Just Accidental?

[savagewind]

The millions of people who believe in god(s) and accept the theory of evolution don't agree with you that evolution makes god redundant.

She doesn't consider us real believers.

 

[SkepticThinker]

She doesn't consider us real believers.

Oh

 

[Deeje]

Your comparison of evidences being requirement for science to your example of ants-train driver scenario is inaccurate allegory and nothing but a joke.

That you can't use a real life example of science, only demonstrate you flippant attitude to honesty.

If JW is anything like you, then it is no wonder that JW have awful reputation.

O please gnostic.....are you serious?
Read the analogy again and see how way off your comprehension of it was.

I want people to see through the smoke and mirrors and understand what "evidence" science really has for macro-evolution....as opposed to adaptation.
It isn't the evidence itself that is at fault, but it is the scientists' interpretation of said evidence that is suspect. How can science 'assume' that something is true just because they want it to be? If science didn't interpret the evidence to fit their theory, what would that evidence reveal? All it really says is that these fossilized creatures, (now extinct ) once existed. The rest is all speculation, assumption and educated guessing. I can see why the scientifically minded don't want that truth exposed.
They have to beat the opposition into submission with insults about their intelligence.

As for the 'links' that are supposed to connect one 'kind' to another....quite simply, there aren't any. The ones that scientists present as 'intermediary' only demonstrate a similarity to other creatures, supposedly millions of years before them.....and since all living things are made of basically the same genetic material, there is no way to suggest an evolutionary relationship either biologically, or by similarity.

Separate creation tells a different story with the same evidence. Intelligent design is seen everywhere in nature......design needs a designer. When design demonstrates purpose, then that requires intelligent direction. When is that never the case in human experience?

So who do we believe? We all have to decide that for ourselves.

As to JW's "reputation"........? What have we done to deserve such a reputation, other than to do as Jesus did? He wasn't popular either....because he told an inconvenient truth. His own people hated him enough to put him to death. (John 15:18-21) It didn't make him wrong though.

 

[Valjean]

She doesn't consider us real believers.

Science has been making God redundant for centuries. Every time a new insight is gained or a new discovery made it's denounced from the pulpit. Gradually, it becomes accepted, as religion finds ways of incorporating it into its doctrine.

 

[Deeje]

Except for one extremely important difference. In science the primary rule is you follow the evidence wherever it leads. Your religion operates opposite of that, where the rule is that all evidence must conform to your pre-held beliefs.

I know you don't realize how funny that statement is.

To follow the "evidence" where it leads is exactly what we do. We see it leading us in an opposite direction to you. We have a compass that points due north. You have a compass that points due south.....so whose compass is being interfered with? Time will tell.
I say its yours...and you say its mine. I have as much solid evidence as you do. So people can decide for themselves what to believe.

I have no idea what you mean by "throw God away". The fact is, since God is completely untestable, "God did that" cannot be part of science. It's no different than a Wiccan who insists that things occur by magic.

I guess that is the crux of this whole issue....you put the Creator in the reams of myth and magic.....we see him as the creator of science....the greatest scientist in existence. He created what you study. To deny him is like denying you had a mother who gave birth to you. The denial doesn't make her non-existent.

Where has anyone provided an example of something that was supernaturally designed/created, and explained how they determined it to be so? All I've seen from you so far are pictures of pretty things followed by mere assertion that they are designed/created.

Oh goody! Another excuse to post pretty pictures!

The Orchid Wasp is one of my favorites. How does evolution explain how a brainless orchid can evolve its flower to resemble a female wasp in order to attract male wasps to "mate" with it and facilitate pollination? So successful is this ruse, that uses not only the visual appearance of the wasp, but also exudes the same pheromone as a female wasp ready to mate? As you can see in the second pic.....it is very successful and can attract multiple suitors.

Just accidental? Or designed?

What about camouflage? Another favorite of mine.....

Did these creatures just intelligently design themselves to perfectly blend in with their surroundings?
How many flukes did this take? Do you have an estimate?

