Just Accidental?

[savagewind]

 

[Guy Threepwood]

O the lunatic fringe...? Who assumes that they fit this designation? The smug majority?

You know, that is what I love about the Bible.....the heroes are always considered the "lunatic fringe" by the smug majority who always get their comeuppance in the end. I see a similar scenario looming.

I brag that I am not taken in by the jargon of the smug majority. When you strip the jargon away and explain your theory in simple terms, it is exposed as the fraud it has always been. Pure fantasy.



What makes you think that "95% of the membership of the National Academy of Sciences" has to be correct if they have all swallowed the same empty rhetoric based on the assumptions of their peers, rather than anything provable? I have seen scientists and science students interviewed about how certain they are that evolution is a fact....they all say the same thing...."of course it is"....but when you press them to produce evidence that does not rely on either faith or belief....they are stumped......Why? Because it doesn't exist. They mumble some facts about adaptation but this is far from proof for macro-evolution.



That "august body" can be as deluded as anyone else who has a belief system they don't want to abandon. How silly would they look and how ridiculed would any individual be if they tried to infer that science has it all wrong on this topic? We only have to look at those who have tried. They have been laughed out of academia and their careers ruined.
You think we don't see the bully boy tactics used by those who promote evolution?
Dawkins' is a classic example...his first port of call is derision and ridicule when dealing with anyone who disagrees with him.

Talk about 'ego problems'....evolutionary science seems to be fueled by a collection of egos, not a collection of facts.

I was absolutely guilty of this when I believed in evolution. I would immediately think someone stupid for daring to question the 'mountain of empirical evidence'

Then when they started asking for specifics, after dragging out the poor old peppered moth, and dog breeding etc, I'd have to start getting into all the excuses for why the evidence hasn't actually been found yet- and now call them stupid for expecting that there should be mountains of evidence!

Then of course I could always claim that my scientist army was bigger than their scientist army. The biggest wins, that's how science works, and anyone who questions this is a denier of science!!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Its a theory,

and because it cannot be proven by any demonstrable scientific method that requires hard evidence....it will remain a theory. It is unprovable by any lab test used to establish the truth of other branches of science. Adaptation is not proof for macro-evolution and never was.

It's a SCIENTIFIC theory. Which, as you should know at this point in this thread, is a demonstrable, well substantiated and well evidenced scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth. It is the only scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on earth that best fits the available evidence - that is the reason it graduated from an hypothesis to a scientific theory in the first place. This has been pointed out and explained to you ad nauseam.

It will always be a scientific theory, just like gravity and germ theory (which you don't seem to have any problems with). I know this has been explained to you endless times as well and yet you're still here, repeating falsehoods.

You come into this thread after 180 pages and thousands of replies and imagine you have anything new to add? Seriously.....you are wasting space on this site.

I've been going back and forth with you all throughout this thread, Deeje, almost since the start.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain how you're distinguishing which things are designed when you have no undesigned things to compare them to.

I see you're still repeating yourself.

Is that what you think we believe...? Please.....do you have anything of value to add to this discussion?

That appears to be what you are saying, yes. Your lack of explanation in response to my query only reinforces it.

If you think God is stupid then you are elevating yourself above him.....that says it all really.

I'm pointing out that it is you, who apparently thinks your god is too stupid to have come up with evolution.

I think we all know who is asking 'stupid' questions.....

Obviously if there is a Creator he is way smarter than any human....unless of course you can create a universe from nothing.....?

Instead of trying to throw it back on me, why not try answering the question instead?

If this Creator is so much smarter than humans, why is it that you don't seem to think this god could have come up with evolution?

And I believe that these people have sold out because they cannot defend their own ridiculous version of creation so they try to have a foot in both camps, attempting to make themselves credible in both.....sorry, you have to choose. I choose God. You can choose whatever you like.

It seems they give their god more credit than you do. In my opinion, their beliefs make more sense than yours do and are better supported by the available evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

They say the Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo da Vinci.....can you prove it?

Have you personally seen the artist? Did you see him produce this artwork?

I know from experience that humans produce paintings. There are no known instances of paintings occurring naturally. Paintings are not biological organisms capable of reproducing. And yes, there is plenty of evidence that Leonardo da Vinci existed, and also painted (and wrote) many other things.

I'm sorry but this is a terrible argument.

