You are no better than YEC proponents Deeje and just as useless. There's no difference between them and you. All you do is talk down on evolution while contributing nothing of value yourself just like they do. So you have a theory about the existence of some creator. Now draw up a plan how science should proceed to prove your theory. And please come up with something better than "scientists should just believe the Bible".YEC proponents should be ignored and so should those who push the unprovable theory of macroevolution. I believe that there is somewhere in the middle of those two where the truth is to be found. You are free to believe whatever you like.
-
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!
Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
Well, this is no different than standard evolutionary science. What you are describing is a selective sweep.
Selective sweep - Wikipedia
I didn't ask you to define "belief"...I asked you what "faith" means? Both your beliefs and mine require "faith" because neither of us can "prove" that what we believe is true. We both have to take the word of someone we trust to tell us the truth. That is faith.
Human relationships are so much more complex than any in the animal kingdom. We have less in the way of instinct and more in the way of an analytical approach to relationships. We employ 'chemistry' but also we have to evaluate the character of a prospective mate in a conscious way. Attraction can be just physical, but a successful relationship involves many other factors. Our attraction to another human cannot be based on superficial things. Relationships of that nature fail. Survival and procreation are only a part of what drives us.
Who said? Why does no other creature have a "big brain" that allows them to do what we do? We are the newcomers and they have been here way longer than us.....so please explain this.
The ability to think and to create things consciously, to plan activities and outcomes based on imagination of the future rather than memories of the past....that is what we have that animals do not. Not having a concept of the future means that animals do not plan what they will do next week or next year. They may plan what they will do in the next few minutes....but long term repeat behaviors like migration, are due to programmed instinct.
We do not deal with death the way the majority of the animal kingdom do. Survival instincts involve fight or flight responses to give prey a fighting chance....I do not believe that they have a concept of their own demise.
Really? Are you just taking wild guesses now?
Animals have no awareness of themselves dying. They have no concept of the future, only of the present, and their instinct for survival may not save them from being eaten tomorrow, even if they escaped being eaten today.
Wild guess again?
You must really have very low expectations of your kind. With all that intellect, creativity and ability to envision the future, he can still wipe out all life in a nuclear war or by polluting the planet to death....How smart are the people you are relying on for your future? How much has science contributed to the current state of affairs?
What questions can science really address if it can't even tell you how life began? The Bible leaves no unanswered questions....I know because I asked them all.
Tell me what questions it cannot answer?
Its not up to me at all. Its up to every living human being on this planet to find the answers for themselves.
If there is no Creator and this universe and all that is in it is just an infinite series of fortunate accidents, then how would anyone really know? All you have are the musings of scientists who make wild guesses about what "might have" or "could have" taken place at a time when no one was there to tell us about any of it....except the Creator...and you want to ignore the only eye witness there was.
The Bible tells us all we need to know.....how the universe appeared...where life came from...what life means and where we are headed. Can science do that? You have no more real provable answers than I do.
You may think so....I don't. The earth is not new and neither are the lifeforms that preceded us. The creative "days" were not 24 hour periods. Creation took eons of time.
What makes you think that man-made science is the best yardstick to measure anything?
If you cannot prove science's theory, what makes you condemn ID as if your position is superior? Science is your religion.....it isn't mine. I believe that I have way more evidence for a purposeful Creator than you have for your accidental process of evolution.
You really believe that amoebas turned into dinosaurs....? And that dinosaurs morphed into chickens....?
And you think a Creator is a fairy story....?
Seriously?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
They clearly just defined faith, not belief.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
How is believing amoebas evolved into dinosaurs over millions of years and countless generations any more ridiculous than believing a fully grown, adult human can form from just a couple of cells over a period of less than 20 years?
cladking
Well-Known Member
Not exactly.
I'm suggesting that the ability to survive usually has nothing to do with the individual having the "right" genes to adapt, run fast, or outthink other individuals. Rather that the cause of most of a species dying has to do with a change in the environment that "punishes" specific behavior normal to that species. Hence the few survivors exhibit a different behavior and they breed a new species because behavior is largely determined by their "different genes".
Of course the thing that kills off most of the species can sometimes be the result of chance, intent, or based directly on genes rather than on behavior.
I believe this is hard to see because we think in terms of "rabbits" rather than fluffy tailed individuals which share a set of characteristics and can interbreed. There's no such thing as "rabbits", only a bunch of individuals. These individuals each have different genes and different behaviors. We are missing trees for the forest and the forest for the trees.
Thanks for the terminology. I hadn't seen it before.
