The Miracle of Water.

[ecco]

I have yet to see a shred of convincing evidence for macro-evolution

And you never will. The veil of your indoctrination is too thick to see through.

 

[Deeje]

And you never will. The veil of your indoctrination is too thick to see through.

Do you not have a veil of your own?

 

[Bear Wild]

Was that a scientific statement or just your own opinion?



I have yet to see a shred of convincing evidence for macro-evolution.....so we are at an impasse....I actually have more "evidence" for an intelligent Creator than you have for a long, drawn out evolutionary process.....its a con of monumental proportions as I see it. I hear about all this "overwhelming evidence" for evolution and then find out that the only thing overwhelming about it is the volume not the content.....there is not a single thing that science presents for organic evolution that can be substantiated. But you knew that...right?



You produce proof that evolution ever happened. Give us the clear unequivocal proof that dinosaurs evolved from amoebas. Show us how it all happened and while you're at it perhaps you could tell us how life originated?



Then you will excuse me for not believing a word that science says about how life evolved over all those millions of years......? They believe without sufficient evidence.....perhaps we need to define the word, "sufficient"?

There is no evidence for an intelligent creator. Why would you even say that? There is tremendous proof for evolution. We have the knowledge of genetics and mutations which is the physical mechanism for evolution (Do you need information on genetics). We have the process - natural selection (There are plenty of nature shows natural selection at work), We have the time needed for evolution (There is plenty of information on how we determine the age of things). We have fossil evidence to show that different life forms existed at different times in the appropriate sequence from successive layering of different rock (Information on sedimentary rocks and interpretation is probably available on the internet). If you need more content it can be provided.

No one would say that dinosaurs evolved from amoebas. All life came from some single celled organism from long ago is true. All more complex life is made up of single cells including humans that have differentiated into different functions that work together. Going from single cell to dinosaur is such a large jump in evolution to look impossible when it is not and is an inappropriate technique by creationists to deceive people about evolution. Showing the steps slowly from single cell to organism of single cells in a chain to single cells into a ball and continuing slowly to layers which begin to differentiate is much more appropriate. We in a way see this in embryology as a single cell divides into two then into a ball then flattening out with increasing complexity in a way shows how a single celled organism could slowly evolve into more and more complex organisms.

What is the proof for creationism. It think it is true therefore it is true. Where is the proof?

Sufficient is when there is enough evidence that explains the theory better than any other theory. There is sufficient evidence for evolution that exists today and insufficient evidence for creationism.

 

[ecco]

And you never will. The veil of your indoctrination is too thick to see through.

Do you not have a veil of your own?

Your veil that I referred to is the veil of religion that doesn't allow you to look at evidence.

What veil do I have that doesn't allow me to look at what things? Be specific.

How was I indoctrinated into what beliefs? Be specific.

 

[Deeje]

There is no evidence for an intelligent creator. Why would you even say that? There is tremendous proof for evolution.

Every scientist here at RF assures me that there is no "proof" in evolutionary science. What they have is "evidence".....please understand the difference.
When you have bones and other fossilised remains, several different scientists may have different opinions about the details that those fossils are telling them. This means that "evidence" says what science wants to interpret it to say. It is not exact otherwise all the scientists would be coming to the same conclusion, but since they are all wanting the evidence to say the same thing, I find there is collusion.... a consensus based on supporting the same agenda......there simply cannot be an Intelligent Creator.

We have the knowledge of genetics and mutations which is the physical mechanism for evolution (Do you need information on genetics).

Please Google beneficial mutations in humans and then tell me how many there are and how life altering those mutations are.
The mechanism for evolution is missing quite a few cogs....most of them apparently.

No one would say that dinosaurs evolved from amoebas. All life came from some single celled organism from long ago is true. All more complex life is made up of single cells including humans that have differentiated into different functions that work together. Going from single cell to dinosaur is such a large jump in evolution to look impossible when it is not and is an inappropriate technique by creationists to deceive people about evolution

Can you show us how life just popped up out of nowhere and knew how to produce the mechanisms to transform itself into the myriad life forms that exist today and in the past.

Show us the proof that a single celled organism suddenly and for no apparent reason became a multi-celled organism. Show us with evidence that multi-celled organisms can become all the creatures that inhabit planet Earth.....? I have seen the diagrams, but they are just drawings on a piece of paper....where is the real evidence?