Again, you've tried to turn it back on me. How about backing up anything you say with any kind of actual evidence? I mean, seriously, you expect insanely high standards from the science community (which they've actually more than provided) and yet provide so much less than that when trying to make your case for god. It's bizarre.

 

[Deeje]

You're welcome to say "nuh-uh" to this like you say to everything else, but that's besides the point: The point is i made this post, and you are going to fail replying to it in a proper manner, and in fact your reply is what i'm actually trying to achieve with this post. Your reply will then count as evidence for something.

Please don't waste your time posting to me on this thread as I find your attitude completely hostile and not contributing anything besides the boringly negative snipes that are evident in every post you make.

There are enough negative responders here....you are one too many.

Bye

 

[savagewind]

 

[Darkstorn]

Please don't waste your time posting to me on this thread as I find your attitude completely hostile and not contributing anything besides the boringly negative snipes that are evident in every post you make.

There are enough negative responders here....you are one too many.

Thanks, just what i expected and wanted.

Bye

Oh i'm not leaving.

 

[Deeje]

It's a SCIENTIFIC theory. Which, as you should know at this point in this thread, is a demonstrable, well substantiated and well evidenced scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth. It is the only scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on earth that best fits the available evidence - that is the reason it graduated from an hypothesis to a scientific theory in the first place. This has been pointed out and explained to you ad nauseam.

But of course you have to be right because science says so....? Who says science cannot be mistaken? I can take the very same evidence and show you the Creator. Will you believe it? For the same reason...I don't believe what evolution teaches....and never will. It begins with a wrong premise and everything built on that premise will collapse when the foundations give way. You have an impressive looking house built on sand. According to the Bible, a tsunami is coming......time to stop admiring the building and check out the foundations. I see big cracks.....

It will always be a scientific theory, just like gravity and germ theory (which you don't seem to have any problems with). I know this has been explained to you endless times as well and yet you're still here, repeating falsehoods.

"Repeating" is what is most boringly evident on this thread.

I can prove gravity by jumping off a building. I already know it will end badly, but there is your proof.
Germ theory too has been proven just by quarantining the infected person and disinfecting the area the person inhabits. If germs (and viruses) were not transmissible, quarantining and disinfecting would accomplish nothing. (quarantining was practiced in Israel as part of the Law, long before germs were even thought about)

To place evolution in the same category as these is a joke IMO. You cannot prove any of it. You can make all the suggestions under the sun....but you can't back them up with anything but wishful thinking and nice diagrams.

I've been going back and forth with you all throughout this thread, Deeje, almost since the start.

Really? I hadn't noticed. Its a long thread and your contributions were not exactly raising anything new apparently.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain how you're distinguishing which things are designed when you have no undesigned things to compare them to.

That is a weird question.....what "undesigned" things are you referring to? I have no idea.....?

I can point you to millions of designed things.....but nothing really "undesigned" in the big picture. Can you? Even something as simple as a rock can be aesthetically beautiful if placed in the correct setting.

That appears to be what you are saying, yes. Your lack of explanation in response to my query only reinforces it.

If you think so, then my mission is accomplished. Your query is ridiculous so it obviously wasn't worth responding to.

I'm pointing out that it is you, who apparently thinks your god is too stupid to have come up with evolution.
Instead of trying to throw it back on me, why not try answering the question instead?

If this Creator is so much smarter than humans, why is it that you don't seem to think this god could have come up with evolution?

Is this another one of your incomprehensible questions?

Why would I, as an artist make up my canvas, arrange my palette with all the necessary colors for my creation, travel to my desired destination, set up my easel before an awesome landscape, and then walk away and leave my canvas in the woods for a few million years to see what artwork might result from the natural elements? Do you even think about the questions you ask? Seriously....?

When I cook a meal, I prefer to select my own ingredients, sourced from a place that I trust uses no poisonous chemicals in its production, and combine the ingredients in a recipe I know will result in something flavorsome that can be enjoyed by my whole family.....I prefer to do that rather than just buy a frozen dinner in the supermarket and heat it up in a microwave and hope it resembles the packshot. (which it never does) This is the reason why people will pay big money for a top class chef to prepare a meal and present it in a very appealing way.
I believe God operates on the same principle. His creations are appealing to the senses...all of them. He gave us those senses to appreciate his creations. Only humans can admire beauty, because they alone are 'made in God's image'.