You're either being dishonest again or you have forgotten our earlier exchange where you admitted that evolutionary biology consists of more than just diagrams. So which is it.....dishonesty or forgetfulness?

Here we go with the 'dishonesty' accusation again.....can you not discuss the subject matter without resorting to these tactics? There is NO dishonesty when one is telling the truth as they believe it.
I can accuse scientists of the same dishonesty.

This is just nit-picking to distract from the subject matter. Evolutionary scientists cannot even agree amongst themselves.....

"The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science1, 2. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.

Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.

However, another factor is more important: many conventional evolutionary biologists study the processes that we claim are neglected, but they comprehend them very differently (see ‘No, all is well’). This is no storm in an academic tearoom, it is a struggle for the very soul of the discipline.

Here we articulate the logic of the EES in the hope of taking some heat out of this debate and encouraging open discussion of the fundamental causes of evolutionary change."

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Hostility? Emotion? Does this have a place in the cold hard facts of science?

I noted that when you complained about scientists' "interpretation of the evidence", it was progress because at least you admit that there's evidence to be interpreted (contrary to what you just said above about us only having diagrams).

Semantics? This is what discussion with you is reduced to.....

"Evidence" is in the eye of the interpreter. The evidence you see for evolution is the very same evidence we see for intelligent design. We don't need a science degree to squabble over semantics. Your evidence is all yours.....I do not agree with science's interpretation of the whole scenario. Science can't prove that I am wrong.....that is what gets under your collective skins. That is what elicits the hostility.

Now you're just repeating the same phrases over and over and over. Earlier when you did this I asked you to explain the difference between a population adapting and one evolving, and you left the discussion. And you've been asked numerous times what a "kind" is and you've yet to answer. But here you are, acting like none of that happened and just mindlessly repeating the same things all over again.

Are you serious? I think the readers here recognize who is substituting baseless arguments for facts.....
"Kinds" are easily recognized.
In this link are 8 examples of evolution... http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

Please tell me which examples are a complete departure from their basic "kind"?

Then how do we convict people of crimes for which there were no witnesses?

So you admit that all science has is circumstantial evidence? See, that is what I have said all along.

But earlier you were complaining about scientists' interpretations of the evidence. Now you're back to saying there's no evidence to begin with. Make up your mind.

And this is from a scientist? Pedantic excuses are all you have? What is this supposed to achieve except to scramble the conversation....? Its not working.

By what mechanisms? Where did the genetic sequences that conferred the ability to infect come from? How did those sequences spread through the population?

Either from adaptation or from direct creation....which is NOT macro-evolution. Am I not getting this message across?

"Mechanisms" are the 'mechanics' of how something works. No? What mechanisms that you use in your everyday life were not designed and created by an intelligent mind who put them together in a specific sequence so that the finished product is usable for the function it was designed to perform? List them for me...

So now we're back to the question you dodged earlier.....what's the difference between a population adapting and one evolving?

Is it really that hard to work it out? Populations adapt because of a shift in location, climate change or a change in food source, creating an environmental necessity to adapt to the new circumstances or perish. I have yet to see a population evolving from one kind into another.

This site, BBC "Nature - Adaptations and behaviours" gives many examples of adaptation. I see all these as examples of a brilliant Creator who designed life on this planet to survive beautifully without direct intervention from him.....man is the only exception because only man is accountable to his Creator. He has much to be accountable for.

BBC Nature - Adaptations and behaviours

Then I strongly suggest you disavow yourself of all things connected to science.

I strongly suggest that you investigate Intelligent Design before you write it off.....I'm glad I did.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Deeje, I hate to say it, but you have once again demonstrated an extreme misunderstanding of how things work. In your very first question, you make an utterly absurd assumption -- that some flower somehow "evolved" to attract a wasp (for whatever reason). You have completely failed to understand that nothing at all like that happened.

And here it is, if you can handle it....

They evolved together -- millions of generations of each, flower and wasp, each slowly adapting to the changes in the other, co-dependent.

You just do not seem able to get large conceptual ideas into your head, and thus condense everything into some absurd Reader's Digest. And believe me, to anyone who loved literature, Reader's Digest was always unreadable.

