Just Accidental?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Then God said: “Let there be an expanse between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.”

That has been shown to be incorrect. Are you aware that we have been to the moon?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

we cannot reproduce a single cell morphing into a human, with every intermediate design improvement depending on lucky random mutations, there is no way around this

Nor need there be. And evolution, though it responds to random changes in the genetic code, is not about luck. It is a directed process like gravitation. Gravitation builds semi-spherical planets (oblate spheroids due to axial revoluton) from randomly shaped fragments coming in from any direction.

Life may well be inevitable wherever it is possible. Do you have a counterargument that says it isn't?

The Bible, creationism, intelligent design, in contrast all predicted distinct stages of development, distinct gaps, sudden appearances of highly evolved organisms in the fossil record with no apparent evolutionary history

The evidence contradicts that idea. Nothing appears suddenly.

The Bible says nothing about "distinct stages of development."

And we have an ever growing record of evolutionary development.

Do you still disagree? If so, why? On what basis? Faith?

ID also correctly predicted that Junk DNA was not junk, that species can only be adapted so far before reaching inherent limits governed by the genetic template

Evolution is based on the knowledge that these templates - the genome - change. The prediction you describe has not been confirmed. It has not been found to be true.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nor need there be. And evolution, though it responds to random changes in the genetic code, is not about luck. It is a directed process like gravitation. Gravitation builds semi-spherical planets (oblate spheroids due to axial revoluton) from randomly shaped fragments coming in from any direction.

Life may well be inevitable wherever it is possible. Do you have a counterargument that says it isn't?



The evidence contradicts that idea. Nothing appears suddenly.

The Bible says nothing about "distinct stages of development."

And we have an ever growing record of evolutionary development.

Do you still disagree? If so, why? On what basis? Faith?



Evolution is based on the knowledge that these templates - the genome - change. The prediction you describe has not been confirmed. It has not been found to be true.

we have an ever growing record of a decidedly non gradual development, to the point that even many Darwinists splintered from the original prediction of gradualism, into 'punctuated equilibrium' among other groups, to try to account for the problem.

we find many of the major invertebrate groups already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. As though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.

Back in Darwin's day, it was still believed that the explosion was merely an artifact of an incomplete record, as above, it's not just skeptics of atheism who acknowledge this problem.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

we have an ever growing record of a decidedly non gradual development, to the point that even many Darwinists splintered from the original prediction of gradualism, into 'punctuated equilibrium' among other groups, to try to account for the problem.

Punctuated equilibribrium is not a contradiction to gradualism. It says that sometimes, the gradualism is slower than at other times.

What problem? There is no problem.

we find many of the major invertebrate groups already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. As though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.

What does "an advanced state of evolution" mean? There is no reason to believe that they did not evolve naturalistically from ancestral forms. How would either of us know when they appeared? We only know when one that we have found was captured by a preserving event .

Back in Darwin's day, it was still believed that the explosion was merely an artifact of an incomplete record, as above, it's not just skeptics of atheism who acknowledge this problem.

What problem?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What does "an advanced state of evolution" mean? There is no reason to believe that they did not evolve naturalistically from ancestral forms. How would either of us know when they appeared? We only know when one that we have found was captured by a preserving event .

You'd have to ask Dawkins, it was his quote- I should have credited him... the problem being that it does not satisfy the original explicit prediction of Darwinism, that the evolutionary process would be steady, slow, continuous. Not explosive, followed by vast periods of stasis, even 100's of millions of years- that could hardly veer any further from the prediction.

But the crux of the matter boils down to the math, information, and the systems that handle it, just as it does for physics and chemistry. Trilobites are one group that appeared in what Dawkins describes as an advanced state:

Origins[edit]
Early trilobites show all the features of the trilobite group as a whole; transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups (e.g. early arthropods) do not seem to exist.[17]
(wiki)

How are they advanced? advanced is a subjective term of course, but they are every bit as complex, sophisticated, advanced as modern crabs. So their state of 'evolutionary advancement' went from zero to 100% instantaneously in the record and has remained there since

You don't see any problem here re. the slow steady incremental process predicted by Darwin? then you have a lot to debate with many various colors of neo-Darwinists never mind scientists on the ID side

But the problem is not just the time, but what it was that appeared, Darwin could not imagine the complexity of the structure of a cell, far less the digital information systems within, which were essentially, and necessarily, fully formed and functional when they first appear in the record.

 

[Shad]

Can you provide all this slander for me please....I don't seem to recall stating anything but an opinion and my views on creation verses evolution.

