The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

You do know there is not an insignificant number of scientists that do not accept evolution? What you really want me to do is "learn" that your version is the correct one and the others don't count. If that is your idea of science, I'd suggest you learn what science actually says.

You are wrong in this. When it comes to people that actually understand the science it is a small fraction of 1%. When it comes to all scientists it is getting close to 99% acceptance rate. You are dealing with the fringe when you rely on deniers.

And you really should try to learn what people that understand evolution are proposing. So far you have only used strawman attacks on the science. How would you like it if Christianity was described as "The belief that nailing someone to a tree makes you live forever". I would say that is not exactly accurate, but it is probably more accurate than your depiction of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What a brilliant jurist you are! From the flimsiest of evidence you are somehow able to ascertain the entire situation. You already have the answer before the question arises. Can we say, "preconceived ideas?"

Not judging, just suggesting there is no way to have a meaningful discussion with you. That's OK, I like you anyway.

You provided the evidence. You made the strawman arguments and that was pointed out to you and corrected. You can't blame a person for a little snark when someone refuses to learn and pretends that they are taking the high road.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus once said people wouldn't believe him though he rose from the dead. I could be wrong, but I think I'd be fighting the same upwind battle with you.

I doubt I'm mistaken that you are an intelligent person. I really don't accept that you are incapable of finding respected scientists who don't accept evolution.

Take care.

Oh there are a few Unfortunately none of them can seem to use any science to refute the concept. That means in this regard that they are not "scientists". If one wants to refute the theory of evolution, and it may be possible, then one needs to use the scientific method. "It's wrong because it makes my religion wrong" is never a valid refutation. Creationists are generally viewed with disdain because they refuse to use the scientific method properly, and then lie and say that they have refuted evolution. In the sciences being wrong is forgivable. Scientists are wrong quite often. Lying on the other hand is not forgivable if the person never owns up to his lie and does a "mea culpa".

 

[McBell]

You do know there is not an insignificant number of scientists that do not accept evolution?

Oh?
Name some.
Now remember you specifically said "scientists" so no padding your list with non-scientists.

 

[Heyo]

The fact is you know next to nothing about me, what I know, or what I do.

I know as much about you as I do about anyone on this forum: I see what you write. And what you wrote was demonstrably wrong or ill understood.
"A scientific theory is empirical[h][129] and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism.[j] The philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguished truth from certainty. He wrote that scientific knowledge "consists in the search for truth," but it "is not the search for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain.[130]" from
Science - Wikipedia
Do we agree on that definition of science?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My whole point is that there are indeed way more than a few things involved. I'll give you your billions and more, it still doesn't prove evolution. It is still a theory with no more intrinsic truth than Genesis.

Tell you what: get out your old movie camera (the one that uses film) and set it up to film a rosebud opening into full bloom. This will take many hours, so be patient. When you're done, go ahead and examine as closely as you like any two adjacent frames -- and you will not be able to tell them apart. Even quite a few frames apart, and you'd see no difference at all. And yet, compare the first frame to the last, and how alike are they?

(For the benefit of those who don't get it, this is just a silly analogy about how tiny, imperceptible changes can result in very great differences, given enough of them.)

 

[Heyo]

You do know there is not an insignificant number of scientists that do not accept evolution?

What's the significance of that number? (aka p-value)
q.v.: Statistical significance - Wikipedia

 

[cladking]

"Intrinsic truth." What does that mean? The theory of evolution has literally millions of data points of evidence that you (even you yourself, if you chose) can investigate. What does Genesis have? Bald statements of supposed fact.

Let me provide you with just one "bald fact" from Genesis. "Eve was created by God, by causing Adam to fall asleep, removing a rib, and making her out of that rib." You agree? Genesis says that?

Now, let me tell you a story.

First, the word for "rib" that is used in Genesis is a word that generally means "support."

Second, as eaters of meat, the Jews were aware of the anatomies of the creatures they killed. And they were aware of their own anatomy, too -- and this is important.

Third, every mammal that the Jews at the time knew about had a bone in their penis called a "baculum." Humans were the only creature they knew that did not have one. (New world monkeys, which the Jews could not have known about, also lacked a baculum and, like humans, used only hydraulics to lift that weapon into strike position.)

The Jews were also aware that every male has a very apparent scar between his testes and his anus (it's where he healed when his hormones said "thou shalt not be female"). It's call a "raphe," by the way.

Now, using the information just presented, can you try to figure out how the Genesis story of Eve being created from Adam's rib could be concocted?

It shouldn't take too much imagination -- and when you see it, it's actually quite wonderful in what it tells us about how we actively and aggressively look for answers to what we don't understand.

