Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

@Deeje , how many times have you derided "science" for using uncertain terminology? I mean, such as 'could have', might lead to' etc??
Yet with these gaping holes in your own "theory", you have no doubts at all?

I have no gaping holes in my own theory, and that is the point. The explanation given by the Bible leaves no gaps.
The explanation is not given in "scientific" terms so it is rejected by the learned elite as 'childish'. Imagine if the Creator had used his own descriptive scientific terminology for his creative efforts?......then it would be the scientists who feel childish. I imagine he is shaking his head at their ignorance. How can intelligent humans be so gullible?

Doesn't it all boil down to what we "want" to believe? That is true no matter which camp you are in. You have as much of a "belief system" as we do....you just can't admit it.

My position all along has been to expose evolution as the "invention" of men who want to describe creation within the scope of their own limited knowledge and self-taught experience of the material realm. To listen to some scientists, you would think that they know all there is to know about everything....and to use "religion" and "science" in the same sentence is somehow sacrilege.

The Creator exists as part of science, which he invented. I cannot separate God from science.
God did not create religion...men did. Confusing the Creator with the inventions of men is rather silly.

I have stated all through this thread that scientists have no more real evidence for the validity of their theory than we have for the existence of our Creator. I see scientists 'suggesting' all kinds of things, but I see no actual proof for any of it. Nice diagrams though.....for whatever they are worth.

Here's one....

Please note the timeframe between these species and the fact that there are no specimens between linking any of them, in any way to one another. The evolution of the horse is imagined. Who really knows what Echippus looked like 60,000,000 years ago? The bones, or what was left of them, wouldn't tell the story in that kind of detail.

This seems to tell more of the story.....

We can make 'suggestions' too and back them up with evidence of design for all living things, perfectly suited to the habitats that were created for them. We can use the same evidence as you do and arrive at a completely different conclusion. It is clear that science relies more on guesswork than on actual proof.

OK, I get it, @Jose Fly is right, you need to believe, nuff said.

I do not "need" to believe any more than you do....I know what I see with my own eyes and what natural science tell me about the ingenious designs we see in so many species on this planet, and in the wider universe itself. I see adaptive change in earthly creatures as part of that creative genius, but I see nothing that translates adaptation into macro-evolution except in men's imagination. ...nuff said?

Yes, exactly, you do have to believe it.

I believe it because I am a spiritual person who appreciates that all things designed have a purpose and purpose is the product of intelligence. If you can't see that, then perhaps it is you who "has" to believe what science suggests in spite of the fact that science has no facts.

 

[gnostic]

It isn't about the lake of fire. It is about the sin of cowardice. People do not usually consider cowardice a sin.

I am agnostic, not a Christian.

Sins are for Christians.

In the Old Testament, not believing in god and not worshipping god is considered as one of the gravest sin.

But they are only sins if the Israelites turn away from god, but not a sin for non-Israelites. The law (Torah) or more specifically the Ten Commandment only applied to the Israelites.

God chose the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as his chosen people for the covenant and for the Torah (law), not with the rest of the world.

If you as a Christian, and most likely not of Jacob's descent, choose to follow both the Old Testament and New Testament, then if you should break one of his laws or rules, then the sin is yours.

Your sin doesn't apply to any non-believer.

I followed the law of the land, and in my case, Australia. And though Christians are the largest majority, it is a secular society, where people can choose or not choose his preferred religion.

And being agnostic, crimes bother me not sins. There are no evidences to support the existence of god, so there is certainty that is one (or many), so I don't follow your religion. You may see me as a sinner, but I don't see myself as one; your sin don't apply to me.

 

[Deeje]

I can understand why you'd want to turn the conversation away from the reality of the situation you're in.

And what "reality" would that be Mr Fly? The one you've created in your own mind? There are lots of funny ideas created in people's minds and they often get to thinking that they are real.....who knows the difference between one person's fact and another's fantasy? Its all in the power of suggestion...something to which NO ONE is immune. We each have our own 'reality'. You are entitled to yours and I am entitled to mine. The burden of proof was on you science buffs to provide solid evidence that evolution actually happened the way science "suggests" it did, and yet you delivered nothing that was concrete...no actual proof. You have a "belief" system, just like we do.....but you can't seem to admit it.

The psychological angle hasn't worked for you...the assertions of ignorance don't hold water because science should be able to show us at the most introductory level, proof for the validity of their theory, but the more simple you make it, the more ludicrous it sounds.
....and the bullying tactics are water off a duck's back....so what's next? Accusations of terrorism?

I just hope I'm not the only one who will remember what you described.

Do you remember what I described?

Why do you pose that as a question? It's not like you're genuinely interested in the answers.

Ever heard of a rhetorical question? It is meant to be answered in the minds of those watching the video.
Hopefully they will see the exquisiteness of this perfectly designed creature and be moved to thank its Maker.
You are not one of those, as we already know.

As you so clearly explained, there is really only one option for you....."design". All other possibilities would lead you down a path of complete emotional and social ruin.

You are hilarious. "a path of complete emotional and social ruin"?

Oh the drama of it all

......the derision and put downs only make you look petty and childish. I expect so much more from the educated elite, which you seem to purport to be. Just give us the simple facts that show us conclusively that evolution ever took place.....is that too much to ask for something that is sold to the public as a "fact"?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

religious thinking, largely Christian, founded much of the civil society you take for granted today, churches, monasteries originated and preserved most of the learning, knowledge, books through the dark ages, glorifying God by appreciating, exploring his creation has always been a huge driver of science

That's a claim that I don't accept. Religious thinking has given us very little of value - nothing that we couldn't have come up with in an atheistic world.

Atheistic thinking hasn't done any of that,- Dawkins, Hawking, Sagan, Tyson, have contributed much to book sales and TV ratings, but little or nothing to practical science

There is nothing called atheistic thinking. My thinking is characteristic of secular humanism, a common choice for atheists.

