O, there is lots to point to, but viewed through your lens, if it can't be explained within the parameters of "science" then it doesn't count.
I could point to the science of biomimetics and ask why scientists want to copy the ingenious things they see in "nature" (mostly for commercial applications) and use their own intelligence to duplicate them whilst assuming that the original had no designer. If it takes intelligent minds to copy those things, why is it assumed that the original is just a fortunate accident?
Mutation and selection have been shown to lead to solutions of problems that are close to optimal. Nature does this with living things. But we can do the same thing artificially with computer programs to find ways of solving problems, using random mutation and selection, that we cannot solve other ways. No 'design' is required.
What is published in the science journals is carefully vetted to make sure nothing disagrees with what science proffers as its truth. Peer review is a joke. The fox is guarding the hen house.
This is simply false. And I think it is the key tour claims. Ideas that are contrary to the 'default' are published all the time. Sometimes such ideas are convincing and become the new orthodoxy and other times they are not convincing and do not. This is exactly as it should be.
For example, When Stephen Gould found that certain stages of evolution can happen much faster than the orthodoxy believed, he presented the evidence for his position and it was published and discussed widely.
Now, one of the requirements for new ideas is that they *do* present evidence in support. And, truthfully, without that evidence, they should not get a hearing. And, truthfully, that includes almost all of the ID material presented. But, and this is important, the ideas do still get a hearing. If they manage to convince the scientists because of the weight of the evidence, then the ideas become the new orthodoxy.
A big part of my problem is that you think I have a problem.
I believe it is evolutionists who have a problem.
The difference is the the 'evolutionists' have the evidence to back up their assertions.
So I guess all that stuff on NASA's website is uniformly poor then?
No, but large parts are watered down and given artists impressions for the understanding of the public. The artists renditions are NOT the scientific claim.
Since it is the scientists who have explained things to the journalists, perhaps it is the scientists who are at fault? Or is it simply that the Emperor is naked annly think his garments are magnificent?
The fault is certainly joint. Unfortunately, scientists have ignored the education of the general public for way too long. By leaving it in the hands of the politicians and, truthfully, those with education degrees (which all too often show no real understanding of the underlying material), the overall level of science education in most countries is abysmal.
When I go to the doctor and he suggests that a surgical procedure is the best way to go about dealing with my problem, he gets a model or draws a diagram to show me what he is going to do. He needs no complicated medical details or terminology to explain the procedure.....if he spoke in those terms it would only confuse me. I see no difference with evolution. If you can't explain it simply, without the jargon, then I am suspicious of the baseline.
Which is why you get the pictures of evolution you complained about above. Do you want a technical description, with all the evidence, or do you want the diagrams that don't give the full story?
When you go to the doctor, the diagrams are NOT the medical research. Nor do they have the latest and most detailed description of what is going on. If they did, you would complain, I can guarantee, about it being over your head. But, when *exactly* the same thing is done in descriptions of evolution, you complain that it doesn't give enough detail. Sorry, but if you want details, you may have to learn some technical terminology.
But you don't?
Good grief. Who gave you the high ground here? Don't tell me, let me guess......?
I am biased towards testable theories that are backed by evidence.
O, but they do. The interpretation of their evidence is skewed towards their theory in every case. We can see the same evidence and reach an entirely different conclusion based on our bias. Just because it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe, doesn't automatically make you right and me, wrong. We each have a "belief", but you cannot accept that. You are not in a better position than me, you have just been convinced that you are by your own 'deities'. How are we different?
You have *not* looked at the evidence in detail. You have *not* learned the technical terminology or the basis for the conclusions made by the scientists.
But I don't hear scientists protesting about them...do you? They are useful for brainwashing children and the uneducated to accept science's viewpoint because the science gods are more intellectually superior to any Creator.....right?
Actually, I *do* hear complaints from the scientists about our horrible educational system. And not just from scientists, I might add. Too often, education is left in the hands of politicians, local communities, and educators that don't know what they are teaching. I actually had a conversation with a local educator that said, point blank, that a teacher doesn't need to know the mateiral they are teaching, only how to teach. I was appalled!
Each bump on the bones is an 'assumption' based on what they already expect to find.