I see what you did there.

The problem here is that there is not real evidence that change in complex species is the result of survival of the fittest or that there is any substantial change in species that is gradual. All observed change in species is sudden just as all observed change in living individuals is sudden.

We actively seek answers just as much as the writers of the Bible and sometimes we take appearances as gospel even though we know appearances can be deceiving.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You do know there is not an insignificant number of scientists that do not accept evolution? What you really want me to do is "learn" that your version is the correct one and the others don't count. If that is your idea of science, I'd suggest you learn what science actually says.

And what fields of "science" are the specialities of that "not insignificant number of scientists?" I mean, nuclear physics is a science, and cardiology is a science, but I'm not going to a nuclear physicist to talk about my heart arrhythmia! Not every science is directly relevant to evolution, and of those scientists who do work in the relevant fields, there is little disagreement that evolution is true -- albeit not yet perfectly understood in terms of all the mechanisms at play. What they do NOT disagree on, however, is that evolution does indeed happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tell you what: get out your old movie camera (the one that uses film) and set it up to film a rosebud opening into full bloom. This will take many hours, so be patient. When you're done, go ahead and examine as closely as you like any two adjacent frames -- and you will not be able to tell them apart. Even quite a few frames apart, and you'd see no difference at all. And yet, compare the first frame to the last, and how alike are they?

(For the benefit of those who don't get it, this is just a silly analogy about how tiny, imperceptible changes can result in very great differences, given enough of them.)

Or there is this classic in print:

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis. What I don't understand is how that same intelligent individual has no problem whatsoever believing everything we see in the world somehow came from the so-called primordial soup.

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora? That is more believable than Genesis?

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody! It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing. It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

In the first paragraph, you are confusing a particular hypothesis of "abiogenesis" which is still an unsolved problem in science, with evolution, which is an established scientific fact. Evolution by natural selection is an extremely simple process. The only necessary conditions are a population of organisms that reproduce and that there are inheritable traits that each organism has and that these traits differ between the organisms, some of which give some of the organisms a reproductive (and hence, usually survival) advantage over the other organisms. If this is the case then it is inevitable that the organisms with the reproductively beneficial heritable traits will be more successful in reproducing than the organisms that don't have these traits, thus changing the frequency of these traits in the population. Even YECs admit that this occurs and call it "micro-evolution." The only difference between micro and macro evolution is immense amounts of time, and the only differences between varieties, species, genuses, families, etc. are subjective.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Or there is this classic in print:

Lovely!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis. What I don't understand is how that same intelligent individual has no problem whatsoever believing everything we see in the world somehow came from the so-called primordial soup.

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora? That is more believable than Genesis?

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody! It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing. It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

What I would really love to know is this: How much of the relevant sciences covering what you wrote above have you actually studied in depth?

You make a lot of "must" claims, yet I don't see any evidence that you've done the observation that would be needed to justify those claims, so from where does your supposed expertise come? And more importantly, how is it that your knowledge is so much more robust, and so much more likely to be true, in your opinion, than that of the thousands upon thousands of researchers who have spent literally millions upon millions of hours in study on these very topics?

Just curious, actually...

 

[QuestioningMind]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis. What I don't understand is how that same intelligent individual has no problem whatsoever believing everything we see in the world somehow came from the so-called primordial soup.

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora? That is more believable than Genesis?

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody! It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing. It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody!

That's an interesting claim. So that means that you also don't believe that the Earth orbits around the sun, since no one has EVER observed this happening either. Clearly, sir, you don't have the slightest clue as to how the scientific method works.

 

[Nimos]

First of all, forgive me for answering to a very small part of what you obviously took great pains to write, but as can see, I'm getting numerous replies. There is simply not enough time for me to deal with everything everybody says. In fact, yours will probably the last post to which I reply. Aren't you lucky? Or not!

I do understand that a frog didn't turn into a dog. What I'm saying is that neither turned into any other genus that what it actually is. Nothing ever came from a frog or dog (hey, it rhymes. ), other than another frog or dog, respectively.

Thanks for your reply and please do forgive me for such a terse response to your well written discourse. Take care.

I feel lucky indeed

If you imagine that at the very bottom of the evolution tree, you have something simply called "living things". Everything that is alive is part of this. So it doesn't matter if its a plant or an animal.

Depending on how each of these lifeforms evolve we give them a name based on what features they have. So if we have to simplify it.

So animals that have beaks we could call birds and animals with teeth we call mammals and those without we call amphibians.

So if we find an animal without teeth, we throw it into the amphibian group and give it a name of "Gromp". In the amphibian group we have frogs, toads etc.