 

[savagewind]

Deeje, I hate to say it, but you have once again demonstrated an extreme misunderstanding of how things work. In your very first question, you make an utterly absurd assumption -- that some flower somehow "evolved" to attract a wasp (for whatever reason). You have completely failed to understand that nothing at all like that happened.

And here it is, if you can handle it....

They evolved together -- millions of generations of each, flower and wasp, each slowly adapting to the changes in the other, co-dependent.

You just do not seem able to get large conceptual ideas into your head, and thus condense everything into some absurd Reader's Digest. And believe me, to anyone who loved literature, Reader's Digest was always unreadable.

I am sure it is YOU who condense it all into not enough time, really.

 

[savagewind]

How long have people been studying microbes in a lab? Indeed there have been changes in them! Oh yah! How long and they are still the same thing, microbes? I am asking you how long.

 

[Deeje]

Science has been making God redundant for centuries.

There is a scripture that describes why this happened.....
2 Corinthians 4:3-4:
"If, in fact, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing,  among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through."

"Unbelievers" have been looking for an excuse to get rid of God for centuries (for obvious reasons).....however, there is another "god" who is responsible for achieving a kind of "blindness" in those people that results in the truth "not shining through". A 'blinding of the mind' achieves so much more than a mere blinding of the eyes.....the very center of man's perceptions about everything is rendered inactive. And they have no idea that it's even happened. They are too busy congratulating one another for how smart they think they are.

Every time a new insight is gained or a new discovery made it's denounced from the pulpit. Gradually, it becomes, as religion finds ways of incorporating it into its doctrine.

"New insight"? I see no new insight...I see only what science wants to make of the evidence they have. Their interpretation is not a bunch of "new discoveries" as much as an idea that took hold, even though it could not be proven.

All those 'unbelievers' jumped on the bandwagon and have been collectively playing the same tune ever since.

It helps to separate the sheep from the goats.....

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am sure it is YOU who condense it all into not enough time, really.

Time and change are among those things we humans don't really get intuitively. Evolution happened over hundreds and hundreds of millions of years, in creatures that procreated in minutes, days, weeks, months and years.

Try to see what happens when tiny changes happen thousands and millions of times. It's not easy, but with just a little imagination it is possible. If I have a set of Lego with 1028 pieces, and I take one away, then I have a set of 1027 pieces -- almost identical to the first. But if I repeat that step of taking away, doubling the number I take every time, it will take will only take you 8 more times until they're all gone! That's not intuitive, but it's real -- and it's how evolution works. Success builds on success in an additive fashion, speeding the process up.

 

[Deeje]

Deeje, I hate to say it, but you have once again demonstrated an extreme misunderstanding of how things work. In your very first question, you make an utterly absurd assumption -- that some flower somehow "evolved" to attract a wasp (for whatever reason). You have completely failed to understand that nothing at all like that happened.

And here it is, if you can handle it....

They evolved together -- millions of generations of each, flower and wasp, each slowly adapting to the changes in the other, co-dependent.

Excuse me....but where is the evidence for this slow and gradual adaptive process? Where are the 'half way' (intermediate) species that indicate that this ever took place except in the fertile minds of the scientists? What I completely fail to understand is how perfectly intelligent people can be so blind! But then I have posted the Bible's explanation for this.
You see us like this.....

We see you the same way.

You just do not seem able to get large conceptual ideas into your head, and thus condense everything into some absurd Reader's Digest. And believe me, to anyone who loved literature, Reader's Digest was always unreadable.

Those "large conceptual ideas" that need to enter the head I believe are called "brainwashing".......you think scientists can't be brainwashed just as easily as anyone else who wants to embrace something that appeals to them? They seem to require very little real evidence for their position....only what they want to see to prop up their fairy story.......I like our fairy story better...it makes much more sense and fits in perfectly with the evidence.
Its our choice as to what to believe....but lets make it an informed choice, shall we?

 

[savagewind]

Time and change are among those things we humans don't really get intuitively. Evolution happened over hundreds and hundreds of millions of years, in creatures that procreated in minutes, days, weeks, months and years.

