'unbeliever' withdraw into a silent corner. Not many real questioners of the ToE can survive in that hostile environment.....so they either courageously withstand the character assassination (like 'a voice crying out in the wilderness')......they remain silent......or they leave.

Science has been elevated to the status of a 'religion' for some people....a convenient substitute for belief in a God who created everything. They have been led to believe that only the uneducated would believe such a fairy tale...right? The posters on these boards often use derision to paint their opponents as uneducated morons. Truth is sacrificed in the process.

When science can be backed up by real evidence, it is beneficial....but when you have this branch of science, that does not have substantive evidence (that it hasn't forced to fit their theory,) then you have speculation and suggestion masquerading as fact that has been sold to a gullible public who, it appears, want to ditch God anyway. Egos like Dawkins or Coyne elevate themselves and their ideas with liberal helpings of derision for any who dare to question their 'evidence'.

What allows me see things so clearly is that the Bible foretold all of this as evidence that this system of things is in its death throes.
The world is collapsing politically, financially, and religiously. We are watching it implode right before our eyes. For those who believe the Bible, there is hope beyond the disaster.....but for those who put their faith in man....it will not end well.

We choose what to believe and who to trust. Just remember that the work of a good con artist is not apparent until after they have carried out their deception. Too late once the deception has achieved its purpose. The victims are left devastated, wondering how it happened. I believe that God has exposed the fraud and the con artist, as well as ample warning of the deceiver's MO. We only fall for it if we stop believing the warning.

I only hope that those who haven't given up on God will see things for what they really are.

 

[cladking]

Ya, I've been dealing with this kind of stuff for about 50 years now. Gotta tell ya a true story.

As you may remember, I taught an Introduction to Anthropology class for roughly 30 years, and at the beginning of each semester I had my students take a confidential questionaire asking them if they believed in evolution, didn't believe in it, or didn't know/had no opinion. The results overall came back around 1/3 for each response.

Then I asked them at the end of the semester in the same survey mixed on with a course evaluation what they thought, and after all those years only one student checked that (s)he didn't believe.

Now, either I'm the world's best salesman or the evidence speaks for itself, and it ain't the former, let me tell ya.

I don't believe in evolution and never really did. Species change is an observed fact, however.

But again, I'm not talking about species change so much as its cause and the effect of that cause on how we view religion and science.

I am the world's worst salesman. I couldn't give a bucket of water to a burning man if I threw in a wet blanket and first aid kit.

 

[cladking]

Metis, if you present a story to anyone that has convincing arguments, (the argument doesn't even have to be true) made by the right people, you can basically sell anything to anyone. The commercial system operates its advertising on that principle. They have proven that people will accept that information because they have been led to trust the people who promote it (celebrities or "experts" are often used). Science is no different. They know how to sell a product for which no real evidence exists. Theories and hypotheses are not facts....they are unprovable ideas, sold by 'science celebrities' as substantive truth. Who could stand against such people in the hallowed halls of academia, when ridicule is then used to make 'unbelievers' sorry that they ever questioned the so called evidence (which of course, is interpreted by scientists to support their theory)

Derision is used to make any 'unbeliever' withdraw into a silent corner. Not many real questioners of the ToE can survive in that hostile environment.....so they either courageously withstand the character assassination (like 'a voice crying out in the wilderness')......they remain silent......or they leave.

Science has been elevated to the status of a 'religion' for some people....a convenient substitute for belief in a God who created everything. They have been led to believe that only the uneducated would believe such a fairy tale...right? The posters on these boards often use derision to paint their opponents as uneducated morons. Truth is sacrificed in the process.

When science can be backed up by real evidence, it is beneficial....but when you have this branch of science, that does not have substantive evidence (that it hasn't forced to fit their theory,) then you have speculation and suggestion masquerading as fact that has been sold to a gullible public who, it appears, want to ditch God anyway. Egos like Dawkins or Coyne elevate themselves and their ideas with liberal helpings of derision for any who dare to question their 'evidence'.