For whatever reason, I find the delusional behaviors of evolutionists to be fascinating. I've never seen another group of people that collectively consistently are so delusional and dishonest. From a human behavior standpoint, it's just something to behold.

So people that accept evolution are delusional. That is slander

I have not forced anything upon anyone......if people need to "own" anything on this thread, it is their complete dishonesty when it comes to accepting something as fact when they cannot prove it.

Again merely giving your unqualified opinion and again calling people dishonest. Yet people have provided examples of speciation for you. You dismissing the examples is not the dishonestly on their part but your own. Try again.

Equally biased and misleading sources have been quoted to me.

You mean credible journals and experts whereas your sources are you and creationist websites. Hilarious.

The qualifications of scientists only impress other scientists

Nope. Qualifications at the very least show someone is competent.

and those who worship science as their 'religion'.

More slander.

It is as much a belief system as I have....it is based on faith, not on any real evidence.

Hardly. You belief system is based on set of text from thousands of years ago with no new data since then whereas science uses data that is newly discovered and old.

Scientists are not judgemental at all though...are they?

Never said they weren't. However you miss a key point. When scientists are judgement regarding creationist like yourself it is due to your lack of education on the subject while proclaiming you know more than they do because the "bible says so". Try again.

 

[Deeje]

That has been shown to be incorrect.

Have you even read a thing I have said? If you had, then you would understand that the water canopy that was used in the flood is still on this earth. Not a drop of water can escape our atmosphere. The canopy was not put back after the deluge because great climatic changes occurred due to its removal. Had it been reinstated, then earth's temperate climate would have been restored. It clearly wasn't....and catastrophic weather events now seem to dominate the news more than ever.

Are you aware that we have been to the moon?

Yes, I am aware of that claim.....and I even saw the pictures.

In this 2014 educational video from NASA about their new Orion Spacecraft, NASA Engineer Kelly Smith says something interesting about crossing the Vann Allan radiation Belts when travelling to the Moon and beyond:

This NASA engineer says...."As we get further away from Earth, we will pass through the Vann Allan Belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of Space."

Watch the video...it's very interesting, since they already claim to have done this.

Knowing that the Bible tells us this world is ruled by the most evil being in existence, it is not surprising to hear or see things of a corrupt nature, in any human endeavor. (1 John 5:19) Some believe in these things, some don't. We decide what we will believe and what we will reject.

And don't we have to ask, what is man's agenda in spending so much money (billions of dollars) on getting to the moon, when he cannot even manage his affairs on earth? If Science can have a budget so huge, but the same source of funding cannot even house its own homeless, don't we have to start asking why?

Perhaps his motive is to have somewhere to go when he has killed off all life on this planet with his very clever science.
And what about Mars? Same scenario?

Quite frankly, I find your trust in man more unwarranted than my trust in God.

 

[Deeje]

So people that accept evolution are delusional. That is slander

You know what is funny about that comment?.....I was quoting what an evolutionists had just said about me.

Again merely giving your unqualified opinion and again calling people dishonest. Yet people have provided examples of speciation for you. You dismissing the examples is not the dishonestly on their part but your own. Try again.

Oh, I have tried many times, but all I get is

Speciation has been discussed many times too, and demonstrated to be something that happens only within a "kind". Variety within the various "kinds" never results in any creature morphing into some completely different kind of creature altogether. So amoebas NEVER became dinosaurs...sorry.

Your fantasy is less believable than you think mine is.

You mean credible journals and experts

Credible to whom? Science has no more proof for macro-evolution than I have for my Creator.
Now that's a fact.

whereas your sources are you and creationist websites. Hilarious.

We think yours are pretty funny too. I think the Creator does as well.

Be careful when he stops laughing though...OK?

Nope. Qualifications at the very least show someone is competent.

Yes, we need qualifications to practice medicine, perform surgery, build skyscrapers, design engineering equipment, etc....but that doesn't mean that all of these things haven't seen improvement and the former ways abandoned when the new things made them obsolete.
But when it comes to the proliferation of life on this planet, science still can't tell us how it got here. It can't really tell us how all these species developed either without mountains of supposition and guesswork....not to mention wishful thinking and really good graphics.

You guys have evidence for adaptation, which has never been disputed, but you have NO hard evidence for what falls outside of that provable bit of science. Imagination fills in the gaps. Predictions are made and evidence is interpreted to fit the theory. That is all you have.

Hardly. You belief system is based on set of text from thousands of years ago with no new data since then whereas science uses data that is newly discovered and old.

