Of course I don't think it is impossible. I bake and I cook!
-
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!
Just Accidental?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
- Status
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
No, you have the wrong paper. The one I cited was with Saccharomyces cerevisiae (yeast).
Experimental evolution of multicellularity
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
You say that even though you've never actually looked at the data or how scientists have interpreted it.
You say that without any awareness of just how ridiculous it makes you look.
Then to completely your obliviousness, you say...
It's not that you believe in a creator than makes you seem "brainless"; it's your behavior. Specifically, it's your delusion in thinking that you don't need to even look at or understand something before you can critique it.
I have looked at a lot of articles presented to me as proof that evolution is a foregone conclusion......I just don't believe their interpretation of the evidence. I hope you understand that difference.
Would I read scientific papers in language I don't understand? Why would I even try? Would I ask you to read the Bible in Hebrew if that was not a language that you understood? We have translations for that purpose. Science has 'translators' too so that those of us who are not familiar with the language can understand what science is implying. Those I have read.
To whom do I look ridiculous? Scientists? I am well aware of the ego component involved in the world of academia. Who wants to look foolish to one's peers? Character assassination is the penalty one pays for disagreeing with academics. Condescension is a powerful weapon when human egos are the judges of what is right.
Do you actually think at this juncture that I care what any man thinks of me? Personally, I care more about what the Creator thinks of me. And his explanation of events requires much less imagination and tap dancing with fancy jargon than evolutionary science's version of events. I think it actually takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in an Intelligent Designer.
It is people like you who put science on a pedestal, not me. Evolutionary science is like a lot of other academic pursuits in this world.....it is a counterfeit substitute for making men feel superior. Once humans feel that they are the most intelligent creatures in existence, who can be their god? They have attained that status for themselves in their own minds, which would explain their collective lack of humility for the most part.
I can understand anyone who might be turned off by religion, some of the practices of which fill me with horror, but that does not make me throw the baby out with the bath water. I accept what the Bible teaches, not necessarily what humans teach about it. If the Bible says it, I believe it, but it's done with study of the subject matter. You appear to take the same approach to science....pointing to all this so-called "evidence" that science claims to have. The evidence means nothing without the interpretation....just like the Bible. If the interpretation is wrong, then everything built on it will be wrong as well.
As I said, I have looked at plenty of evidence presented to me by many people like yourself....I do not see what you see.....I see the language of wishful thinking in trying to blend fact with fantasy. The diagrams and the computer generated images carry the suggestion so much better than words ever could.
Your beliefs are in many ways like my own, except that we have different teachers. You accept what your teachers tell you because you accept their interpretation of the "evidence" that is written up in science journals etc. But what you don't see is your blind acceptance of what science can never prove. It can sound convincing enough, but if you have become inured to the language, you won't even see how much suggestion is contained in that literature. A suggestion is not a fact....a prediction is not a fact either, unless you can prove that it came true. Assuming that it did is not the same....saying that something "might have" or "could have" happened is NOT the same as saying that it "must have"......even you must understand that much.
I just want to point out, that deception is not only found among some theists wanting to prove their beliefs, but also among those promoting materialism. When that deception is proven, if it's willful, all credibility is lost. Everything that is presented from then on, should be considered suspect.
Was the following done willfully by the publishers, or by those providing the evidence? It's a shame that an a-priori commitment to some belief would cause one (or several) to skew the truth!
Was the following done willfully by the publishers, or by those providing the evidence? It's a shame that an a-priori commitment to some belief would cause one (or several) to skew the truth!
Thank you for reposting that for me. I found the full text quite interesting.
No, it simply makes them varieties of the same family that are, for chemical or cosmetic reasons, no longer attractive as a mate.
It's what keeps all the fish species in the oceans remaining true to their "kind".....or the birds and insects from mating with other birds and insects that are not instinctively recognised by them for reproduction. Nature tells us what a "kind" is.....and what is selected within that kind to reproduce with....otherwise we would have some mighty strange and confused creatures out there, half of one species and half of another......when humans artificially breed such creatures, (mules, ligers, zonkeys) they are invariably sterile, making reproduction impossible. Nature takes care of itself in that respect.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
As one who's been in both scientific and theological camps for some 50 years now, I find the "ego" factor much more so in the latter.
I don't know how many times I've been told that I'm going to hell so often that I've gotten used to it to the point whereas I'm sorta looking forward to the trip. All to often I see an attitude much like "Look at me, I'm saved, you poor unbelieving schmuck!". By and large, you don't see this in science.