It seems they give their god more credit than you do. In my opinion, their beliefs make more sense than yours do and are better supported by the available evidence.

No, they give the Creator no credit at all.....they sell out to popular opinion and forget how powerful the Creator is, and how he values loyalty, faith and integrity. Fear of man is a powerful tool in the wrong hands. You cannot have a foot in both camps.....the Creator "created" just as he said he did.....you can believe that or not. There is no middle ground.

 

[minorwork]

These are a few different species of ducks....one can only marvel at their artistic designs and color schemes.

Who could possibly think that these just evolved and turned out like this through the process of gene mutations and adaptation? What survival advantage is there in being this beautiful?

Their existence is evidenced enough of the advantage. Also what prompted these pictures to be displayed, the beauty of survival else you'd not have them to display. Some displays attract more than others. Are you attracted to ugliness in making spousal choices?

You're right. One can only marvel. Speculation of why they are beautiful ruins the viewing experience. Just evolved? Hahahahahahaha.


I See. How Come Can't Thee? by minorwork

Plants and animals and stuff in between
Have parents, at least it seems so to me.
The creatures are different, there are some that fly
And others that have no bones inside.
Inside the earth below
Are layers of long ago
Holders of remnants, simpler still
Than the ones above it on the hill
Let’s give it a name, a solution
One that’s called evolution
The lineage from the past seems clear
From things that are simple have come things complex
How did it happen? That’s what will perplex.

 

[Deeje]

Their existence is evidenced enough of the advantage. Also what prompted these pictures to be displayed, the beauty of survival else you'd not have them to display. Some displays attract more than others. Are you attracted to ugliness in making spousal choices?

What perpetuates any species is programmed into their DNA, otherwise adaptation would not occur and species that don't adapt, disappear. What makes any species attractive to a mate? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder apparently. But when looks don't matter, hormones take over. The species will be perpetuated and the choice of mate (often very deliberate on the part of females) will ensure that the best specimens populate the area. The gene pool has to be maintained otherwise it becomes polluted. Natural processes ensure that populations are maintained.

I see that a polluting of the gene pool is taking place among humans at present. It is fast becoming a cesspool. Those who are low on the intelligence scale appear to be breeding like rabbits whilst those with higher intelligence are opting for a lucrative career. Many of the 'beautiful people' are too selfish to have children and those who do usually end up with pampered brats who are useless to anyone....including themselves. This is speaking generally, not specifically, of course

You're right. One can only marvel. Speculation of why they are beautiful ruins the viewing experience. Just evolved? Hahahahahahaha.

Why we find anything beautiful is the crux of the whole matter. What is the point of being beautiful if no one notices? What use is color without color vision? What use is sound without hearing? Feeling without touch? Smell with no aroma? Taste without flavor? Do you see how much evolution takes for granted?

Apparently the Creator thought we were a bit special because only after the creation of man 'in the image of his God' did our Maker declare that "everything was very good".

Thanks for the poem....it doesn't exactly flow though.

How about this....?

The "solution" to the problem of whence we all came
is a bountiful Creator, whose favor we gain
when we see him as someone
whose talent we share
and can walk in the beauty of life everywhere. (Just off the top of my head.)

 

[Deeje]

I know from experience that humans produce paintings. There are no known instances of paintings occurring naturally. Paintings are not biological organisms capable of reproducing. And yes, there is plenty of evidence that Leonardo da Vinci existed, and also painted (and wrote) many other things.

I'm sorry but this is a terrible argument.

Its only a 'terrible argument' because you can't refute it. Have you ever seen Leonardo da Vinci paint anything? Draw anything? Write anything? Don't you have to take someone's word for his existence? Don't you have to trust that his signature on his work is actually his?

Biological organisms cannot jump into life spontaneously. Science knows that "all life comes from pre-existing life"....and yet denies it when they speak of evolution. If you raise the problem of abiogenesis, they run a mile waving their arms about and pointing to that other branch of science to address what they cannot. "Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis"....how convenient.

What is the point of arguing about how life changed if you don't know how it started?

Again, you've tried to turn it back on me. How about backing up anything you say with any kind of actual evidence? I mean, seriously, you expect insanely high standards from the science community (which they've actually more than provided) and yet provide so much less than that when trying to make your case for god. It's bizarre.

You just don't get, do you?