Isn't that what you would expect if life was created? It is a basic truth that cannot be altered.
If a fact needs alteration, then it was never a fact to begin with.....so why pretend that there are facts in macro-evolution, when there are none?

However you miss a key point. When scientists are judgement regarding creationist like yourself it is due to your lack of education on the subject while proclaiming you know more than they do because the "bible says so".

Oh dear, here we go again with the "lack of education" thing......if a person is dead wrong about something, what does it matter what qualifications he has? If what he is taught is in error from the get-go, what will make his theory into a provable fact if he has no evidence to support it? If the "evidence" he presents is misinterpreted, and that misinterpretation is taught as truth, how many deluded people are we talking about here?

The power of suggestion is vastly underestimated in this world (except by those who use it to manipulate the perceptions of others)....
but people are waking up to how manipulated they really are about a whole lot of things.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Have you even read a thing I have said? If you had, then you would understand that the water canopy that was used in the flood is still on this earth. Not a drop of water can escape our atmosphere. The canopy was not put back after the deluge because great climatic changes occurred due to its removal. Had it been reinstated, then earth's temperate climate would have been restored. It clearly wasn't....and catastrophic weather events now seem to dominate the news more than ever.



Yes, I am aware of that claim.....and I even saw the pictures.

In this 2014 educational video from NASA about their new Orion Spacecraft, NASA Engineer Kelly Smith says something interesting about crossing the Vann Allan radiation Belts when travelling to the Moon and beyond:

This NASA engineer says...."As we get further away from Earth, we will pass through the Vann Allan Belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of Space."

Watch the video...it's very interesting, since they already claim to have done this.

Knowing that the Bible tells us this world is ruled by the most evil being in existence, it is not surprising to hear or see things of a corrupt nature, in any human endeavor. (1 John 5:19) Some believe in these things, some don't. We decide what we will believe and what we will reject.

And don't we have to ask, what is man's agenda in spending so much money (billions of dollars) on getting to the moon, when he cannot even manage his affairs on earth? If Science can have a budget so huge, but the same source of funding cannot even house its own homeless, don't we have to start asking why?

Perhaps his motive is to have somewhere to go when he has killed off all life on this planet with his very clever science.
And what about Mars? Same scenario?

Quite frankly, I find your trust in man more unwarranted than my trust in God.

Your theology is for you, not me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the problem being that [punctuated equilibrium] does not satisfy the original explicit prediction of Darwinism, that the evolutionary process would be steady, slow, continuous. Not explosive, followed by vast periods of stasis, even 100's of millions of years- that could hardly veer any further from the prediction.

Punctuated equilibrium does not contradict Darwin.

How are they advanced? advanced is a subjective term of course, but they are every bit as complex, sophisticated, advanced as modern crabs. So their state of 'evolutionary advancement' went from zero to 100% instantaneously in the record and has remained there since

Where did you get "zero to 100% instantaneously"? The Bible? Science tells us otherwise. Zero to about less than 80% took about 4 billion years.

 

[Olinda]

Speciation has been discussed many times too, and demonstrated to be something that happens only within a "kind".

That statement will only have meaning when you can tell us exactly what a 'kind' is.

You guys have evidence for adaptation, which has never been disputed, but you have NO hard evidence for what falls outside of that provable bit of science.

@Deeje, what do you mean by 'hard evidence', and how is it different from 'proof'?
In any case, there is NO 'provable bit of science', as you have been told. New evidence may amend any theory. . . the Bible called it "new light"

If a fact needs alteration, then it was never a fact to begin with.....so why pretend that there are facts in macro-evolution

Hasn't the 'truth' your religion teaches been subject to "new light"? Does that mean it wasn't the truth?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

we have an ever growing record of a decidedly non gradual development, to the point that even many Darwinists splintered from the original prediction of gradualism, into 'punctuated equilibrium' among other groups, to try to account for the problem.

we find many of the major invertebrate groups already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. As though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.

Back in Darwin's day, it was still believed that the explosion was merely an artifact of an incomplete record, as above, it's not just skeptics of atheism who acknowledge this problem.

There is no record of a non-gradual evolution. Evolution always proceeds gradually. The concept of punctuated equilibrium merely refers to the fact that once populations have adapted to their niches, for as long as their habitat remains relatively stable, they will not change at the same rate as when the environment is changing. This more accelerated rate is still evolution, still occurs over thousands of generations, and is not divine creation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Punctuated equilibrium does not contradict Darwin.



Where did you get "zero to 100% instantaneously"? The Bible? Science tells us otherwise. Zero to about less than 80% took about 4 billion years.