Try to see what happens when tiny changes happen thousands and millions of times. It's not easy, but with just a little imagination it is possible. If I have a set of Lego with 1028 pieces, and I take one away, then I have a set of 1027 pieces -- almost identical to the first. But if I repeat that step of taking away, doubling the number I take every time, it will take will only take you 8 more times until they're all gone! That's not intuitive, but it's real -- and it's how evolution works. Success builds on success in an additive fashion, speeding the process up.

Take away? It is my opinion that take away is the opposite pof ution. evol

The opposite of evolution.

Do you have Grammar corrector? I do. And I hate it. It helps, but I think it is more trouble than it is worth.

I know the word, I know more or less where all the letters are. Sometimes my left hand works faster than my right hand. The program kicks in and zips around to who knows where.

I know. I seem to be off-topic.

I could fiddle around to get rid of Grammarly, but I don't know how. Your blind evolution is better at knowing how than I ever will be. I consider myself a little bit above average intelligence.

Without intelligence, all the wonderful and smart things came out of what the OP calls an accident. I hate to say it, really I do, but she is being smarter than you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

O please gnostic.....are you serious?
Read the analogy again and see how way off your comprehension of it was.

I want people to see through the smoke and mirrors and understand what "evidence" science really has for macro-evolution....as opposed to adaptation.
It isn't the evidence itself that is at fault, but it is the scientists' interpretation of said evidence that is suspect. How can science 'assume' that something is true just because they want it to be? If science didn't interpret the evidence to fit their theory, what would that evidence reveal? All it really says is that these fossilized creatures, (now extinct ) once existed. The rest is all speculation, assumption and educated guessing. I can see why the scientifically minded don't want that truth exposed.
They have to beat the opposition into submission with insults about their intelligence.

As for the 'links' that are supposed to connect one 'kind' to another....quite simply, there aren't any. The ones that scientists present as 'intermediary' only demonstrate a similarity to other creatures, supposedly millions of years before them.....and since all living things are made of basically the same genetic material, there is no way to suggest an evolutionary relationship either biologically, or by similarity.

Separate creation tells a different story with the same evidence. Intelligent design is seen everywhere in nature......design needs a designer. When design demonstrates purpose, then that requires intelligent direction. When is that never the case in human experience?

So who do we believe? We all have to decide that for ourselves.

As to JW's "reputation"........? What have we done to deserve such a reputation, other than to do as Jesus did? He wasn't popular either....because he told an inconvenient truth. His own people hated him enough to put him to death. (John 15:18-21) It didn't make him wrong though.

It doesn't. Scientists don't either.
It seems to me, that is what people with preconceived religious beliefs are doing - starting with their holy book and trying to make the data fit the story. That's not how science works.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I know you don't realize how funny that statement is.

To follow the "evidence" where it leads is exactly what we do. We see it leading us in an opposite direction to you. We have a compass that points due north. You have a compass that points due south.....so whose compass is being interfered with? Time will tell.
I say its yours...and you say its mine. I have as much solid evidence as you do. So people can decide for themselves what to believe.



I guess that is the crux of this whole issue....you put the Creator in the reams of myth and magic.....we see him as the creator of science....the greatest scientist in existence. He created what you study. To deny him is like denying you had a mother who gave birth to you. The denial doesn't make her non-existent.




Oh goody! Another excuse to post pretty pictures!

The Orchid Wasp is one of my favorites. How does evolution explain how a brainless orchid can evolve its flower to resemble a female wasp in order to attract male wasps to "mate" with it and facilitate pollination? So successful is this ruse, that uses not only the visual appearance of the wasp, but also exudes the same pheromone as a female wasp ready to mate? As you can see in the second pic.....it is very successful and can attract multiple suitors.

Just accidental? Or designed?

What about camouflage? Another favorite of mine.....

Did these creatures just intelligently design themselves to perfectly blend in with their surroundings?
How many flukes did this take? Do you have an estimate?