Scientists may strongly attack a concept they don't agree with versus the scientist with that concept, whereas so many theists attack anyone not of their faith. Maybe you should reconsider that you wrote above.
See above, and character assassination is rarely seen in science even though concept assassination is pretty common, but it's almost never to the point with the latter whereas it leads to suppression. We well know that too many times yesterday's lunacy is today's reality.
I have to admit that this is a pretty "interesting" statement coming from a theist.
With myriads upon myriads of different religions and denominations, along without any ability whatsoever to prove one's cause, it's even less fragile than a house of cards. They all can't be right, and it's virtually impossible to prove any of them wrong, and yet you actually think that scientific evidence is "fantasy"? I think you're gonna find that to be a hard sell to anyone who knows and understands the limitations of both science and theism.
If you refer to my post to Jose Fly, you will see that I am no great fan of "Christendom" and her inadequate reasoning either. From the "hellfire" tirades to the theistic evolutionists who have to compromise to gain credibility......none of them hold any interest for me. I am not beholden to either camp.
The pomposity of the religious elite parallels the superior attitude of many academics IMO, neither can tolerate those who challenge their beliefs. We should be able to discuss facts when there are facts to discuss, in a civilized way.
I couldn't agree more! The scare tactics as a replacement for a solid argument is pathetic. But having said that, the Bible itself does say that there is a penalty for discarding the Creator and actually giving credit to the creation, rather than to the Creator.
Romans 1:25, 28:
"They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise!.....Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done." (NLT)
Science gives credit to what God created, rather than to the Creator himself. Eliminating God has opened the floodgates of a world where humans are led to believe that they are nothing but animals, answerable to no one.
Here is the result....written almost 2,000 years ago.
Romans 1:29-32:
"Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too."(NLT)
As has been seen and demonstrated on this thread, (not by you metis, I have to say) a condescending attitude is exhibited whenever you question the validity of their evidence, which they accept without question and expect everyone else to as well.
Threatening someone with a mythical concept is quite laughable, since the one threatening "hell" is a likely candidate for what the Bible calls "gehenna" themselves. (This isn't "hell" BTW)
Yes, an open mind helps....but not so open that lots of important elements fall out. We are not just pieces of evolved meat walking around.....we have a component to our nature that is not demonstrated by animals at all....."spirituality". Since this is a collective component, how does evolution explain it? How does it explain creativity and inventiveness on the sale that is observed among humankind alone? How does it explain the uniqueness we have if we have evolved from animals that still exist but have no traits like ours?
Yes, I see the limitations on both sides quite well, and I agree. But it isn't a "hard sell" to those who belong to God. God never has to "sell" himself to anyone.....he is willingly chosen by those who can "see" his handiwork and understand what kind of "person" he is. He reveals much about himself through his creation. But if you are blind, you will never see it. His words will mean very little, particularly when they are misrepresented by corrupt churchmen.
I see the many denominations of Christendom in the same way that I see any other competing communities of human endeavor. The "I'm right...you're wrong" mentality has divided mankind since Cain killed Abel. This is why we have the ability to reason and to make choices. I believe that our choices tell the Creator who we really are. He does not condemn us, it is we who condemn ourselves by what we choose to believe. That (undefinable) part of us that is led to make those choices, is who we really are. According to scripture, God has no time for indecisive people....he wants those who have the courage of their convictions and can stand up for what they believe and hold their own in spite of the opposition. Jesus' disciples demonstrated this right throughout the apostolic period. But once the apostles passed off the scene, men did what men always do....."I know better that that guy, so you should follow me"......this is what we were told to expect, so its no surprise that we are in this situation now. Religious divisions continue to divide mankind.
We are just interested in the turn of political events that is taking place in the US right now, to see how this relates to Bible prophesy......all of which is unfolding before our eyes. Interesting times we are living in......
Does the stuff about the size of skulls suggest deception? Here is a simple explanation that comes to mind: maybe it's a way to help students compare the features of each skull with those of others.
Ironically, the author of the page you cited can be suspected of the dishonesty he/she decries.
The author quotes Henry Gee as questioning paleontologists' inferrence of ancestror-descendent relationship from fossils, and interprets his words as undermining the evidence of relatedness in fossil species.
But transitional species don't require linear ancestry, each of the fossil species can also be more or less distantly related cousins.
By the way, Gee himself denounces such a quote-mine here:
NCSE Resource
Last edited:
Olinda
Member
An odd comment from a non-scientist who accused me of "twisting words again" (in post 350 on this thread) and then refused to give any reason for it.
The intent of this portrayal was to describe a graded order of descent. That is disingenuous, to say the least.
Sorry, but your explanation sounds like special pleading, something many theist apologists are known for.