Showing the steps slowly from single cell to organism of single cells in a chain to single cells into a ball and continuing slowly to layers which begin to differentiate is much more appropriate. We in a way see this in embryology as a single cell divides into two then into a ball then flattening out with increasing complexity in a way shows how a single celled organism could slowly evolve into more and more complex organisms.

Embryology is indeed fascinating....but what does it prove? Every cell in a developing embryo is 'programmed' to become a body part. Each cell knows what it is supposed to do and where it is supposed to be. So how is embryology a proof for anything? A chicken embryo is hardly going to become a lizard, now is it? Information in the DNA is not going to allow it to change into something else, outside of its taxonomy.

What is the proof for creationism. It think it is true therefore it is true. Where is the proof?

I am not a creationist. YEC is as much a fantasy to me as evolution is. There is a middle ground that does not demand that we choose science OR a Creator.....we can have both without compromise.
Since there is no way to prove that evolution ever happened, except by assumption and suggestion, why do scientists demand proof for a Creator when they have no real proof for organic evolution? As I see it, we have two belief systems.

Sufficient is when there is enough evidence that explains the theory better than any other theory. There is sufficient evidence for evolution that exists today and insufficient evidence for creationism.

There is no such thing. "Sufficient" is another way of saying that they can't really prove any of it, but they will spin a yarn that makes it appear that what they have is close enough. Add diagrams and computer generated images and presto......it's all real.

The "overwhelming evidence" is only overwhelming in its sheer volume....drowning people in assumption, assertion and suggestion......but no real content.

If you can't prove something, it's a belief, not a fact. I have a belief but so do the scientists....but they just can't admit it.

Can you prove to me with solid evidence that evolution isn't as much of a fantasy as you think creation is?

 

[Deeje]

Your veil that I referred to is the veil of religion that doesn't allow you to look at evidence.

As I see things, your veil is the one that science has thrown over you and other atheists that makes you believe that assumption and suggestion is the same as actual evidence.

What veil do I have that doesn't allow me to look at what things? Be specific.

Be specific?

Please tell me why scientists cannot tell us how life began, but are so dead sure that they know everything that happened after the fact? What is the point of arguing about how living things changed, if you don't know how life started? Answer the first question and all the other answers follow on logically.

How was I indoctrinated into what beliefs? Be specific.

You apparently got sold a bill of goods for which there is no actual proof. There is loads of assumption about what "might have" or "could have" taken place, but the fact is no one knows for sure.

"Indoctrination" means to accept what is taught to you because you trust the ones teaching you.

Do you understand what perception management is? Do you know how easy it is to sell people stuff they don't need? All you have to do is convince them that it will benefit them by appealing to their vanity usually. It's called marketing. The advertising industry couldn't function without knowing how to sway people's perceptions about a lot of things....from selling shampoo to political candidates.

In what way is science promoted that appeals to vanity? Every time I debate this subject with atheists, a common string of derogatory accusations are made.....questioning my education...my intelligence....my ability to read....my understanding of what evolution is.....and my sense of logic. This for many people is enough to make them back down and cower in the corner. Grown men will do anything to be accepted by their peers especially in the world of academia. No one does peer pressure quite like they do....except maybe teenagers. Ever watched Dawkins? He's the epitome of how to sell evolution.

I have examined the evidence presented to me on this subject and I have found every bit of it requires that the suggestions of scientists have to be accepted as if they were facts. There is an assumption put forward and this is then coupled with other assertions and then the natural consequence of the line of evidence is to suggest a conclusion that is then accepted as if it were beyond question.
Is that specific enough?

 

[Bear Wild]

Every scientist here at RF assures me that there is no "proof" in evolutionary science. What they have is "evidence".....please understand the difference.
When you have bones and other fossilised remains, several different scientists may have different opinions about the details that those fossils are telling them. This means that "evidence" says what science wants to interpret it to say. It is not exact otherwise all the scientists would be coming to the same conclusion, but since they are all wanting the evidence to say the same thing, I find there is collusion.... a consensus based on supporting the same agenda......there simply cannot be an Intelligent Creator.