Here we go with the 'dishonesty' accusation again.....can you not discuss the subject matter without resorting to these tactics? There is NO dishonesty when one is telling the truth as they believe it.
I can accuse scientists of the same dishonesty.

This is just nit-picking to distract from the subject matter. Evolutionary scientists cannot even agree amongst themselves.....

"The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science1, 2. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.

Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.

However, another factor is more important: many conventional evolutionary biologists study the processes that we claim are neglected, but they comprehend them very differently (see ‘No, all is well’). This is no storm in an academic tearoom, it is a struggle for the very soul of the discipline.

Here we articulate the logic of the EES in the hope of taking some heat out of this debate and encouraging open discussion of the fundamental causes of evolutionary change."

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Hostility? Emotion? Does this have a place in the cold hard facts of science?



Semantics? This is what discussion with you is reduced to.....

"Evidence" is in the eye of the interpreter. The evidence you see for evolution is the very same evidence we see for intelligent design. We don't need a science degree to squabble over semantics. Your evidence is all yours.....I do not agree with science's interpretation of the whole scenario. Science can't prove that I am wrong.....that is what gets under your collective skins. That is what elicits the hostility.

Are you serious? I think the readers here recognize who is substituting baseless arguments for facts.....
"Kinds" are easily recognized.
In this link are 8 examples of evolution... http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

Please tell me which examples are a complete departure from their basic "kind"?



So you admit that all science has is circumstantial evidence? See, that is what I have said all along.

And this is from a scientist? Pedantic excuses are all you have? What is this supposed to achieve except to scramble the conversation....? Its not working.

Either from adaptation or from direct creation....which is NOT macro-evolution. Am I not getting this message across?

"Mechanisms" are the 'mechanics' of how something works. No? What mechanisms that you use in your everyday life were not designed and created by an intelligent mind who put them together in a specific sequence so that the finished product is usable for the function it was designed to perform? List them for me...



Is it really that hard to work it out? Populations adapt because of a shift in location, climate change or a change in food source, creating an environmental necessity to adapt to the new circumstances or perish. I have yet to see a population evolving from one kind into another.

This site, BBC "Nature - Adaptations and behaviours" gives many examples of adaptation. I see all these as examples of a brilliant Creator who designed life on this planet to survive beautifully without direct intervention from him.....man is the only exception because only man is accountable to his Creator. He has much to be accountable for.

BBC Nature - Adaptations and behaviours



I strongly suggest that you investigate Intelligent Design before you write it off.....I'm glad I did.

Of course they didn't and evolution doesn't state that they did. The ones who weren't able to blend into their environment and as a result were killed before they could reproduce, died off, leaving behind those who were able to blend into their environment to reproduce and carry on their genes.

I fail to see what is dishonest about the open sharing of the experimentation, observation and testing that goes on in science. Your accusation that scientists are inherently dishonest is without merit.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I know you don't realize how funny that statement is.

To follow the "evidence" where it leads is exactly what we do. We see it leading us in an opposite direction to you. We have a compass that points due north. You have a compass that points due south.....so whose compass is being interfered with? Time will tell.
I say its yours...and you say its mine. I have as much solid evidence as you do. So people can decide for themselves what to believe.



I guess that is the crux of this whole issue....you put the Creator in the reams of myth and magic.....we see him as the creator of science....the greatest scientist in existence. He created what you study. To deny him is like denying you had a mother who gave birth to you. The denial doesn't make her non-existent.




Oh goody! Another excuse to post pretty pictures!

The Orchid Wasp is one of my favorites. How does evolution explain how a brainless orchid can evolve its flower to resemble a female wasp in order to attract male wasps to "mate" with it and facilitate pollination? So successful is this ruse, that uses not only the visual appearance of the wasp, but also exudes the same pheromone as a female wasp ready to mate? As you can see in the second pic.....it is very successful and can attract multiple suitors.

Just accidental? Or designed?

What about camouflage? Another favorite of mine.....

Did these creatures just intelligently design themselves to perfectly blend in with their surroundings?
How many flukes did this take? Do you have an estimate?