I have stated throughout this thread that I cannot produce any hard evidence for my Creator.....meaning that we are on equal footing. You have a "belief system", based on what others have told you....just like I do. The "mountains of overwhelming evidence" provided for evolution are smoke and mirrors.....they don't actually exist except in the fertile imaginations of scientists trying to support a suggestion. An unprovable suggestion will never become a fact unless you have proof. You have NO PROOF, so its not a fact, and should never be taught as such.

The "insanely high standard" is what science maintains for itself....except when it comes to evolution. Then they swap fact for fantasy whilst accusing creation supporters of having no evidence. We have as much real evidence as you do.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's a SCIENTIFIC theory. .

I know, just like steady state, eugenics, electric shock therapy, blood letting and phrenology. Most of us are not as interested in whether it's scientific, or even SCIENTIFIC which is actually even less convincing with the yelling, but rather whether or not it is actually true.

 

[Darkstorn]

I know, just like steady state, eugenics, electric shock therapy, blood letting and phrenology. Most of us are not as interested in whether it's scientific, or even SCIENTIFIC which is actually even less convincing with the yelling, but rather whether or not it is actually true.

More like the germ theory, the gravitation theory etc.

You're missing the point anyway; You're using the word scientific here as an adjective, but the term "scientific theory" is more of a noun. It's a different thing than "regular" vernacular theory: In common speech it does means something akin to a hypothetical guess indeed.

But a scientific theory is essentially the best explanation for phenomena in science; Supported by facts, which are in turn supported by evidence. If you are going to use science to make your claims, you have to accepts its methodology in its entirety and not just the parts you want:

If you're going to present a scientific argument, then you MUST by definition accept also the definition for "scientific theory" or you look like someone who doesn't understand the issue you're talking about.

I mean, you can't possibly talk about science and not understand what "scientific theory" means.

 

[gnostic]

No, they give the Creator no credit at all.....they sell out to popular opinion and forget how powerful the Creator is, and how he values loyalty, faith and integrity.

Science is about understanding nature or the mechanics. It has nothing to do with faith and loyalty.

And you talk of sell out to popular opinions, but is that generally what religions do, what each religion or sect or church compete against others, and that include Jehovah's Witnesses.

Don't JW followers think they are special?

You, yourself displayed arrogance that come from thinking you are special and superior. This lead to very apparent bias in thinking, clouding your judgement and taken leave of common sense.

Furthermore, you have not provided a single piece of evidence on the existence of God. All you doing, have been positing picture after picture of animals, but none of these photos show God being responsible for their existence.

You are simply conjecturing god's existence, but these are nothing more than expression of your wishful fantasy and deluded logic.

 

[gnostic]

It's a SCIENTIFIC theory. Which, as you should know at this point in this thread, is a demonstrable, well substantiated and well evidenced scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth. It is the only scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on earth that best fits the available evidence - that is the reason it graduated from an hypothesis to a scientific theory in the first place. This has been pointed out and explained to you ad nauseam.

It will always be a scientific theory, just like gravity and germ theory (which you don't seem to have any problems with). I know this has been explained to you endless times as well and yet you're still here, repeating falsehoods.


I've been going back and forth with you all throughout this thread, Deeje, almost since the start.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain how you're distinguishing which things are designed when you have no undesigned things to compare them to.

I see you're still repeating yourself.



That appears to be what you are saying, yes. Your lack of explanation in response to my query only reinforces it.



I'm pointing out that it is you, who apparently thinks your god is too stupid to have come up with evolution.
Instead of trying to throw it back on me, why not try answering the question instead?

If this Creator is so much smarter than humans, why is it that you don't seem to think this god could have come up with evolution?


It seems they give their god more credit than you do. In my opinion, their beliefs make more sense than yours do and are better supported by the available evidence.

Isn't it remarkable...and very disturbing...that after the number of years that Deeje has been here that she still doesn't know what a scientific theory is or what is scientific evidence?

You would think that by now, she would learn something about science, but she still demonstrated she has the same ignorance she started off with, when she became member of RF.

Guy and Thief also demonstrated the same traits of stubborn ignorance and lack of honesty.

 

[Jose Fly]

I know from experience that humans produce paintings. There are no known instances of paintings occurring naturally. Paintings are not biological organisms capable of reproducing. And yes, there is plenty of evidence that Leonardo da Vinci existed, and also painted (and wrote) many other things.