What allows me see things so clearly is that the Bible foretold all of this as evidence that this system of things is in its death throes.
The world is collapsing politically, financially, and religiously. We are watching it implode right before our eyes. For those who believe the Bible, there is hope beyond the disaster.....but for those who put their faith in man....it will not end well.

We choose what to believe and who to trust. Just remember that the work of a good con artist is not apparent until after they have carried out their deception. Too late once the deception has achieved its purpose. The victims are left devastated, wondering how it happened. I believe that God has exposed the fraud and the con artist, as well as ample warning of the deceiver's MO. We only fall for it if we stop believing the warning.

I only hope that those who haven't given up on God will see things for what they really are.

I Corinthians 14 is my favorite. Of course Revelations and Genesis are also among my favorites. I'm not and never have been a religious man but I find increasingly more agreement with religion than with what now days passes as science. I see the world eating itself and an economy based in waste and greed that borrows everything from the future leaving nothing for our children.

In many ways I have more in common with religion than science since at least religion doesn't claim to know everything and puts its faith in God. While I have no such faith it's much easier to put myself among those who don't know.

I'm less pessimistic though since I expect the meek to wake up and take back the earth that was always ours.

 

[Deeje]

I Corinthians 14 is my favorite.

Particularly these verses I find very applicable in these conversations.....

"For if the trumpet sounds an indistinct call, who will get ready for battle? 9 In the same way, unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air. 10 It may be that there are many kinds of speech in the world, and yet no kind is without meaning. 11 For if I do not understand the sense of the speech, I will be a foreigner to the one speaking, and the one speaking will be a foreigner to me. "

Nowhere is this more apparent than on Bible debate sites and conversations between believers and atheists.

Of course Revelations and Genesis are also among my favorites.

Mine too. Genesis explains how we got into this mess and Revelation is the fulfillment of how God gets us out of it. Its not rocket science but the simplicity is what often stumbles the intellectuals who trust in the theories of others. Jesus never chose intellectuals as his apostles. He chose humble fishermen, a tax collector and a tentmaker.

I'm not and never have been a religious man but I find increasingly more agreement with religion than with what now days passes as science. I see the world eating itself and an economy based in waste and greed that borrows everything from the future leaving nothing for our children.

I don't think God wants us to be "religious". I see Pharisees when I hear that word. I think God wants us to be "spiritual" which I see as a completely different kettle of fish. He wants obedient and appreciative children not independent rebels.

Humans were given rulership of themselves because they thought independence from God was a good idea. Only one way to prove them wrong.....let them see the full consequences of their own actions (even predict them) and then say..."see, I told you so". Object lessons have way more impact than just words.

Human rulership of this earth is at the bottom of all our troubles.....but its who is controlling them that is the main subject of the Bible's narrative. This whole object lesson is about listening to the real God and not the pretender. We are all taking sides whether we realize it or not.

In many ways I have more in common with religion than science since at least religion doesn't claim to know everything and puts its faith in God. While I have no such faith it's much easier to put myself among those who don't know.

I like to separate religion from the Bible. Religion has skewed the Bible's message all out of shape. Its a simple message with a logical outcome but most people are not listening.

Science and the Bible are quite compatible if you meet somewhere in the middle. Then you don't have to sacrifice one for the other. I am not advocating that evolution was the method God used in creation, but rather that YEC and atheistic evolution are at opposite ends of a very long pole. In the middle there is a reasonable answer to all our questions.

I'm less pessimistic though since I expect the meek to wake up and take back the earth that was always ours.

Didn't Jesus say that "the meek shall inherit the earth"? These "meek" ones are not the same as the ones Jesus also mentioned in Matthew 5.....those "pure in heart" who would "see God". The Bible speaks of those who will rule with Christ in heaven in a government (God's Kingdom) that is incorruptible...and that these would have earthly subjects because God intended that the earth be man's permanent home in the beginning. (Isaiah 55:11)

There were lessons to be learned about how "free" free will actually is....and here we are I believe, nearing the end of the exercise. It will all end exactly how God said it would. Rather than being fearful of what man is doing, I am quite excited about what God is doing. What about you?