Here we go with the 'dishonesty' accusation again.....can you not discuss the subject matter without resorting to these tactics? There is NO dishonesty when one is telling the truth as they believe it.
I can accuse scientists of the same dishonesty.

This is just nit-picking to distract from the subject matter. Evolutionary scientists cannot even agree amongst themselves.....

"The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science1, 2. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.

Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.

However, another factor is more important: many conventional evolutionary biologists study the processes that we claim are neglected, but they comprehend them very differently (see ‘No, all is well’). This is no storm in an academic tearoom, it is a struggle for the very soul of the discipline.

Here we articulate the logic of the EES in the hope of taking some heat out of this debate and encouraging open discussion of the fundamental causes of evolutionary change."

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Hostility? Emotion? Does this have a place in the cold hard facts of science?



Semantics? This is what discussion with you is reduced to.....

"Evidence" is in the eye of the interpreter. The evidence you see for evolution is the very same evidence we see for intelligent design. We don't need a science degree to squabble over semantics. Your evidence is all yours.....I do not agree with science's interpretation of the whole scenario. Science can't prove that I am wrong.....that is what gets under your collective skins. That is what elicits the hostility.

Are you serious? I think the readers here recognize who is substituting baseless arguments for facts.....
"Kinds" are easily recognized.
In this link are 8 examples of evolution... http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

Please tell me which examples are a complete departure from their basic "kind"?



So you admit that all science has is circumstantial evidence? See, that is what I have said all along.

And this is from a scientist? Pedantic excuses are all you have? What is this supposed to achieve except to scramble the conversation....? Its not working.

Either from adaptation or from direct creation....which is NOT macro-evolution. Am I not getting this message across?

"Mechanisms" are the 'mechanics' of how something works. No? What mechanisms that you use in your everyday life were not designed and created by an intelligent mind who put them together in a specific sequence so that the finished product is usable for the function it was designed to perform? List them for me...



Is it really that hard to work it out? Populations adapt because of a shift in location, climate change or a change in food source, creating an environmental necessity to adapt to the new circumstances or perish. I have yet to see a population evolving from one kind into another.

This site, BBC "Nature - Adaptations and behaviours" gives many examples of adaptation. I see all these as examples of a brilliant Creator who designed life on this planet to survive beautifully without direct intervention from him.....man is the only exception because only man is accountable to his Creator. He has much to be accountable for.

BBC Nature - Adaptations and behaviours



I strongly suggest that you investigate Intelligent Design before you write it off.....I'm glad I did.

Yeah, I've seen lots of people say that without ever being able to provide an actual workable, usable definition.

 

[Jose Fly]

To follow the "evidence" where it leads is exactly what we do.

I wonder if you have any appreciation at all for just how bizarre it is to see you say that, after all the times you've explicitly stated that you cannot ever compromise on evolution because of the theological consequences and that your views on the subject are "governed" by your religion.

And now you say that you are the one following the evidence wherever it leads?

Wow........just............wow.

you put the Creator in the reams of myth and magic

No, I never said anything about God being myth. And the notion of God acting via supernatural means, a.k.a. "magic", comes from those advocating God's role in things.

Unless you're going to start arguing that God does not, and cannot operate via supernatural means, then you need to own your own beliefs.

Oh goody! Another excuse to post pretty pictures!

Again I'm just stunned. In response to me saying that all you've done is post pretty pics and declare them to be "designed" without explaining the method by which you determined them to be so........

......you post pictures of pretty things and just declare them to be "designed"! IOW, you repeat the same childish silly behavior I just called you out on.

At this point I'm starting to have serious questions about you.

Here we go with the 'dishonesty' accusation again.....can you not discuss the subject matter without resorting to these tactics? There is NO dishonesty when one is telling the truth as they believe it.

You dodged the issue. Some times you say that you disagree with "evolutionists' interpretation of the evidence", but then other times you claim that "evolutionists have no evidence".

Both can't be true. So how do you explain this?

Semantics? This is what discussion with you is reduced to.....

Um no, it's not "semantics" to point out that you keep contradicting yourself.

"Evidence" is in the eye of the interpreter.