Please Google beneficial mutations in humans and then tell me how many there are and how life altering those mutations are.
The mechanism for evolution is missing quite a few cogs....most of them apparently.



Can you show us how life just popped up out of nowhere and knew how to produce the mechanisms to transform itself into the myriad life forms that exist today and in the past.

Show us the proof that a single celled organism suddenly and for no apparent reason became a multi-celled organism. Show us with evidence that multi-celled organisms can become all the creatures that inhabit planet Earth.....? I have seen the diagrams, but they are just drawings on a piece of paper....where is the real evidence?

Using the oxford dictionary definition of proof "Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement" then

Embryology is indeed fascinating....but what does it prove? Every cell in a developing embryo is 'programmed' to become a body part. Each cell knows what it is supposed to do and where it is supposed to be. So how is embryology a proof for anything? A chicken embryo is hardly going to become a lizard, now is it? Information in the DNA is not going to allow it to change into something else, outside of its taxonomy.



I am not a creationist. YEC is as much a fantasy to me as evolution is. There is a middle ground that does not demand that we choose science OR a Creator.....we can have both without compromise.
Since there is no way to prove that evolution ever happened, except by assumption and suggestion, why do scientists demand proof for a Creator when they have no real proof for organic evolution? As I see it, we have two belief systems.



There is no such thing. "Sufficient" is another way of saying that they can't really prove any of it, but they will spin a yarn that makes it appear that what they have is close enough. Add diagrams and computer generated images and presto......it's all real.

The "overwhelming evidence" is only overwhelming in its sheer volume....drowning people in assumption, assertion and suggestion......but no real content.

If you can't prove something, it's a belief, not a fact. I have a belief but so do the scientists....but they just can't admit it.

Can you prove to me with solid evidence that evolution isn't as much of a fantasy as you think creation is?

Actually I am aware of the difference between the words evidence and proof but using the definition of proof from the Oxford dictionary "Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement" then the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. There are more restricted uses of the word proof but since this is a general discussion I did not feel we need the mathematical restriction of the word proof. But if you like I will rephrase it to be we have the evidence to support evolution. Creationism still does not have the evidence nor proof.

Collusion? Seriously? Scientist are continuously challenging ideas thus we come closer to the reality of the natural world.

The fact that there is differences in how scientists may interpret fossils or other evidence is one of the most important aspects of science that has made it so successful. By keeping an open mind and willing to re-evaluate what a piece of evidence means is what has progressed our knowledge of the of the natural world something that creationists cannot do. Creationists cannot progress with time and are stuck with knowledge formed during the time of the creation of the creation myth.
Live in its origin did not "know" anything.

There are many mutations going on in humans some good some neutral and some bad. An example of a good mutation is the mutation for the apolipoprotein - A1 found in HDL cholesterol protein. The mutation was found during in a group of people living in a small town in northern Italy and its presence causes a significant reduction in cardiovascular disease. When this mutated protein is injected into mice it showed a reversal of cholesterol plaque. People with this mutation have little to no cardiovascular disease thus have an advantage of others without the mutation in respect to cardiovascular disease. The mechanism for evolution is supported by mutations. Even the sickle cell mutation has advantages in certain environments. Just look at the diversity in humans and you will see all of the mutations. You must notice that all humans are not the same.

I was just using embryology to show how similar we are in the early stages and how one cell can organize to a many celled organism. Life may have started as single celled organisms but if there was a selective advantage to organizing cells together in a more complex way then natural selection would select for a more complex organism. It takes long periods of time and isolation for differentiation that's all.

There is evidence for evolution there is no evidence for a creator. One has evidence so it is more than just a personal belief the other has no evidence and is only a personal belief. There is solid evidence that evolution is the process that life came about and there is no solid evidence that a Creator made our world. Overwhelming evidence in such great volumes is clearly more believable than having no evidence and believing in a myth written by humans a long time ago unsupported by any evidence in our world.

 

[Bear Wild]

As I see things, your veil is the one that science has thrown over you and other atheists that makes you believe that assumption and suggestion is the same as actual evidence.



Be specific?

Please tell me why scientists cannot tell us how life began, but are so dead sure that they know everything that happened after the fact? What is the point of arguing about how living things changed, if you don't know how life started? Answer the first question and all the other answers follow on logically.