Atheistic thinking has unambiguously held science back numerous times before and I think still is with the topic of this thread- an outdated and unscientific Victorian view of natural history. The eugenics movement it directly inspired hardly boosted the human condition did it?

If you disagree I'd be interested to know if you have any substantive position on why

You haven't made a case for any of your claims, so I simply note them as your preferences and opinions.

Did you want to condemn science because there was a eugenics movement?

 

[Olinda]

I have no gaping holes in my own theory, and that is the point. The explanation given by the Bible leaves no gaps.

Here is your 'theory' again. . .
"When humans were kicked out of the garden and rulership of the world was handed over to the 'god' they chose to obey, no one really knows how much of an influence it had on creatures other than humans. Up until the flood humans were vegetarians and so were the animals. Only after the flood were humans given permission to eat flesh. Perhaps with the water canopy gone and the increase in radiation from the sun, both humans and some animals needed extra protein in their diet? No one knows for sure....all we know is what the Bible tells us about the future when paradise conditions are restored to the earth."
You don't see the gaps, even in red? Oh well.

The explanation is not given in "scientific" terms so it is rejected by the learned elite as 'childish'.

Can you give a single example of the 'learned elite' doing this?

Doesn't it all boil down to what we "want" to believe? You have as much of a "belief system" as we do....you just can't admit it.

Of course I have a belief system, and how do you know what I can or can't admit? And despite your grossly oversimplified mantra of "believe in evolution = deny God = break laws and indulge", there are many more reasons for my beliefs than just what I want.

My position all along has been to expose evolution as the "invention" of men who want to describe creation within the scope of their own limited knowledge and self-taught experience of the material realm.

Then I'm afraid you need to provide a great deal of evidence to make that case.

I have stated all through this thread that scientists have no more real evidence for the validity of their theory than we have for the existence of our Creator.

Well, stating that is no substitute for evidence. You seem to be using the terms "hard evidence" and "real evidence" as if they meant something; unless you define them I'm not sure what. It seems to be so that you can get around the fact that you have been given a lot of evidence... and admitted it... but now want to wave it all away.

We can make 'suggestions' too and back them up with evidence of design for all living things, perfectly suited to the habitats that were created for them.

OK then, back to the barn owl. If it was "perfectly designed" to be vegetarian, why the ability to fly low and silently, and change direction so fast? Do grasses and leaves run away? Why the large beak and talons? Why the night vision; couldn't the bird feed in daylight? Or did all these features evolve or adapt (your choice) since the Biblical flood?

I believe it because I am a spiritual person who appreciates that all things designed have a purpose and purpose is the product of intelligence. If you can't see that, then perhaps it is you who "has" to believe what science suggests in spite of the fact that science has no facts.

It is always a privilege to learn from a spiritual person. I look forward to your answers about the barn owl.

 

[Sapiens]

You could ask many accomplished scientists like Behe, why they changed their minds.

Behe? Accomplished? Really?
The fact is that Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the entire scientific community, save a very few outliers. Note that his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing intelligent design in general and Behe's views specifically:

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.​

 

[Deeje]

Here is your 'theory' again. . .
"When humans were kicked out of the garden and rulership of the world was handed over to the 'god' they chose to obey, no one really knows how much of an influence it had on creatures other than humans. Up until the flood humans were vegetarians and so were the animals. Only after the flood were humans given permission to eat flesh. Perhaps with the water canopy gone and the increase in radiation from the sun, both humans and some animals needed extra protein in their diet? No one knows for sure....all we know is what the Bible tells us about the future when paradise conditions are restored to the earth."
You don't see the gaps, even in red? Oh well.

I am not the one trying to pretend that I have "facts" that should be forced on everyone as if they were undeniable or indisputable. Belief is what it is...."belief". I have a belief in an Intelligent Designer and I see evidence for his creative genius all over the natural world. Some scientists have a belief in undirected macro-evolution and see the same evidence that I do, but we come to opposite conclusions. We can't both be right. I believe we will all see the truth soon enough.

Can you give a single example of the 'learned elite' doing this?

LOL, ever watched YouTube videos of Jerry Coyne? There are others, but his stand out almost as well as the Master of derision himself....Dawkins.

Of course I have a belief system, and how do you know what I can or can't admit? And despite your grossly oversimplified mantra of "believe in evolution = deny God = break laws and indulge", there are many more reasons for my beliefs than just what I want.

I have a mantra?

"believe in evolution = deny God = break laws and indulge"....goodness, when did I say that?

If I have a mantra, it's "believe it or not".

Then I'm afraid you need to provide a great deal of evidence to make that case.

Well, I don't actually. All I need to do is show people what design looks like and then demonstrate the impossibility of what science claims are millions of years worth of very fortunate accidental, yet beneficial mutations for every species on earth. Mutations are almost always detrimental. Trying to suggest that there are billions of beneficial mutations for every species is a little far fetched, don't you think?

Well, stating that is no substitute for evidence. You seem to be using the terms "hard evidence" and "real evidence" as if they meant something; unless you define them I'm not sure what.

Didn't the horse evolution diagram give it away? Science presents two animals 20 million years apart and says...look! this one evolved from that one.....but in 20 million years, there is nothing in between the two to suggest that they are even related.
The diagram shows what science 'thinks' these creatures looked like but the illustrator had nothing to go on except a few bones.....its all guesswork. The "hard evidence" is demonstrating that the missing links in this evolutionary chain are not figments of a very vivid, collective imagination. Produce the legendary missing links or admit that science has an unprovable theory.

It seems to be so that you can get around the fact that you have been given a lot of evidence...and admitted it... but now want to wave it all away.

Are you serious? This "overwhelming evidence" that science is supposed to have, is flimsy and circumstantial to say the least. The fossils are not saying what science is suggesting at all. Science gives them a voice and of course it supports their theory.