And this is where you are simply wrong. Each 'bump' provides evidence of where muscles or ligaments were attached. The size gives evidence for the amount of force on the bones. You can get a lot of information by looking at the small details of a bone.
Since when does similarity mean relationship? An ear bone does not prove that a land animal became a whale.
Look around the animal kingdom and ask which animals have bones in the inner ear. Look to see what other characteristics those animals have. You will find that they are all warm blooded, they all have hair, and they all have a host of other distinguishing characteristics. if you look at the fossil record, you find the the bone characteristics of such animals started to show in certain lines (I can go into more detail if you want, but I suspect you will ignore it) and that those characteristics follow certain lines of change of the species through time.
Simple similarity doesn't prove relationship. But when you have a whole constellation of similarities that are all associated with only particular types of animals, it *does* show relationship. The whales *are* a type of mammal. They are related to certain hoofed animals, as shown not only by comarative anatomy, but by comparing genes and proteins.
The Intelligent Designer programmed all living things to adapt to a change of environment......end of story. There is not a single shred of evidence that macro-evolution is even possible using adaptation as a basis for the 'assumptions'.....because that is what they are....assumptions, based on nothing but the power of suggestion. "Could have"...."might have"....."leads us to the conclusion" is NOT the language of fact...it is the language of supposition based on pre-conceived notions.
But there is no reason to *assume* a limit to the changes involved, especially when mutation regenerates the variances in populations. So the adaptation continues to lead to changes that are larger over time. And that is *all* that macro-evolution is.
Yes, actually, this is the language of faxct and honesty. NO conclusion of science is absolute. In fact, scientists are *very* cautious about claiming absolute certainty in anything. And that is good and honest and right. They will say 'probably' when the evidence points to 99.99% likelihood. They will say 'suggests' when the evidence would hold up in any court. That is because they *know* that many specific conclusions could be changed *in detail* if new evidence is found. Even in physics, this is common. That you point to such words as 'weasel words' is showing exactly how much you don't understand scientific culture.
Since the intervening periods of many millions of years have yielded no fossils to demonstrate that a slow rate of evolution ever took place, you really can't say with any certainty what caused that situation to arise.
Again, you claim this, but it is simply false. We have very clear descriptions of the evolutionary changes in several lines, like horses, and yes, in hominids. The evidence for these is clear enough to show slow evolution, with diversification, and, at time, extinction. When you say no intermediate fossils have been found, you are simply lying.
It could have another explanation altogether. Guesswork is not based on anything solid. Your circumstantial evidence is actually very flimsy, but its made to appear to be convincing.....just good marketing really.
Wow. The evidence shows you to be wrong. But you think that science is more prone to this than, say, religion? What testing or evidence of reliigon can you provide? Answer: exactly none.
The evidence weighs very little when you really examine it minus the diagrams and suggestions. The truth viewed through our lens, points us in an opposite direction. Guess we will just have to wait and see....won't we?
Our road leads somewhere....where does your road lead?
Does it also increase the possibility that other planets are inhabited by beings like ourselves who are arguing over which bits of the planet's crust they own? Like fleas arguing over which part of the dog is theirs?
I know this is a rhetorical question and not a serious question. The chances of humans arguing on other planets is infinitesimally small. Even if there is life, the chances of an intelligent species is much, much lower. But yes, it increases the chances.
Or perhaps they have even more destructive weapons than we do and are looking for some other "Goldilocks" planet to call home, since they have all but destroyed theirs with the science they invented?
What does it matter if there is life on other worlds when we can't even live in peace on our own and are destroying it?
Some people simply want to know if we are alone in the universe. Yes, we still have to solve our own problems on this planet. Your point? That we shouldn't pursue such knowledge at all?
If there is an Intelligent Creator, then I believe that he had to start somewhere and I think that this planet is his starting point. Getting the issues of free will sorted before beginning life elsewhere makes so much more sense than life being an accidental thing that might arrive elsewhere all by itself.
We are designed to have purpose in our lives and we seek it like no other creature. We alone possess the moral qualities of our Creator, even though free will can make us ignore them. Life lessons are not for nothing.
Thank you for your opinion.Now, to be taken seriously, provide evidence.
I can suggest a lot of things too but they would hold no weight with those who adhere to the ones that science makes. We can all choose what we want to believe.