I'm sorry but this is a terrible argument.

Analogies to man-made objects are all they have. If they had actual examples of biological systems and structures that were "designed" and a method by which they determined them to be so, they would post them. They don't post them because they don't have any.

So we get bad analogies to paintings, junkyards, and houses......over, and over, and over, and over, and over.

 

[Jose Fly]

But of course you have to be right because science says so....?

Even if that's all he was saying, it's a far cry better than "I have to be right or else my entire life will lose all meaning and purpose, and my friends and family will completely disown me".

Given the choice between trusting the consensus conclusion of world's earth and life scientists over the last century, and trusting the conclusions of someone being emotionally blackmailed into them, I'd say it's a fairly obvious choice.

 

[Jose Fly]

More like the germ theory, the gravitation theory etc.

You're missing the point anyway; You're using the word scientific here as an adjective, but the term "scientific theory" is more of a noun. It's a different thing than "regular" vernacular theory: In common speech it does means something akin to a hypothetical guess indeed.

But a scientific theory is essentially the best explanation for phenomena in science; Supported by facts, which are in turn supported by evidence. If you are going to use science to make your claims, you have to accepts its methodology in its entirety and not just the parts you want:

If you're going to present a scientific argument, then you MUST by definition accept also the definition for "scientific theory" or you look like someone who doesn't understand the issue you're talking about.

I mean, you can't possibly talk about science and not understand what "scientific theory" means.

How many times are we going to try and explain something to creationists as basic as what "theory" means in science, only to have them ignore it and later post the whole "evolution is just a theory" thing again?

This isn't at all about science; it's about religion and until that becomes the focus of the discussion, we'll just keep spinning in the same circles, repeating the same things, again and again.

 

[Jose Fly]

Isn't it remarkable...and very disturbing...that after the number of years that Deeje has been here that she still doesn't know what a scientific theory is or what is scientific evidence?

Not at all. As she explained herself, she has a very serious vested emotional interest in denying evolution, and part of that involves not understanding it in the first place.

You would think that by now, she would learn something about science, but she still demonstrated she has the same ignorance she started off with, when she became member of RF.

If she were to start to understand the science, she might start seeing it as reasonable. That's a risk she just can't take. That path leads to emotional ruin and social rejection.

So no, it's not surprising at all to see her behave the way she does. In fact, I'd say it's expected.

 

[Sapiens]

Its only a 'terrible argument' because you can't refute it.

Refutation is simple and was clearly offered. Sticking your fingers in your ears changes nothing.no

Have you ever seen Leonardo da Vinci paint anything? Draw anything? Write anything? Don't you have to take someone's word for his existence? Don't you have to trust that his signature on his work is actually his?

There is an entire field dedicated to the proper assignment of works of arts to their authors. Are you maintaining that all art historians are also plotting against you?

Biological organisms cannot jump into life spontaneously. Science knows that "all life comes from pre-existing life"....and yet denies it when they speak of evolution.

No one says it ever did. Life, unlike death, is not a switch, it developed slowly and went through many stages. Demanding a short step from no-life to life is on the stupidity level of the croc-a-duck.

If you raise the problem of abiogenesis, they run a mile waving their arms about and pointing to that other branch of science to address what they cannot. "Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis"....how convenient.

The origin of life and the diversity of life are completely different phenomena, pretending that they are the same is that "fingers in the ears" behavior again.

What is the point of arguing about how life changed if you don't know how it started?

There are many things that have unknown origins yet about which many other things are known.

You just don't get, do you?

I have stated throughout this thread that I cannot produce any hard evidence for my Creator.....meaning that we are on equal footing.

No, you have been shown hard evidence of evolution ... there's that "fingers in the ears" behavior yet another time..

You have a "belief system", based on what others have told you....just like I do. The "mountains of overwhelming evidence" provided for evolution are smoke and mirrors.....they don't actually exist except in the fertile imaginations of scientists trying to support a suggestion. An unprovable suggestion will never become a fact unless you have proof. You have NO PROOF, so its not a fact, and should never be taught as such.

The "insanely high standard" is what science maintains for itself....except when it comes to evolution. Then they swap fact for fantasy whilst accusing creation supporters of having no evidence. We have as much real evidence as you do.

[/quote]Genomics alone is more than enough in the way of hard proof.