OK then, back to the barn owl. If it was "perfectly designed" to be vegetarian, why the ability to fly low and silently, and change direction so fast? Do grasses and leaves run away? Why the large beak and talons? Why the night vision; couldn't the bird feed in daylight? Or did all these features evolve or adapt (your choice) since the Biblical flood?

According to Genesis, along with permission to eat flesh, the animal kingdom were instilled with fear of man. (Genesis 9:1-7) It gave them a fighting chance to survive. If the animals, and in this case the Barn Owl, were also given instincts to hunt flesh, then to give their prey a fighting chance, they are often able to outsmart or to outrun or even to outmaneuver their predators. As for the other points, you'll have to ask the designer. He has made everything suitable for the habitat into which he placed them. Adaptation has facilitated the ability to survive in an unnatural world. We will see what other purposes God's designs can accommodate.

Some of the strongest animals on earth are vegetarians. Even my dog eats grass.

It is always a privilege to learn from a spiritual person. I look forward to your answers about the barn owl.

The "answers about the Barn Owl" are design features that accommodate the lifestyle of creatures that God created for a reason. They obviously had to adapt to a new food source, or perhaps the small prey were provided in plentiful numbers for them? They are not the only creatures who have adapted well to hunting. We have only scratched the surface when it comes to discovering all there is to know about the natural world. I am looking forward to endless discoveries myself.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Doesn't it all boil down to what we "want" to believe? That is true no matter which camp you are in.

That is incorrect.

Choosing what to believe is faith. What the reason and evidence based thinker believes is imposed on him by his critical thinking skills.

Consider this comment:

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

Presumably, he could choose to believe that 2 + 2 = 14, 76, or 2034 if he wanted to, and I believe that you could as well. I can't. I'm sure that that is because our minds have been trained to work differently, not an because of an innate difference in us.

You have as much of a "belief system" as we do....you just can't admit it.

We each have a different worldview. That's about where the symmetry ends. To call them equivalent is a false equivalency fallacy. See above and below.

We can use the same evidence as you do and arrive at a completely different conclusion.

With faith, you can come to any conclusion you like or its polar opposite. With reason applied to evidence, the choices become more more constrained. Only conclusions that accurately describe a portion of reality are accepted as knowledge, and the test of that is their ability to accurately predict events and at times be used to determine their outcomes and/or control some aspect of nature in a useful way.

This is why there is only one periodic table of the elements, but tens of thousands of Christian denominations alone. Religion doesn't have to have a single correct idea in it because it is never tested against reality and it doesn't need to have any of its predictions or pronouncements tested or confirmed. One Christian tells us that we will burn in a lake of fire where there will the gnashing of teeth, another that we will exist in a state of separation from God but not be actively tortured, and another that we will sleep forever after death like we did before birth. Nobody need make a single test or observation, and the ideas are all useless. None can be used to make life longer, healthier, safer, or more comfortable.

That's what your method, faith, produces.

But the periodic table is a different kind of thing. It is derived from studying the world, it is based on a conception of how atoms are made that predicted the existence of as yet unseen but later confirmed elements including their weights and chemical properties, and it has served as the foundation for the science of chemistry that has been put to use in countless ways.

That's what our method, rational empiricism, produces.

Here's a question that you have been asked a number of times and every time have ignored. I don't expect you to ever answer it, but maybe you can explain why you don't.

The question is, why would we ever throw out an idea like evolutionary theory that performs like the periodic table - accounts for mountains of observations about the tree of life using a unifying explanatory mechanism, makes predictions that are falsifiable but never falsified, and has application to technology that has improved the human condition for an idea - why would we toss that out and replace it with an idea like creationism that cannot be used for anything? It is as sterile an idea as astrology, which, like creationism, cannot be used for anything except making a living.

Why would we do that?

 

[Jose Fly]

And what "reality" would that be Mr Fly?

That would be what you described were you to go against the Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings on this issue.....loss of purpose and meaning in your life, no hope for the future, being treated like a "rotten piece of fruit" and someone who "spreads poison" by your JW friends and family.

That's the only reality that matters here.

The burden of proof was on you science buffs to provide solid evidence that evolution actually happened the way science "suggests" it did, and yet you delivered nothing that was concrete...no actual proof.

Why does the scientific data matter to you? Why do you keep demanding that we present it? Would you cast aside your faith, which provides you with meaning, purpose, a future, friends, and family, if you were presented with the right set of fossils or genetic data? Does your life's purpose and meaning hinge on old bones and nucleotide sequences?

You have a "belief" system, just like we do

I am under no emotional or social threat should I change my mind on this subject. I could change my mind tomorrow and I would suffer no such consequences for that decision. So even at the most basic level there is no equivalency between our two positions.

The psychological angle hasn't worked for you

I'm not sure what you mean by "worked". Given all the terrible things you'd have to endure if you changed your mind, it's completely unreasonable to expect you to do so.

and the bullying tactics are water off a duck's back

The only "bullying" going on here is what the Jehovah's Witnesses are doing to you. They're the ones who've convinced you that changing your mind would cause you to lose all meaning and purpose, and be treated like a "rotten piece of fruit" and poison spreader by your friends and family.

Do you remember what I described?

Very much so.

Ever heard of a rhetorical question? It is meant to be answered in the minds of those watching the video.

Ah, so when you asked if the owl was evolved or designed, you were not the slightest bit interested in hearing any answers. That's very telling.

You are hilarious. "a path of complete emotional and social ruin"?

Oh the drama of it all

......the derision and put downs only make you look petty and childish.

How is it a put down to reflect exactly what you told me? Did you expect that after describing how your life would lose all meaning and purpose if you were go against Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings, everyone would forget it all?

Just give us the simple facts that show us conclusively that evolution ever took place.....is that too much to ask for something that is sold to the public as a "fact"?

Why?

Let's recap some of the things you and I have already been over....