"Science tells us otherwise"

No, Darwinism tells you otherwise

Science shows these and most of the major phyla appearing with no apparent evolutionary history or ancestors, and this is acknowledged by Dawkins, Wikipedia and just about any scientific source you can reference.

Anything else has only ever existed in a Darwinian imagination land, dating to Victorian times

ID has no need to invent missing fossil evidence, the scientific record already concurs, ever more so.

And this evidence also confirms what we now know in the 21st C, about information system and how life relies on them.


We can randomly tweak parameters that govern hair thickness or beak length, or font size or color in this forum software, to our hearts content, and let the 'fittest' be naturally selected.

This does not mean, in fact it utterly prohibits, that the same 'trial and error' method can be used to author the digital operating systems that themselves are required to support such dynamic systems.

 

[gnostic]

Science shows these and most of the major phyla appearing with no apparent evolutionary history or ancestors, and this is acknowledged by Dawkins,

No, Guy.

It only appear that way.

Science only discovered a fraction of fossils. Not all life become fossils, and even those that do become fossils, some are yet to be "discovered", but most ("of the others") are already lost because they are destroyed due to rocks or minerals changing (metamorphism). And rocks along with fossils that become exposed to the surface for some times, fossils can be destroyed, due to weathering and erosion, before any of these being "observed".

Still, we have enough fossils as data, for scientists to observe the changes of species.

 

[gnostic]

ID has no need to invent missing fossil evidence, the scientific record already concurs, ever more so.

ID is a joke. It is not science, it is still pseudoscience, and it is very dishonest pseudoscience, because of how they misrepresented any data and evidence that have found, with circular reasoning that the Designer is somehow "involved", and the ID of the Discovery Institute have already being caught with lies so many times, that any qualified biologist they do have in their rank, have showed to be liars themselves.

None of the biologists, especially Michael Behe, have ever presented any hypothesis for peer review, because they can never present evidences to the existence of this Designer.

All ID adherents ever done, have presented conjectures about the Designer that never been substantiated or "verified" empirically.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Science tells us otherwise"

No, Darwinism tells you otherwise

Science shows these and most of the major phyla appearing with no apparent evolutionary history or ancestors, and this is acknowledged by Dawkins, Wikipedia and just about any scientific source you can reference.

Anything else has only ever existed in a Darwinian imagination land, dating to Victorian times

ID has no need to invent missing fossil evidence, the scientific record already concurs, ever more so.

And this evidence also confirms what we now know in the 21st C, about information system and how life relies on them.


We can randomly tweak parameters that govern hair thickness or beak length, or font size or color in this forum software, to our hearts content, and let the 'fittest' be naturally selected.

This does not mean, in fact it utterly prohibits, that the same 'trial and error' method can be used to author the digital operating systems that themselves are required to support such dynamic systems.

The scientific community disagrees with you. It considers the theory correct and the evidence in accord with it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Have you even read a thing I have said? If you had, then you would understand that the water canopy that was used in the flood is still on this earth. Not a drop of water can escape our atmosphere. The canopy was not put back after the deluge because great climatic changes occurred due to its removal. Had it been reinstated, then earth's temperate climate would have been restored. It clearly wasn't....and catastrophic weather events now seem to dominate the news more than ever.

You're just improvising now. You have no evidence for these claims.

In this 2014 educational video from NASA about their new Orion Spacecraft, NASA Engineer Kelly Smith says something interesting about crossing the Vann Allan radiation Belts when travelling to the Moon and beyond:

This NASA engineer says...."As we get further away from Earth, we will pass through the Vann Allan Belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of Space."

Watch the video...it's very interesting, since they already claim to have done this.

I don't get your point. That you've got conflicting data? Why is that relevant to this discussion? When did the engineer to which you refer say that?

Knowing that the Bible tells us this world is ruled by the most evil being in existence, it is not surprising to hear or see things of a corrupt nature, in any human endeavor. (1 John 5:19) Some believe in these things, some don't. We decide what we will believe and what we will reject.

Thanks for another biblical citation.

You don't also happen to know what the Qur'an say about it, do you? How about the Bhagavad Gita? I'd like to get the opinion of as many holy books as I can.

And don't we have to ask, what is man's agenda in spending so much money (billions of dollars) on getting to the moon, when he cannot even manage his affairs on earth? If Science can have a budget so huge, but the same source of funding cannot even house its own homeless, don't we have to start asking why?

I don't know if you mean the world, but you've been talking about NASA's budget, so I'll assume that you are referring to America.