No, in science "evidence" is data.

"Kinds" are easily recognized.

The it should be trivially easy for you to define the term.

In this link are 8 examples of evolution... http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

Please tell me which examples are a complete departure from their basic "kind"?

Impossible to say since you won't tell us what a "kind" is.

So you admit that all science has is circumstantial evidence?

Nope. But it is nice to see you admit that just because an event wasn't directly witnessed, that doesn't mean we can't collect evidence and draw conclusions about what happened.

Either from adaptation or from direct creation

How does "adaptation or direct creation" generate new genetic sequences? And how do they cause the sequences to spread throughout the population?

"Mechanisms" are the 'mechanics' of how something works. No? What mechanisms that you use in your everyday life were not designed and created by an intelligent mind who put them together in a specific sequence so that the finished product is usable for the function it was designed to perform? List them for me...

You're completely dodging again. You're claiming that "adaptation" generates new genetic sequences and allows them to spread through the population, and that this process of "adaptation" is different than evolution.

But no matter how many times you're asked, you can't given any details about how this process occurs. All you can do is just mindlessly repeat "that's adaptation not evolution" over and over.

It's almost like you've been given a script to read from, and are completely unable to say anything else.

Is it really that hard to work it out? Populations adapt because of a shift in location, climate change or a change in food source, creating an environmental necessity to adapt to the new circumstances or perish. I have yet to see a population evolving from one kind into another.

This site, BBC "Nature - Adaptations and behaviours" gives many examples of adaptation. I see all these as examples of a brilliant Creator who designed life on this planet to survive beautifully without direct intervention from him.....man is the only exception because only man is accountable to his Creator. He has much to be accountable for.

BBC Nature - Adaptations and behaviours

I'm wondering......do you even know how to compare and contrast? Didn't you do that in school at some point?

You're claiming that "adaptation" and evolution are different things. I'm asking you to describe how they're different. As you should have learned in school, you do that by first defining adaptation and evolution, and then explaining how they are different. Something like.....

Adaptation is a process by which _________________. It occurs via __________________ and produces _________________. Evolution on the other hand is a process by which ________________. It occurs via ___________________ and produces ______________________. So as you can see, adaptation and evolution are different because _______________________.

How about you surprise us all and do something other than repeat the same talking points like a human parrot, and actually answer some questions?

I strongly suggest that you investigate Intelligent Design before you write it off.....I'm glad I did.

Oh, I know quite a bit about ID creationism. I'd even bet that I know far more about it than you.

 

[Deeje]

It seems to me, that is what people with preconceived religious beliefs are doing - starting with their holy book and trying to make the data fit the story. That's not how science works.

Think again......

It seems to me that science had a hypothesis about which they made predictions and then made those predictions come true by interpreting the evidence to fit their theory.

You don't see that science is guilty of doing exactly what you accuse us of doing.

 

[Deeje]

@SkepticThinker Do you think you could use the quote system here as it helps to isolate the portion of a post you were responding to rather than just bolding the points.

If you highlight the portions of text you want to address, it will come up with "quote" and when you select it, it will store them one by one in the reply box below. Just "Insert Quotes" and you can address specific points.

It is hard to distinguish what you are responding to when you quote the whole post several times.

 

[Deeje]

Wow........just............wow.

Yep...that is usually my response to your posts. And you're a scientist?

Unless you're going to start arguing that God does not, and cannot operate via supernatural means, then you need to own your own beliefs.

Perhaps it would be helpful to define what "supernatural" actually means.....

Definition...."(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

If you don't understand that the one who can create nature can also manipulate it at his own will and discretion, then why are you arguing about something that is basically beyond your ability or will to acknowledge or to demonstrate?

At this point I'm starting to have serious questions about you.

Dodge.....this is a ploy designed to discredit the message...if all you can do is shoot the messenger...what is that saying about your ability to address the simple issues in simple terms? You are so used to science being your acquired language, making you feel superior to anyone who does not have degrees or diplomas, but you prove that you cannot address the simple stuff in simple language without being able to hide behind the jargon.