When I posted links to published scientific papers that described the observed and documented evolution of new species, you complained that the jargon was beyond your understanding, and then accused the authors of using that technical language to conceal a lack of data. When I asked you to substantiate that accusation, you left.

When I posted links to descriptions of observed evolution of new traits, abilities, and genetic sequences you said they were "adaptation not evolution". But when I asked you to explain the difference between adaptation and evolution, you cited a source (Encyclopedia Britannica) that said they are the same thing. Then you left.

When I posted a link to a description of the complete fossil record of foraminifera, and how it shows Darwinian evolution over long periods of time, you went to a Wiki page for foraminifera and highlighted it using the word "likely". When I asked you to explain how that is any sort of sensible rebuttal, you left.

See the pattern? We present you with the evidence you keep asking for, you make some bizarre excuse to wave it away, and when we ask you to explain yourself, you leave. Then you go into another thread or discussion and ask to see evidence all over again, as if nothing had ever happened before. Given that history, why would anyone keep trying to look up, link to, and try and explain more scientific data for you? Everyone here already knows exactly what you'll do, right?

Now to be clear, that sort of behavior is precisely what one would expect from someone who is (as you described) being emotionally blackmailed into denying that evolution has ever happened. With the understanding of all the horrible consequences you'd have to face, your seemingly bizarre behavior suddenly makes sense. As strange and dishonest as you come across here, it pales in comparison with what you'd have to go through if you compromised on this issue. Presented with a choice between "look like an odd, ignorant, dishonest person" and "lose all meaning, purpose, friends and family", it's not at all surprising to see you choose the former. Most people would.

 

[Deeje]

Choosing what to believe is faith. What the reason and evidence based thinker believes is imposed on him by his critical thinking skills.

Consider this comment:

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

Presumably, he could choose to believe that 2 + 2 = 14, 76, or 2034 if he wanted to, and I believe that you could as well. I can't. I'm sure that that is because our minds have been trained to work differently, not an because of an innate difference in us.

I am not that easy to convince. If the Bible said that 2+2=5 then I would have to investigate the statement, (because it is illogical) I would want to know where it was made, who made it and why it was stated. I have the same approach to creation as science does to evolution, only I keep digging until I have satisfied myself about the validity or reason for the answer. I cannot blindly believe something for the sake of it. I have to have a basis upon which to base my beliefs and that foundation has to be rock solid. Evolution has no such basis.

I cannot believe something that is so badly formulated that its essence is more bizarre than its explanations and diagrams. The power of suggestion is very strong...couple that with peer pressure and fear of ridicule (think: the Emperor's new clothes) and you have a flimsy theory fully backed up by supposedly intelligent people who have not a shred of solid evidence that macro-evolution is even possible, let alone that it ever took place.

With faith, you can come to any conclusion you like or its polar opposite. With reason applied to evidence, the choices become more more constrained. Only conclusions that accurately describe a portion of reality are accepted as knowledge, and the test of that is their ability to accurately predict events and at times be used to determine their outcomes and/or control some aspect of nature in a useful way.

I see people having that kind of faith in scientists and their ability to predict things. I apply reason to everything I believe and an Intelligent Creator is still my No1 choice for the origin of the miracle we call life. The portion of reality that is right under all our collective noses screams at me that designed things must have a designer and that what demonstrates purpose must have intelligent direction driving it. Science tends to promote the idea that if they don't believe something, it can't possibly be true. What arrogance!

That's what your method, faith, produces.

This is also what your theory produces. "Faith" is placed in science and its teachers, its methods and predictions. How is it any different from faith placed in the Creator as a teacher, whose methods and predictions are just as valid to us?

It seems to me that the problem lies in the mention of "supernatural" events or concepts. "Supernatural" is placed in the same category as "mythological", but that to me is ridiculous. There is no doubt that many "religions" operate on a superstitious level; their adherents do not question the existence of their gods and live their lives enslaved to mindless rituals and devotion to lifeless idols. I see religion as man-made.....I don't see God as man-made. I cannot separate the Creator from his creation. He is the ultimate scientist and without his creations, science would have nothing to study.

But the periodic table is a different kind of thing. It is derived from studying the world, it is based on a conception of how atoms are made that predicted the existence of as yet unseen but later confirmed elements including their weights and chemical properties, and it has served as the foundation for the science of chemistry that has been put to use in countless ways.

That's what our method, rational empiricism, produces.

Those predictions were accurate because the laws governing them were so precise. Who made the laws that enabled those predictions to be so accurate? You think those laws just popped up out of nowhere?

Here's a question that you have been asked a number of times and every time have ignored. I don't expect you to ever answer it, but maybe you can explain why you don't.

The question is, why would we ever throw out an idea like evolutionary theory that performs like the periodic table - accounts for mountains of observations about the tree of life using a unifying explanatory mechanism, makes predictions that are falsifiable but never falsified, and has application to technology that has improved the human condition for an idea -

I have responded to this question, but perhaps not in the way you wanted me to.

No one is saying anything about throwing "science" under the bus, which you seem to think we have done. Science is a wonderful tool for understanding the natural world.....but there are things introduced into science that do not follow the rules that apply to other branches. The "evidence" they present is not really evidence at all....but suggestions made to look like evidence. Suggestions about what "might have" happened cannot take the place of facts...but in evolutionary science, they have replaced the need for substantiated evidence with mere speculation....and virtually unopposed. I think we all know the reasons for the seeming lack of opposition.

I hear about all this "empirical evidence" which the dictionary defines as.... "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."
Now this is where I see the problem. What is actually "verifiable" in evolutionary science? What "empirical evidence" can be produced for something that supposedly took place millions of years before any intelligent being inhabited this planet? Who documented what took place all those eons ago with any accuracy? (aside from the Creator?)