It's mathematically identical. Fitness is defined as the differential survival rate between heritable phenotype variants. You can construe it anyway you like.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
If you're trying to convince others, like on a debate forum, you're going to need more than just your personal feelings on the matter.The evidence for my God is all around us. I personally don't need more. I see purpose in all facets of creation and symbiosis in the systems that all interplay in the ecology. You see it all as a gigantic fluke.....no, you actually see it as an incredible series of billions of fortunate accidents. You can believe that if you like but logic dictates to me that purpose requires intelligence and intelligence requires that there is a mind in possession of that intelligence. Who says God can't exist?
Science cannot disprove the existence an all-powerful Creator so its really about what makes more logical sense to the individual.
YEC proponents should be ignored and so should those who push the unprovable theory of macroevolution. I believe that there is somewhere in the middle of those two where the truth is to be found. You are free to believe whatever you like.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Have you never owned a dog? I say this because if you had, you would realize that what you are saying about animals is totally inaccurate.I didn't ask you to define "belief"...I asked you what "faith" means? Both your beliefs and mine require "faith" because neither of us can "prove" that what we believe is true. We both have to take the word of someone we trust to tell us the truth. That is faith.
Human relationships are so much more complex than any in the animal kingdom. We have less in the way of instinct and more in the way of an analytical approach to relationships. We employ 'chemistry' but also we have to evaluate the character of a prospective mate in a conscious way. Attraction can be just physical, but a successful relationship involves many other factors. Our attraction to another human cannot be based on superficial things. Relationships of that nature fail. Survival and procreation are only a part of what drives us.
Who said? Why does no other creature have a "big brain" that allows them to do what we do? We are the newcomers and they have been here way longer than us.....so please explain this.
The ability to think and to create things consciously, to plan activities and outcomes based on imagination of the future rather than memories of the past....that is what we have that animals do not. Not having a concept of the future means that animals do not plan what they will do next week or next year. They may plan what they will do in the next few minutes....but long term repeat behaviors like migration, are due to programmed instinct.
We do not deal with death the way the majority of the animal kingdom do. Survival instincts involve fight or flight responses to give prey a fighting chance....I do not believe that they have a concept of their own demise.
Really? Are you just taking wild guesses now?
Animals have no awareness of themselves dying. They have no concept of the future, only of the present, and their instinct for survival may not save them from being eaten tomorrow, even if they escaped being eaten today.
Wild guess again?
You must really have very low expectations of your kind. With all that intellect, creativity and ability to envision the future, he can still wipe out all life in a nuclear war or by polluting the planet to death....How smart are the people you are relying on for your future? How much has science contributed to the current state of affairs?
What questions can science really address if it can't even tell you how life began? The Bible leaves no unanswered questions....I know because I asked them all.
Tell me what questions it cannot answer?
Its not up to me at all. Its up to every living human being on this planet to find the answers for themselves.
If there is no Creator and this universe and all that is in it is just an infinite series of fortunate accidents, then how would anyone really know? All you have are the musings of scientists who make wild guesses about what "might have" or "could have" taken place at a time when no one was there to tell us about any of it....except the Creator...and you want to ignore the only eye witness there was.
The Bible tells us all we need to know.....how the universe appeared...where life came from...what life means and where we are headed. Can science do that? You have no more real provable answers than I do.
You may think so....I don't. The earth is not new and neither are the lifeforms that preceded us. The creative "days" were not 24 hour periods. Creation took eons of time.
What makes you think that man-made science is the best yardstick to measure anything?
If you cannot prove science's theory, what makes you condemn ID as if your position is superior? Science is your religion.....it isn't mine. I believe that I have way more evidence for a purposeful Creator than you have for your accidental process of evolution.
You really believe that amoebas turned into dinosaurs....? And that dinosaurs morphed into chickens....?
And you think a Creator is a fairy story....?
I'm sorry to say, but you are woefully ignorant about the animal kingdom. I would encourage you to educate yourself much more on the subject. This isn't the first time I've seen you say such things. In the past I have tried to correct you on specifics, but you keep repeating the same things anyway. So this time I encourage you to do some major research.
The evidence for my God is all around us. I personally don't need more. I see purpose in all facets of creation and symbiosis in the systems that all interplay in the ecology. You see it all as a gigantic fluke.....no, you actually see it as an incredible series of billions of fortunate accidents. You can believe that if you like but logic dictates to me that purpose requires intelligence and intelligence requires that there is a mind in possession of that intelligence. Who says God can't exist?
Science cannot disprove the existence an all-powerful Creator so its really about what makes more logical sense to the individual.
YEC proponents should be ignored and so should those who push the unprovable theory of macroevolution. I believe that there is somewhere in the middle of those two where the truth is to be found. You are free to believe whatever you like.
You never answered my question - what exactly do you see in this video?
syo
Well-Known Member
Lilith is the first woman. she was created like Adam.
Faith is a kind of belief where people believe in things without sufficient evidence or even contrary to the evidence.