 

[Deeje]

Maybe check here: Fossil of Oldest Rabbit Relative Found

Oh, c'mon metis. You can't be serious.

"Tiny foot bones from a 53 million-year-old rabbit ancestor represent the oldest known record of hippity-hoppity mammals and their closest evolutionary relations, according to a new study.


The ankle and heel bones were discovered in a coal mine in Gujarat, in west-central India, and recently found by a team of paleontologists to belong to the Lagomorpha, a classification of mammals that includes modern-day rabbits, hares and pikas (pikas are hamster-sized rabbit cousins).

"This is 35 million years older than anything that's ever been called a lagomorph on India, totally unexpected," said lead researcher Kenneth Rose, a professor in the Center for Functional Anatomy and Evolution at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. "Undoubtedly it's a new species; undoubtedly it's a new genus; it could even be a new family."

"Undoubledly, it could be" anything science wants to believe it is. Hilarious!

"Look I found some small foot bones in a cave in India and undoubtedly it belongs to the same family as rabbits and hares". SMH

So 35 million years ago, rabbits were still basically.....rabbits?

"Past evidence suggested the two lagomorph families had diverged some 35 million years ago."

What past "evidence" is this, and who knows what actually happened to any species of any creature that lived 35 million years ago?

"These foot bones look more like cottontail [rabbit] foot bones," Rose told LiveScience. "They're from some more specialized, little running, jumping lagomorph."

Rose added, "Most likely, the lagomorphs originated somewhere in Central Asia and dispersed, and a small rabbit-like form got down to India quite early, around the time of the collision of India with Asia."

Seriously.....do you really believe this stuff?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've presented extensive evidence of my claims and have more. But it's all been ignored and it will continue to be ignored.

You need evidence I'm wrong and you can't find it probably because I'm right.

I have not seen any such evidence and I have requested the supposed evidence several times.

You do not seem to understand that you placed the burden of proof upon yourself. By not supporting your claims you effectively refute yourself.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Metis, if you present a story to anyone that has convincing arguments, (the argument doesn't even have to be true) made by the right people, you can basically sell anything to anyone.

Yes, we all know this, and it is why we have so many different religions. The appeal for one is greater than the appeal for another, but where an inbuilt desire to believe something just gets in the way of being dispassionate and honest with all the evidence presented - but not for many of us.

 

[Deeje]

Yes, we all know this, and it is why we have so many different religions. The appeal for one is greater than the appeal for another, but where an inbuilt desire to believe something just gets in the way of being dispassionate and honest with all the evidence presented - but not for many of us.

You might not think there is evidence for an Intelligent Creator...but the evidence is not there for macro-evolution either. So as far as I can see, you have a belief system just like I have.

The "evidence presented" for macro-evolution is purely suggestion, not verifiable facts. You might think science has proof for its theory but I assure you it has nothing concrete. It requires as much, if not more faith to accept that this world and its inhabitants are here due to an endless succession of unplanned accidents, than it does to believe that we are here by design.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You might not think there is evidence for an Intelligent Creator...but the evidence is not there for macro-evolution either. So as far as I can see, you have a belief system just like I have.

The "evidence presented" for macro-evolution is purely suggestion, not verifiable facts. You might think science has proof for its theory but I assure you it has nothing concrete. It requires as much, if not more faith to accept that this world and its inhabitants are here due to an endless succession of unplanned accidents, than it does to believe that we are here by design.

Doesn't matter what I believe concerning such things, but I'd sooner believe what my eyes tend to tell me than what someone has written long ago when they had a hundredth or less of the knowledge we have today.

 

[ArtieE]

You might not think there is evidence for an Intelligent Creator...but the evidence is not there for macro-evolution either. So as far as I can see, you have a belief system just like I have.

The "evidence presented" for macro-evolution is purely suggestion, not verifiable facts. You might think science has proof for its theory but I assure you it has nothing concrete. It requires as much, if not more faith to accept that this world and its inhabitants are here due to an endless succession of unplanned accidents, than it does to believe that we are here by design.

Of course I was personally designed and created by a god. The chances of me existing by chance are basically zero. The Odds Of You Being Alive Are Incredibly Small