Do you see what I see? Filling in the blanks with conjecture and supposition based on other studies in other branches of science does not fix the problem. More conjecture is added to something that was never proven in the first place. You have this really ornate building, skillfully constructed on matchsticks. But you are all so busy admiring the architecture that no one has noticed an obvious problem.....the foundations cannot take the weight.

why would we toss that out and replace it with an idea like creationism that cannot be used for anything? It is as sterile an idea as astrology, which, like creationism, cannot be used for anything except making a living.

Why would we do that?

I have not tossed out anything at all in science, except the conjecture and assumption that forms the basis of macro-evolution.
Evolution flies in the face of two principles that it holds to be true....."nothing comes from nothing" and "all life comes from pre-existing life". Why are those two proven principles not true only in this branch of science?

 

[Olinda]

Didn't the horse evolution diagram give it away? Science presents two animals 20 million years apart and says...look! this one evolved from that one.....but in 20 million years, there is nothing in between the two to suggest that they are even related.
The diagram shows what science 'thinks' these creatures looked like but the illustrator had nothing to go on except a few bones.....its all guesswork. The "hard evidence" is demonstrating that the missing links in this evolutionary chain are not figments of a very vivid, collective imagination. Produce the legendary missing links or admit that science has an unprovable theory.

So, if tomorrow an authentic fossil is found bridging the 20 million year gap, will you accept that as evidence for evolution? Or two fossils, or five? I'd be very surprised if you did. after all, you have dismissed much better documented chains - particularly foraminifera - for rather unclear reasons.
And yet again... "you say science has an unprovable theory". How many times do you need to be reminded that all scientific theories are unproven? Nevertheless, they are all supported by a lot of evidence, and the ToE is a good example of this. I also note that you have not addressed the fact that there is no evidence against the ToE.

According to Genesis, along with permission to eat flesh, the animal kingdom were instilled with fear of man. (Genesis 9:1-7) It gave them a fighting chance to survive.

so far, I agree this is what it says, except the reason is just conjecture.

If the animals, and in this case the Barn Owl, were also given instincts to hunt flesh, then to give their prey a fighting chance, they are often able to outsmart or to outrun or even to outmaneuver their predators.

This is extrapolation, mentioned nowhere in the Bible. However, even if so, the Barn Owl was 'given' a great deal more than instincts. Remember? Night vision, greatly enhanced flight, silent flight, sharp beak, large talons? Not to mention massive changes to the digestive system for it to be able to swallow parts of its prey, digest protein and spit out the unusable fur and bones. And you believe that all these changes took place in less than 5000 years? Seems to me that the owl of today could not be the same 'kind' as the vegetarian pre-flood bird.

As for the other points, you'll have to ask the designer. He has made everything suitable for the habitat into which he placed them. Adaptation has facilitated the ability to survive in an unnatural world. We will see what other purposes God's designs can accommodate.

"don't know" - that's fair enough.

The "answers about the Barn Owl" are design features that accommodate the lifestyle of creatures that God created for a reason. They obviously had to adapt to a new food source, or perhaps the small prey were provided in plentiful numbers for them? They are not the only creatures who have adapted well to hunting. We have only scratched the surface when it comes to discovering all there is to know about the natural world. I am looking forward to endless discoveries myself.

I'm sorry for the small prey, though. And it's nice that you believe a time will come when you are allowed to learn without restrictions - even if I won't (according to your beliefs) be there to see it.

 

[Deeje]

So, if tomorrow an authentic fossil is found bridging the 20 million year gap, will you accept that as evidence for evolution? Or two fossils, or five?

I would accept a chain with actual links....not bits of links found all over the place, 20 million years apart with claims of relationship. How many links would one expect in 20 million years? Way more than what is presented. Filling the gaps in with imagination is not very scientific IMV.

How many times do you need to be reminded that all scientific theories are unproven?

I knew that, so how come most of the high school students and those entering university to study the various sciences don't know this?
Is it taught as an unproven theory? I don't think so.

Nevertheless, they are all supported by a lot of evidence, and the ToE is a good example of this. I also note that you have not addressed the fact that there is no evidence against the ToE.

Actually the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record (there must have been billions of them) is proof to me that Genesis is true. If all this 'evolving' took place, where is the evidence for slowly evolving parts in those creatures not yet completely evolved? How do you explain the multitudes of creatures who had to evolve as both males and females at the same time for reproduction? Did these all just co-incidentally evolve as a 'couple' with their respective 'equipment' in various stages of completeness until one day they discovered how to mate? And this happened with how many different species of birds, reptiles, land animals and marine creatures? That is just a little too much co-incidence for my liking.

the Barn Owl was 'given' a great deal more than instincts. Remember? Night vision, greatly enhanced flight, silent flight, sharp beak, large talons? Not to mention massive changes to the digestive system for it to be able to swallow parts of its prey, digest protein and spit out the unusable fur and bones. And you believe that all these changes took place in less than 5000 years? Seems to me that the owl of today could not be the same 'kind' as the vegetarian pre-flood bird.

Flying creatures were created at the beginning of the 5th creative period. I am not suggesting that creatures who now hunt prey were not already endowed with their skills and attributes. Perhaps some animals were created to feed on small prey.....the Bible does not go into that kind of detail. But as with any dietary change came the skills needed to obtain their food. How long would it have taken for the Galapagos creatures to adapt to their Island habitat? The creatures were clearly still the same "kind" as the mainland species, but adapted to a different environment.

The creative periods are each called a "day", but then Genesis calls the whole creative process a "day". (Genesis 2:4)
In Hebrew, this word is used for an undisclosed period of time, not just a 24 hour period, so to us, it is clear even from the Genesis account that the creative periods were not literal 'days'. We accept an old earth and a long slow and deliberate creation over perhaps millions of years by our Intelligent Designer.

I'm sorry for the small prey, though. And it's nice that you believe a time will come when you are allowed to learn without restrictions - even if I won't (according to your beliefs) be there to see it.