Except I don't "believe" in evolution. It's just the best theory we have for the moment. I don't "believe" life on earth was genetically engineered by aliens either. That is another theory. You are the one going around obsessed with "believing" stuff.
Because they didn't evolve one.
They didn't change in such a way that they evolved bigger brains. We did.
What would our future look like if there were only JWs in the world? How smart are you? How would our future look like if the world was only populated with people like you?
Aren't you supposed to be a JW Deeje? Here it clearly states: "We respect the achievements of science and believe in scientific findings that are supported by evidence." How Do Jehovah’s Witnesses View Science? You don't sound much respectful to me...
OK. Start with this one: Why would your god exist in the first place? What is the reason for the existence of your god?What questions can science really address if it can't even tell you how life began? The Bible leaves no unanswered questions....I know because I asked them all.
Coming from somebody who doesn't appear to have found a single answer for herself but seems to have found them all in the Bible...
First you say "Its up to every living human being on this planet to find the answers for themselves" and now you say that the Bible spoonfeeds you all the answers. Make up your mind...
Members of my family live elsewhere and they own a male cat called Lilith. I think it was named before anybody thought to check the gender and discovered it was a male. It is a well adjusted cat though and doesn't appear to have suffered the same problems as the unfortunate individual in the song "A Boy Named Sue".
Audie
Veteran Member
There is a common mentality among cxreationists
that they must never be, cannot be, wrong about
anything. Cannot allow it, even on minor points that do not affect their larger argument.
The same people tend to also believe they have the gift of infallible bible readin'.
A researcher of course, needs to be prepared to learn, to be wrong about anything they thought they knew, and embrace it when a correction comes along.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
That certainly appears to be the case here. I mean, I know it's difficult to admit when you've been wrong about a thing, but to me it's much more embarrassing to keep believing and repeating obvious falsehoods. Also, you never learn anything that way.
I couldn't agree more. This is what I strive for. I never want to stop growing and learning.
Audie
Veteran Member
No one who talks down on evolution can do so via some sort of facts that contradict ToE.
That is how many a theory has been disproved.
ToE is there, the Nobel prize is there! Disprove ToE
and be noted as possibly not just the greatest scientist of all time, but the one who ushered in a vast world wide turn to God.
We tap our toes in impatience for one of our creationists to produce.
It should be easy, if it is wrong, its wrong, and the
clues should be everywhere.
Audie
Veteran Member
As a kid, Mom told me I should learn to be pleased when I am wrong! I am learning, and, reality is so much more interesting than any mistaken ideas.
I wonder what happens to people, when they complete that hard brittle shell of certainty around themselves,
and dare not risk the merest crack in its structure.
How can someone do that to themselves?
cladking
Well-Known Member
But your interpretation of experiment can't be wrong or seen from the wrong perspective. You don't need to be able to see that man created agriculture through selection of appropriate behaviors. We didn't take the smaller, weaker, less adaptive individuals to breed, we used the ones that exhibited the meekest behavior. Just because we don't know what killed off most of some species in the past doesn't mean the strongest survived. The ones with the "proper" behavior survived.
You don't need to see that this is the very foundation of life and that consciousness is its mechanism because science has given you all the answers.
Audie
Veteran Member
You did need to ignore the first part of my post* in order to think you are making any sense at all if you are speaking about me. "Science..all answers"? Blather!
As for "strongest", no. Whoever said that? It makes no sense, it is a strawman or a complete misunderstanding on your part.
If that were t he case we'd still have good ol' T rex about. Sabre tooth cats and terror birds. No tiny blind cave salamanders. You know? So does everyone else.
"Behaviour" and morphology go together, much of the time.
I cant be just one or the other.
And if behaviour were the only thing that changed, evolution would not
have advanced to the trilobite stage.
*As a kid, Mom told me I should learn to be pleased when I am wrong! I am learning, and, reality is so much more interesting than any mistaken ideas.
cladking
Well-Known Member
You say you might be pleased to be wrong but you don't seem to countenance that possibility. The reality is you are accepting the status quo. Perhaps the status quo is correct in this instance but that doesn't explain why you won't address arguments against it.
Ultimately the issue here is that in most cases where we know what changed a species it resulted from "natural or unnatural selection of behavior" and had nothing whatsoever to do with "survival of the fittest".
I maintain we can't see the obvious because of existing beliefs imparted by language. Meanwhile religion seems to have the right take on things; behavior is paramount. That consciousness confers survivability rather than strength, speed, or intelligence should be obvious even to we humans whom are devolving. That there could be a creator and that this Creator might be conscious certainly can't be disproven by any of the tiny amount known by science at this time. And still everyone seems to enjoy an holier than thou attitude and sit at the very crown of creation.