And lets say that this new species "Gromp" shares some features with frogs, but it shares a lot more with the toads, so based on that we know that its closer related to toads than frogs, so somewhere in the tree we have to put the Gromp. So lets say we add it somewhere near to the toads.

So even though it might not be a toad, its still an amphibian creature, because it shares all the features required (No teeth) to be one. Animals are just classified based on these things and DNA etc. because it shows how closely related they are.

So lets say we find an animal that have a beak with teeth. So its sort of half bird and have mammal. So it could be a common ancestor to both mammal and birds.

Another example could be if you look at a family tree, lets say your last name is (Jones), regardless of how many children etc. you get they will always be part of the Jones family, going all the way back to the very first one. So basically that is how we classify you.
Even if you were to change your last name to "Roberts", it doesn't change the fact that you are part of the "Jones" family, but you just chose to branch off as a "Roberts".
Just like it got decide that a frog is part of the amphibians because of its features and we can't go back and change it. Don't know if that makes more sense?

Obviously this is just me making up things as an example. But I think it should be fairly easy to see, why a frog will always be part of the amphibian group and it all depends on how far back in time you go, to find these common ancestors. Again I think what makes it so difficult to comprehend is the time needed for evolution to happen, as it really is something that we as human are not easy to understand given out short lifes.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans talk science for 2 reasons.

Medical science, which is to look at the living body of another human, who is self present with them. Give the body detailed description and then claim what they think the dysfunction of the body is....so that maybe they can idealize a condition to assist the body to heal.

How come?

It is science isn't it?

Therefore hasn't science said that what they claim is infinite is not real...for we would not change...and every state would be the same as what they claim secondary science is.

For his machine.

Now if a male keeps saying to another male, what is wrong with your thinking brother.

Factually and by true reasoning, you have to have a planet owned and formed first.

Males said the statement One O one body as a very simplified mind concept, which none of you use....it is all coercive male arguments, and it is always male coercive arguments, the God that a male says as he lives and is living as that male says fools him......his own self.

Now that statement is proved when you ask a male and can you create a Universe, as a human.

Fact 1....he is standing in what he says on a stone body, a planet inside of a Universe...how is he going to create another Universe?

Fact 2....he says, no I am talking all of this talk about our Universe.

Fact 3.....so you are saying that your thinking as a male and a human standing on a historical created body is your claim to I know how it got created and I want actually the powers of my knowledge to be a machine reaction.

What is logical or real about those comments?

For when you contest that type of thinking, all of their science inventive reasoning and success is then quantified as their reality.

Yet the human life form demonstrates its own destruction and you play make believe that your history, science did it no harm do you....or do you release information in the public as scientists to say we know that science hurts you....science mainly cares less about what it changes as long as its ego and life style beliefs....owned first and thought upon first are met.

What argument was created for.

Humanity and equality exists first as origin of self in a discussion about self and self arguing conditions.

Yet the argument is just about machines and machine reactions....and yet those same scientists then claim....oh, no I included medical science in my own themes, reaction advice for a machine.

And you should ask self factually why did you include the natural Nature in science quotes...as if what you look back on is our form?

When it is not, the term natural is also a correct use of a science word with science meanings of self purpose.

I read an article where science said, if a male pretends that he is the Creator, as a human, then what he researches and claims in the past is what he is trying to change our life into.

Which his study of his concept ONE...as a term God is just radiation as his claim to a back drop science theme of the space...and when he discussed all that reasoning, talking about how a human being owned their life was NOT included.

He was only rationalising information when no other form of information what so ever even existed in that theme of discussion.

For it was all just about that type of reaction.

And then Stephen Hawkings in the life body of what science caused to it....then talked and talked and discussed the definition of his own research to conclude and then by the way you want to destroy natural life on Earth.

How was he not correct?

The true answer, as a consciousness, to the life of a group and group mentality as the beginnings of a choice in science by humans. As long as none of the thinkers own self harm or change to their life or life style do they ever conclude self wrong.

Only when self is harmed does the human conclusion come about that a human is wrong.

So then you have to remind everyone...okay scientists, every single living human today came from 2 pre existing human life bodies and sperm and an ovary which you totally and completely ignore as being relevant to your owned science discussion.

For a rational human would say, if that act was not chosen by a human, you are all dead….actually....for the information in science says, because science, as its first owned ancient extra UFO radiation mass gain gave us all death.

Yet everyday you hear the mind memory of a human claiming but I am eternal, I am infinite, I do not die, as a human, as a living human and as consciousness.

So how are any of you correct in reality?

 

[rational experiences]

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody!