You feel sorry for the mice? If they are in plentiful supply as we have seen them in plague proportion in some country areas at times, I'm guessing that Barn Owls would be most welcome by the farmers. Have you ever had mice take up residence in your pantry? Its a common problem in the country. They are welcome to stay in their own territory but not in my house.

I do believe the time will come when all things will be open to deeper study by everyone. Human intellect (which precludes many people from being able to assimilate knowledge of complex subjects at present) will not be determined by genetic inheritance in the future, but will be the possession of all as God intended at the beginning. No human was meant to have defects of any kind. We hope to live in a world of peace and security under the best rulership the world could possibly have...by the one who was instrumental in its production. Heaven knows the world is struggling under its present forms of rulership.

We have no 'restrictions' to learning at present either, so I am not sure what you mean by that. The Internet has opened up a world of knowledge to all.....not all knowledge is worth knowing however.

Whether you are there to enjoy the benefits of the world to come, is between you and your Maker. Nothing to do with me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I cannot believe something that is so badly formulated that its essence is more bizarre than its explanations and diagrams. The power of suggestion is very strong...couple that with peer pressure and fear of ridicule (think: the Emperor's new clothes) and you have a flimsy theory fully backed up by supposedly intelligent people who have not a shred of solid evidence that macro-evolution is even possible, let alone that it ever took place.

This is how I would describe creationism and faith in it. Jose has done a nice job of explaining the role of peer pressure in the life of a Jehovah's Witness.

You still refuse to provide a mechanism that can prevent what you call "macroevolution" from occurring. There's probably a pretty good reason for that.

I apply reason to everything I believe and an Intelligent Creator is still my No1 choice for the origin of the miracle we call life.

Actually, it's your only choice. You have eliminated the other choice without justification.

A god is actually still on my list of candidate hypotheses for the origin and diversity of life. It's just that its a distant second to naturalistic hypotheses.

You have no second choice.

It seems to me that the problem lies in the mention of "supernatural" events or concepts. "Supernatural" is placed in the same category as "mythological", but that to me is ridiculous.

"Supernatural" is an indistinct concept that is not needed. It explains nothing except why a god is indistinguishable from the nonexistent. That's its purpose. When there were no viable alternatives to god hypotheses, the obvious question became, "Where is this god? Why is the most powerful and significant aspect of reality invisible to us? It must be somewhere inaccessible to us."

We have a better answer than that today.

Those predictions were accurate because the laws governing them were so precise. Who made the laws that enabled those predictions to be so accurate? You think those laws just popped up out of nowhere?

No. I think they formed either formed naturalistically or were created by an intelligent designer. Since there is no evidence of an intelligent designer and no further need to invoke one, the idea has dropped to second place as I indicated. Unlike you, I will not arbitrarily rule a logically possible option out until I can disprove its possibility.

I have not tossed out anything at all in science, except the conjecture and assumption that forms the basis of macro-evolution.

What an amazing coincidence that the only aspect of science that you have tossed out is that which contradicts what you have chosen to believe by faith. I wonder what motivates that choice - all of the study and contemplation on evolution that you keep telling us you once did, or your faith.

Evolution flies in the face of two principles that it holds to be true....."nothing comes from nothing" and "all life comes from pre-existing life". Why are those two proven principles not true only in this branch of science?

Nothing coming from nothing is irrelevant to the discussion of evolution.

There is no scientific precept that all life comes from existing life. The work of Redi and Pasteur is irrelevant to the possibility of abiogenesis occurring on prebiotic earth.

I notice that you still haven't given a reason to replace a useful scientific theory like evolution with a sterile hypothesis like creationism. There's probably a reason for that as well.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, It's not difficult to make a theory work 'in theory' when you are not inconvenienced with much empirical evidence to adhere to- which was the case in Darwin's day-

back then it was still possible to theorize that the gaps were mere illusions, artifacts of an incomplete record.

We could imagine that species had much longer periods of time to evolve than they did, that the cell was a relatively simple object...

any remote similarity could still be presented as an example of transition. The fragments of Piltdown man belonged together 'without question' for decades, and It was still believed without question not so long ago that birds came from dinosaurs and so on.. but the evidence has increasingly clashed with all these theoretical assumptions

So I might argue that these are not 'gaps' any more, in the sense that most of Darwin's doubts have been pretty well confirmed at this point- and I think he would be a skeptic today by his own standards. But as you see here; the support 150 years later has a very distinct emotional component, it's very difficult to engage many Darwinists in any substantively scientific basis, though I commend you for trying!

"Back in Darwin's day ... " type of arguments are irrelevant today. You have some catching up to do.

As to the empirical evidence for evolution - there's a ton of it. To assert that there isn't "much" is to make a false claim.

 

[gnostic]

I have no gaping holes in my own theory, and that is the point. The explanation given by the Bible leaves no gaps.

Yes, Deeje. You say that, but in the quote below (esp what I have highlighted in red), you have done exactly that...

When humans were kicked out of the garden and rulership of the world was handed over to the 'god' they chose to obey, no one really knows how much of an influence it had on creatures other than humans. Up until the flood humans were vegetarians and so were the animals. Only after the flood were humans given permission to eat flesh. Perhaps with the water canopy gone and the increase in radiation from the sun, both humans and some animals needed extra protein in their diet? No one knows for sure....all we know is what the Bible tells us about the future when paradise conditions are restored to the earth.

...you have attempted to fill in the gaps, that Genesis has never written: that humans and animals were vegetarians, before the Flood.

The Genesis never say they were vegetarians. You are making it up with your interpretations, and you did so by quoted a few passages from unrelated book (Isaiah), which had nothing to do with Genesis narratives on the Creation and on the Flood.

You fill it with your deluded fantasy and illogical opinion, but you can show know evidences that they were vegetarians.

First. Illogical because in Genesis 4, Abel was a "shepherd" before his brother murdered him. No where in this chapter, does it indicate they were vegetarians.