America doesn't care about its homeless. It could take care of them if it did. It doesn't even want to provide health care for the working poor. It has nothing to do with the space exploration budget. America can afford both.

Have you seen the Trump budget? It will tell you what America's priorities are.

Trump couldn't have done it without the Christian vote. The humanists were and still are predominantly in opposition to Trump's politics and character, but not the Christians. Christians tell us how horrible the world is, and then elect Trump.

Sorry, but we can't do it without their help, and they were just no help. Au contraire: Donald Trump and the Transformation of White Evangelicals

========

Billions of dollars getting to the moon is cheap. Every billion is about $3 per American. I would have been happy to pay several thousand dollars for that myself.

It was one of America's two crowning achievements for which it will always be remembered, the other being its Constitution.

Perhaps his motive is to have somewhere to go when he has killed off all life on this planet with his very clever science. And what about Mars? Same scenario? Quite frankly, I find your trust in man more unwarranted than my trust in God.

Man's motive to get to the moon was part strategic (Cold War).

I was also part just being man and producing ever greater engineering marvels just to show i can be done and to learn what can be learned doing it.

But there is another potential benefit: Man needs to permanently colonize space to preserve humanity if a life extinguishing event occurred on earth. It might be self-inflicted or natural.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Science tells us otherwise"

No, Darwinism tells you otherwise

Science shows these and most of the major phyla appearing with no apparent evolutionary history or ancestors, and this is acknowledged by Dawkins, Wikipedia and just about any scientific source you can reference.

The scientific community seems pretty content with the theory. The theory says that we all have evolutionary ancestors since the first population of cells began evolving.

ID has no need to invent missing fossil evidence, the scientific record already concurs, ever more so.

The scientific community rejects ID. It isn't a scientific hypothesis, and its advocates have produced nothing of value using the idea.

And this evidence also confirms what we now know in the 21st C, about information system and how life relies on them.


We can randomly tweak parameters that govern hair thickness or beak length, or font size or color in this forum software, to our hearts content, and let the 'fittest' be naturally selected.

This does not mean, in fact it utterly prohibits, that the same 'trial and error' method can be used to author the digital operating systems that themselves are required to support such dynamic systems.

I don't see your point. Your comments are unrelated to natural selection.

What is your purpose arguing against this theory? To convince rational skeptics to abandon evolutionary theory? You don't have a good enough argument. The scientists have an excellent one. You can't compete simply by making arguments from incredulity and god of the gaps arguments. The theory isn't undermined by claims that it seems unlikely, nor is it weakened by any gaps in knowledge.

Why would we abandon a theory that unifies so many observations, proves a mechanism to account for them, makes predictions about what can and cannot be found that have never been contradicted by evidence, and has been used to our benefit in fields such as medicine and agriculture?

Why would we turn that in for an unsupported, unfalsifiable idea that can do none of those things? Because religious people object to its implications and tell us that they just don't see how it's possible and list the things we haven't observed or can't yet explain?

By the way, will somebody give me a clear definition of what "macroevolution" and "kind" mean? We just keep hearing that the firs doesn't occur and that evolution can't produce new "kinds." What precisely is being said can't happen? I don't think that creationists actually have a clear idea themselves given the number of times I've asked this and gotten no clear answer. Is speciation "macroevolution"? Are modern man and neanderthals "kinds"? How about modern man and Lucy? Are those different "kinds"?

It can't be an argument against science if you can't say just what you are claiming.

Where are you arguments against the other scientific theories, or is this the only one that the scientific method got wrong?

 

[Deeje]

No, Guy.

It only appear that way.

Let me wave my magic wand and make it "appear" to be what it isn't.....

Science only discovered a fraction of fossils. Not all life become fossils, and even those that do become fossils, some are yet to be "discovered", but most ("of the others") are already lost because they are destroyed due to rocks or minerals changing (metamorphism). And rocks along with fossils that become exposed to the surface for some times, fossils can be destroyed, due to weathering and erosion, before any of these being "observed".

The lack of fossil evidence is no excuse to make up what they can't prove. To make predictions and then interpret the fossil evidence to fit the prediction is very dishonest IMO.

Still, we have enough fossils as data, for scientists to observe the changes of species.

You have nothing of the sort. Its all made up.

 

[ArtieE]

Is this supposed to be your god producing animals? Or can you tell us a little more about the design and creation process? There's an estimated 8.7 million species on the planet today and an estimated 99% of all species that have existed are extinct. Can you give us an estimate on how many different animals or species your god designed and created over a period of 4 billion years?