I doubt you say the same for Haeckel's drawings....right?
At the bottom of the page I posted, in the footnote, it acknowledges that Gee is an evolutionist. At least a few recognize that often the evidence has been misinterpreted by those taking license with the data.
I am trying to imagine someone pedantic enough to refer back to post #350 (do you keep a journal?) when we have reached #2373 as if I am supposed to remember the apparent injustice......
Am I under some obligation to give you a reason for not giving you a reason?
Olinda
Member
If you have changed your perspective and/or moral values since then, happy to hear it.I am trying to imagine someone pedantic enough to refer back to post #350 (do you keep a journal?) when we have reached #2373 as if I am supposed to remember the apparent injustice......
Of course not. But complaining of 'character assassination' when you have done your poor best in that direction reeks of . . double standard, at best.Am I under some obligation to give you a reason for not giving you a reason?
Oh good grief Olinda....back on topic OK? My perspective and my moral values are the same as they were about 2,000 posts ago....seriously.
Olinda
Member
Fine, then. You are happy to attempt to denigrate me without any proof but whine about 'character assassination' - without the least support - when 'disagreeing with academics'.Oh good grief Olinda....back on topic OK? My perspective and my moral values are the same as they were about 2,000 posts ago....seriously.Time to move on......
Back on topic - although it's noted that this only becomes an issue when you need a diversion -
you have not offered a logical alternative to the current scientific understanding of the evidence for evolution. The difference between macro and micro does not exist; any more than the difference between the few steps taken to walk to the corner store and the many steps taken to complete a marathon. Steps are steps.
Deeje believes in the Bible. I just want to know where in the Bible it says that "kinds" can't evolve into different "kinds". Whatever "kinds" are.
That's no more special pleading than saying that the exageration of the eccentricity of Earth's orbit found in llustrations from physics textbook may be simply a didactic device rather than an attempt at distorting the truth.
Even if he faked his drawings, so what? No scientific discipline is safe from fraudsters.
But you didn't address the fact the author himself quote-mined Gee as if the latter challenged the evidence for transitional fossils.
So, you can see dishonesty where there is none, but where there is, you can't see it.
Last edited:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
No, what you've done is look at sources that give introductory, generalized broad overviews of the subject, and then declared that if that's all there is to it, it's not a strong case.
It's like reading the Cliff Notes version of a Dickens novel and then deciding that Charles Dickens wasn't a very good writer.
Because you're critiquing their work!
The fact that you cannot grasp the importance of understanding someone's work prior to critiquing it speaks volumes about your utter cluelessness here.
Good example. Basically what you're doing is critiquing the Hebrew-English translations and accusing the professionals who did it of all sorts of malfeasances......without bothering to learn Hebrew or even look at their work. And you can't figure out why that's a problem. It's truly bizarre.
Pretty much to anyone who is capable of objective thought.
I actually agree here....creationism is indeed much, much more simplistic than evolutionary biology.
Again you make it abundantly clear that this is a religious, rather than scientific, issue for you. And that by itself is just fine....if you would just stop there. But for some reason you feel compelled to take that next step and try and critique the work of scientists, even though you've never looked at their work nor do you understand it.
I suspect it has to do with the relative status of science and religion in today's society. You realize that in past times, the mere act of declaring something from scripture and/or the pulpit was very compelling to the general public. If a religious authority said something, people listened. But that's not the case today, is it? Religion is in decline both in numbers and authority, and science has become our society's preferred means of determining reality. We see it in things like advertising, where marketers love to say things like "9 out of 10 scientists agree" or "clinically proven to...". No one markets their products by appealing to the authority of pastors or scriptures. We also see it in politics, where oftentimes decisions are put on hold "until the science is in".
You've grown up and now live in that environment, and as a result you understand that merely declaring "evolution is false because it contradicts scripture" just doesn't carry any weight any more. Because science has become such an important aspect of our western culture (it's the reason you and I can even have this conversation), you realize that in order to make a compelling case, you have to speak to the science. To do otherwise is to be ignored.
Of course you do....you have to. You've already stated quite clearly that reaching a different conclusion simply isn't an option.
Don't project your own willful ignorance onto me. I'm a professional scientist and have been a senior biologist for the last 8 years. During my education my professors didn't just tell us things were so, we conducted experiments to see it for ourselves, we went into the field to collect our own data, we examined fossils with our own eyes and hands, we attended conferences where we could ask questions of the people whose work we'd read.
Just because your religious world operates in a "because I say so" framework, don't assume everything else does too.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Are you familiar with the concept of derived characteristics?
- Status