There are no reason for shepherds, unless they are keeping and growing "herding" goats and sheep, as sources for their food. Abel offered the choicest fat portion of the firstling as sacrifice to God.

That would mean, Abel would have to kill lamb or kid, butcher so that he could cut the best portion of the firstling. Knowledge in how to kill and cut meat from animal, would indicate Abel can eat meat.

The only time you actually read of anyone eating anything, is when Eve and Adam ate the fruit from the forbidden Tree. You don't see or read anything until you get to the Abraham story, but that doesn't mean they didn't eat meat, before the Flood.

And that Abel was a shepherd, does imply, meat was one of their diet requirements. Animal husbandry, such as what cattlemen and shepherds do, they don't keep animals with them, unless they are going to eat them.

It is very clear to me that you are not thinking logically about Genesis, as you believe you do.

I doubt very much that any of the narratives within Genesis to be true, but you clearly don't understand that you have been filling in the gaps with Genesis story.

Second. The human history goes beyond the bible accounts, especially that of creation. And it (human history) show that for long part of their history, before farming happened, before agriculture became common in the Neolithic period, man were hunters and gatherers.

You don't hunt games unless you intend to eat the games. And one of the earliest weapons used by hunters were wooden sticks were shaped and sharpened at the end of long stick - the spear - this was before stone spearheads were used.

Other than stones being used, such as throwing at animal, the spears were used more effectively to kill animals they were hunting for in the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic periods.

Even when agricultural farming and domesticating cattle and flocks began in the Neolithic period, hunting didn't stop.

All the evidences point to humans eating meat, long before the Bronze Age.

You don't know much about the bible, and you keep making things up about Genesis, and you really don't know much about history, including archaeological evidences. You ignoring evidences revealed only desperate and dishonest you are.

And you have been filling gaps in Genesis story, with your unsubstantiated fantasy about what humans and animals eat.

 

[gnostic]

"Back in Darwin's day ... " type of arguments are irrelevant today. You have some catching up to do.

As to the empirical evidence for evolution - there's a ton of it. To assert that there isn't "much" is to make a false claim.

It showed the level of dishonesty among the Creationism camp, whenever they deny the existence of evidences.

The evidences are there, whether it support or don't support evolution, but to say are no evidences whatsoever, just tantamount to lies and making false claims.

 

[Deeje]

...you have attempted to fill in the gaps, that Genesis has never written: that humans and animals were vegetarians, before the Flood.

I have no gaps in my knowledge that God created all things just as he designed them. The vegetarian issue is a side point that is not even important compared to how life began and in what order God created them. We know for sure that humans were vegetarians in the beginning. Permission to eat meat came only after the flood.

Genesis 9:3-4:
"Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 4 Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat."

The Genesis never say they were vegetarians. You are making it up with your interpretations, and you did so by quoted a few passages from unrelated book (Isaiah), which had nothing to do with Genesis narratives on the Creation and on the Flood.

To the first humans.....

Genesis 1:29-30
"Then God said: “Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you. 30 And to every wild animal of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving on the earth in which there is life, I have given all green vegetation for food.” And it was so."

You want to argue with the Bible?

 

[Deeje]

First. Illogical because in Genesis 4, Abel was a "shepherd" before his brother murdered him. No where in this chapter, does it indicate they were vegetarians.

There are no reason for shepherds, unless they are keeping and growing "herding" goats and sheep, as sources for their food. Abel offered the choicest fat portion of the firstling as sacrifice to God.

Um....I think you just answered your own question....the sheep were for sacrifice, not eating. The "clean" animals that were on the ark were taken in by sevens.....three pairs for breeding and one for sacrifice. The first thing Noah did when he came out of the ark was to sacrifice to his God. They were provided before he even went onboard.

 

[Deeje]

This is how I would describe creationism and faith in it. Jose has done a nice job of explaining the role of peer pressure in the life of a Jehovah's Witness.

There are two kinds of peer pressure.....one is good and positive, the other detrimental and negative

And of course peer pressure plays no role in the world of science at all......

It is defined as follows...."Individuals often find themselves conforming to the group's norms, behaviors, attitudes, speech patterns, and dress code to earn acceptance and approval. ... Sometimes peer pressure is exerted through what Freud called the “group mind,” the mentality of a group of people that takes on a life of its own."

You see that in religious belief.......I see it even more so in the world of science.

Gratefully, some scientists are brave enough to stick their necks out....

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species")

"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, co-discoverer of DNA)

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology)

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)

Also from Sir Fred Hoyle...my favorite..... "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious."

This is what other noted scientists have said......if they can't believe in evolution, because there is a complete lack of evidence, then why would anyone with half an once of intelligence disbelieve them?

You still refuse to provide a mechanism that can prevent what you call "macroevolution" from occurring.

Well, your Honor, there is not a single shred of evidence that it has ever happened, so unless you have substantiated evidence, it needs to be thrown out of court!

Actually, it's your only choice. You have eliminated the other choice without justification.

That's what happens when you know the truth....everything else that is put up against it is a lie. I don't need to have a second choice if I already know the truth. I have full justification for throwing out an unproven theory. That's logical....no? I have no dilemmas....no second thoughts....no doubts. Its called conviction. I am grateful for it because it took me a long time to arrive at this destination....and I would not swap it for anything, let alone something as absurd as macro-evolution is.

A god is actually still on my list of candidate hypotheses for the origin and diversity of life. It's just that its a distant second to naturalistic hypotheses.

You have no second choice.

I don't need one....why do you?
If God is somewhere down on your list, then don't you think he knows that?
I would be more concerned with being at the bottom of his list, personally.....

"Supernatural" is an indistinct concept that is not needed. It explains nothing except why a god is indistinguishable from the nonexistent.