How do you explain the orchid wasp and its relationship to the orchid without resorting to supposition? How do creatures so perfectly camouflage themselves, as the pictures illustrate, without intelligent design?

This is where science falls flat......it shows that they need to use scientific lingo to prove what they say. Put it in simple terms, and it shows macro-evolution to be a joke, requiring way more faith and credulity than actual evidence. Its nothing more than the power of suggest on willing minds.
Clearly science is your god.

you can't see past it. The simple things are the ones you find the hardest to explain. The Creator, OTOH makes everything simple enough for a child to understand it. No ego stroking or chest puffing required.

You dodged the issue.

You are pretty good at that yourself.

Some times you say that you disagree with "evolutionists' interpretation of the evidence", but then other times you claim that "evolutionists have no evidence".

Then I believe you have a comprehension problem.....or is it that you choose to misunderstand my position and continue to claim what I have never said? This is entertainment for you as you have already acknowledged. You obviously have little else to do to amuse yourself....?

it's not "semantics" to point out that you keep contradicting yourself.

You are deliberately misinterpreting me.......but I guess misinterpretation comes easily to scientists?

No, in science "evidence" is data.

"Data"....."facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis."

Evolutionary science has lots of "data" but very little in the way of provable facts. If what they collect and analyze is based on suggestion rather than factual interpretation of their "evidence", then what have they accumulated as "data"? Lots of supposition.....nothing more.

Impossible to say since you won't tell us what a "kind" is.

Dodge. This has been addressed several time......go back through the thread and see.

The it should be trivially easy for you to define the term.

I have....another dodge. Just answer the questions.

How does "adaptation or direct creation" generate new genetic sequences? And how do they cause the sequences to spread throughout the population?

In the way that science sees them do it in a lab. This is adaptation....small cosmetic changes that ensure survival. OTOH macro-evolution takes adaptation into the realms of fantasy as if they are one and the same thing, only on a larger scale.....they are not. No "kind" ever morphed into a completely different "kind".

If we take creatures that do use metamorphosis, like caterpillars becoming butterflies as an example. The fact that the larval stage is completely different to the adult is seen quite readily, but if you knew nothing about butterfly reproduction, you would naturally assume that they were members of entirely different kinds of creatures. Salamanders too have a completely different 'childhood' to their adult parents.....frogs have a fascinating breeding cycle as well. Most kids today don't know what its like to collect tadpoles and watch them turn into frogs. Yet they are the same "kind" as their parents.

It sounds incredible to me that science can find a bone or a tooth and proceed to tell us all about the creatures to whom they belonged without really knowing anything about them. They can create marvelous video animation that looks like the real thing, yet everything is assumed. Since when is an assumption accepted as a fact?
What complete and utter arrogance to present a suggestion as a fact and then teach it to children!

But no matter how many times you're asked, you can't given any details about how this process occurs. All you can do is just mindlessly repeat "that's adaptation not evolution" over and over.

Adaptation never takes a species outside of its kind. Land animals do not become whales....sea creatures designed to live in the oceans do not become land dwellers and turn themselves into dinosaurs. Science has no actual evidence that this ever took place outside of their fertile imagination, and you know it. What they have is speculation about what the fossils are telling them and then interpreting evidence to fit their theory. The fossils have their own voice if you let them speak. So does biology and genetics. You don't want to listen.

I'm wondering......do you even know how to compare and contrast? Didn't you do that in school at some point?

For all your superior education, I wonder about you in this regard too....?

Oh, I know quite a bit about ID creationism. I'd even bet that I know far more about it than you.

I'm sure you think you do.

 

[SkepticThinker]

@SkepticThinker Do you think you could use the quote system here as it helps to isolate the portion of a post you were responding to rather than just bolding the points.

If you highlight the portions of text you want to address, it will come up with "quote" and when you select it, it will store them one by one in the reply box below. Just "Insert Quotes" and you can address specific points.

It is hard to distinguish what you are responding to when you quote the whole post several times.

I am using the quote system. I bolded the part of your post I was responding to, so as not to take it out of context.