That's an interesting claim. So that means that you also don't believe that the Earth orbits around the sun, since no one has EVER observed this happening either. Clearly, sir, you don't have the slightest clue as to how the scientific method works.

Which in human reality is a male saying and all my own beliefs about my thoughts are totally correct, as an argument, for the sake of arguing.

And then you would ask that scientist, so why argue if you claim you are 100 per cent correct as a thinker. And also if you are 100 per cent as that thinker, then experimentation would not even be chosen....as living self proof of your own egotism in its expressed living conditions...…….science.

As the Sun is a natural body existing in space, and the Earth is a natural body existing in space, the male who said all you talk about is what you observe naturally and then the rest is purely theory and conjecture....as the reality that science is a liar.

And if you do not want to quote this argument in self mind, then ask why males in archaeology were driven as humans, lives, minds and in detailed self motivation to prove that human living conditions ended up deep inside of Planet earth along with all of the scientific implements that proved that science did it.

With males today researching those artefacts claiming it alien to what they understand today. And alien by science detailed studies is extra UFO mass metallic radiation not of any particle.

Story of a male scientist....I am aware.

The back drop of the Earth natural atmospheric gas mass is burning yet it sits in cold space.

The back drop of the Earth natural atmospheric gas mass is attacked every day by science caused incoming EXTRA UFO mass...so increased irradiation is the back drop in space.

Consciousness, just conscious as a male, and a life living inside of that gas mass atmosphere, communicated psyche information from the other side of the Earth atmosphere in space....science, all conditions, thoughts reasonings and rational belief, made in the life and self presence a bio conscious self.

Plus all of his own bio conscious previous thought about themes....all the time just living on a natural Planet that moves around the body of the Sun, as per known by his own applied choices to observe and study.

For you are not some other form of self....yet so many science selves either claim that God told them or an alien did...or maybe an angel did...when the whole time they told their own selves, by first as that human and male giving them a titled description in his own psyche.

So a male became his own status a God in a science quotation..for first he had to as that human give a long and very detailed description of everything that he observed, to say self was correct, to then begin his own changes to natural.

So science was always human taught to be our Destroyer as a very simple fact of human life.

 

[rrobs]

One or a million is insignificant since not one of them
has even one of them has even one fact contrary to
ToE.

Their deal is simply religious, like the Creo Hero,
Dr K Wise, PhD Paleontology.

I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

And there you have what it takes to be a scientist-crep.
Intellectual dishonesty.

I don't know Dr. Wise. I know there is a tendency for us humans to hone in on anything that proves what we already know (me included - no high horse here). Is that all he wrote, or is there more? That sounds like his opinion. Coming from a scientist, I would expect something more empirical.

 

[rational experiences]

Science in a male mind says that science believes that everything is just instant.

And I would ask that mind human psyche a question, why?

I am a human, you are a human.....we live on a planet O a stone body formed in space first....One God as a taught science concept for consciousness...to say put your thoughts as a male where they should be....you are only living as a human on this one Planet O.

Male teaching to his male self.

The concept, the Heavenly gas body, a male said from the law of fusion, stone, the volcano erupted put hot dense gases, as clouds into space, space was cold it evolved.

Science, and a relative male mind conscious discussion, when I did not exist and nor did anything else as a living species.

The statement science relative to his machine conditions, history of a natural body in the spatial creation One body O and One planet.

A study of all being...right here and right now, in the exact same time slot, same time condition, natural today with minds living today as a human, just as that human thinking.

And all bodies in every diverse form, right here and right now with you.

Where is time in that evaluation?

It does not exist.

Now science also said that it believed that where everything came from, that it came from the exact same place....and science today is saying exactly what the God theorist said before him. Seeing God themes were the origination of the state science.

Males have always said, that the place that God came from, everything that I think about, right here, right now in this exact moment came from that same place also.

Yet he looks back in a spatial Universe when none of those bodies in any detail even exist....and knows in his mind exactly what he is saying.

How was Stephen Hawking not wrong when he said go and look for another Earth to live on? When science seemingly pays no honour or respect to the first origin of life on Earth, its natural presence?

And the history science as a male human choice never did.

As a spiritual human I can tell stories in my original natural self mind that is not a story for science.....so does that make my story wrong, just because it is not science?

Would be what I would rationally ask any of you to think about!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know Dr. Wise. I know there is a tendency for us humans to hone in on anything that proves what we already know (me included - no high horse here). Is that all he wrote, or is there more? That sounds like his opinion. Coming from a scientist, I would expect something more empirical.

There is always more to learn, but one only needs to throw a few hundred pebbles up into the air and have them hit oneself on the head before one accepts gravity.