"Supernatural" simply means "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." You think that a power that science has yet to discover has to be mythological? Will you only acknowledge this God when he confronts you? The examples of those in the Bible who did that are a warning......they did not end well.

When there were no viable alternatives to god hypotheses, the obvious question became, "Where is this god? Why is the most powerful and significant aspect of reality invisible to us? It must be somewhere inaccessible to us."

The Bible give us a very good explanation for all of that.....the Creator is not a material being. He dwells in an immaterial place that the Bible calls "heaven"....since no human has ever been there, and no human ever could, his 'inaccessibility' is for our own welfare. If this planet is almost 150 million klm from the sun and we still cannot look at it without causing damage to our retinas, (as well as it burning our skin) what do you imagine the Creator of all the suns to be like? Can humans even contemplate such a being?

He has granted 24/7 access to himself by means of prayer. Can your President or Prime Minister be contacted directly by you 24 hours a day? Though he portrays himself as a father, he is not an overindulgent parent. He often grants requests in ways we don't at first appreciate.....and sometimes the answer is just.... "NO".

I think they formed either formed naturalistically or were created by an intelligent designer. Since there is no evidence of an intelligent designer and no further need to invoke one, the idea has dropped to second place as I indicated. Unlike you, I will not arbitrarily rule a logically possible option out until I can disprove its possibility.

The "evidence" for an Intelligent Designer is all around you...you just need to open your eyes and appreciate it. I don't have any other "possible options". My process of elimination was done and dusted decades ago. Science has produced nothing in the way of convincing evidence since then....if anything I agree with the scientists in the quotes above.

the only aspect of science that you have tossed out is that which contradicts what you have chosen to believe by faith. I wonder what motivates that choice - all of the study and contemplation on evolution that you keep telling us you once did, or your faith.

And haven't you chosen to toss out that which contradicts what you have chosen to believe? You have chosen to believe in evolution on faith too.....there is no proof, so what do you have other than a "belief" and "faith" in those who promote that belief system so vigorously?

Nothing coming from nothing is irrelevant to the discussion of evolution.

If you study "something" it had to come from somewhere.....if there was no creation and humans did not have the level of intellect that they alone possess, you would have no subject for study and no brain to process the information. You think the human brain is the result of a string of fortunate accidents? Really?

There is no scientific precept that all life comes from existing life. The work of Redi and Pasteur is irrelevant to the possibility of abiogenesis occurring on prebiotic earth.

Ah, the "pre-biotic earth" ....the planet itself is a miracle of creation even without any living thing upon it......how did that come into being? How could something as monumental in scale as the universe just appear out of nowhere....with laws that govern it have not changed since the beginning of its existence. These laws just made themselves, did they?

I notice that you still haven't given a reason to replace a useful scientific theory like evolution with a sterile hypothesis like creationism.

Possibly because the adjectives you used in that last statement would indicate that I am wasting my breath. You do not want to be convinced.....and that is your prerogative.

 

[Olinda]

I would accept a chain with actual links....not bits of links found all over the place, 20 million years apart with claims of relationship. How many links would one expect in 20 million years? Way more than what is presented. Filling the gaps in with imagination is not very scientific IMV.

So, what is the basis for how many links you expect? You know that fossilization is a rare event. You also know that no fossil found to date contradicts the ToE. You have also been told that the fossil evidence is also supported by evidence for the ToE from other sciences such as genetics. That's a long way from your unsupported assertion of 'imagination.

I knew that, so how come most of the high school students and those entering university to study the various sciences don't know this?
Is it taught as an unproven theory? I don't think so.

If you knew it I'm afraid it was disingenuous at best to refer to it as 'unproven'. So what is your basis for asserting that students don't know that scientific theories are not proven? I learned it from my teachers years before university.

Actually the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record (there must have been billions of them) is proof to me that Genesis is true.

Please re-read the first paragraph. Also you are misusing the word 'proof' here, or perhaps you still don't understand it.

If all this 'evolving' took place, where is the evidence for slowly evolving parts in those creatures not yet completely evolved?

This stale ID argument has been debunked so many times already it's not worth bothering with. If you really don't get it I'll find a link.

How do you explain the multitudes of creatures who had to evolve as both males and females at the same time for reproduction? Did these all just co-incidentally evolve as a 'couple' with their respective 'equipment' in various stages of completeness until one day they discovered how to mate?

How many times in this thread alone have you been told that evolution proceeds by small increments, and the better-adapted individuals produce more offspring?

Flying creatures were created at the beginning of the 5th creative period. I am not suggesting that creatures who now hunt prey were not already endowed with their skills and attributes. Perhaps some animals were created to feed on small prey.....the Bible does not go into that kind of detail. But as with any dietary change came the skills needed to obtain their food.

So now maybe animals were not after all vegetarian before the flood? Perhaps even larger prey? Perhaps men were not always vegetarian either?

How long would it have taken for the Galapagos creatures to adapt to their Island habitat? The creatures were clearly still the same "kind" as the mainland species, but adapted to a different environment.

Exactly, that's why I find it very hard to believe that well-adapted carnivores changed from vegetarian animals in less than 5000 years.

You feel sorry for the mice? If they are in plentiful supply as we have seen them in plague proportion in some country areas at times, I'm guessing that Barn Owls would be most welcome by the farmers. Have you ever had mice take up residence in your pantry? Its a common problem in the country. They are welcome to stay in their own territory but not in my house.

Yes, mice and I are both mammals after all. Certainly I don't want them in my home; fortunately they are reluctant to move in with my formerly feral cat.

We have no 'restrictions' to learning at present either, so I am not sure what you mean by that. The Internet has opened up a world of knowledge to all.....not all knowledge is worth knowing however.

The JW ladies who visited me would not accept written material either about my religion, nor about evolution.

Whether you are there to enjoy the benefits of the world to come, is between you and your Maker. Nothing to do with me.

Of course it isn't . But you have stated your beliefs about it clearly enough.