You apparently got sold a bill of goods for which there is no actual proof. There is loads of assumption about what "might have" or "could have" taken place, but the fact is no one knows for sure.

"Indoctrination" means to accept what is taught to you because you trust the ones teaching you.

Do you understand what perception management is? Do you know how easy it is to sell people stuff they don't need? All you have to do is convince them that it will benefit them by appealing to their vanity usually. It's called marketing. The advertising industry couldn't function without knowing how to sway people's perceptions about a lot of things....from selling shampoo to political candidates.

In what way is science promoted that appeals to vanity? Every time I debate this subject with atheists, a common string of derogatory accusations are made.....questioning my education...my intelligence....my ability to read....my understanding of what evolution is.....and my sense of logic. This for many people is enough to make them back down and cower in the corner. Grown men will do anything to be accepted by their peers especially in the world of academia. No one does peer pressure quite like they do....except maybe teenagers. Ever watched Dawkins? He's the epitome of how to sell evolution.

I have examined the evidence presented to me on this subject and I have found every bit of it requires that the suggestions of scientists have to be accepted as if they were facts. There is an assumption put forward and this is then coupled with other assertions and then the natural consequence of the line of evidence is to suggest a conclusion that is then accepted as if it were beyond question.
Is that specific enough?

Science is never beyond question. That is the reason it has been so successful in understanding not only evolution but also chemistry, physiology, geology, microbiology, physics, ecology, climatology. Do you reject all of these subjects on the same grounds?

 

[Deeje]

if you like I will rephrase it to be we have the evidence to support evolution. Creationism still does not have the evidence nor proof.

You can rephrase it all you wish...it doesn't alter anything. "Evidence" is open to interpretation and bias. Scientists seem to revel in promoting the idea that there is no evidence for a Creator, and mountains of evidence for evolution. That is simply not true. There are mountains of assumptions but not an ounce of absolute proof for any of it.

Life did not just poof itself into existence or did it? Did everything that sustains life just magically happen to be here on this Goldilocks planet, waiting for living things to arrive....what an amazing coincidence.... Habitat, food supply and water.....but no one put them there or organised any of it. How many other amazing coincidences do you think were needed to go from single celled organisms to dinosaurs.....and then finally to us?

Can you demonstrate how it happened, with something to substantiate your assertions other than suggestions?

I haven't seen anything convincing so far, but have you got something new to throw in the pot?

The fact that there is differences in how scientists may interpret fossils or other evidence is one of the most important aspects of science that has made it so successful. By keeping an open mind and willing to re-evaluate what a piece of evidence means is what has progressed our knowledge of the of the natural world something that creationists cannot do. Creationists cannot progress with time and are stuck with knowledge formed during the time of the creation of the creation myth.

The fact that they need to keep updating their data, tells us that there can never be facts in this branch of science. They have assumptions that keep getting replaced by other assumptions. That is closer to the truth.

And I believe that you are dead wrong about creation....who told you it was a myth? Science cannot categorically state that a Creator cannot exist. The evidence for intelligent design is everywhere. Funny how science can blind people by suggesting that he is somehow an impossibility. Why is his existence impossible? Who said?

Just because science has no test to prove his existence, doesn't mean he can't exist.

There are many mutations going on in humans some good some neutral and some bad. An example of a good mutation is the mutation for the apolipoprotein - A1 found in HDL cholesterol protein. The mutation was found during in a group of people living in a small town in northern Italy and its presence causes a significant reduction in cardiovascular disease. When this mutated protein is injected into mice it showed a reversal of cholesterol plaque. People with this mutation have little to no cardiovascular disease thus have an advantage of others without the mutation in respect to cardiovascular disease

Yes I saw that one. It was one family. I don't know that we are any further forward with heart disease or cancer either....what else did you find? Anything that would explain the billions of fortunate mutations that would have been necessary for all that evolution?

The mechanism for evolution is supported by mutations. Even the sickle cell mutation has advantages in certain environments. Just look at the diversity in humans and you will see all of the mutations. You must notice that all humans are not the same.

Most mutations are detrimental. They force the organism to fail rather than to promote any beneficial outcome. We all know that.
AFAIK, beneficial mutations are extremely rare. DNA is programmed for perfect replication of the code. If there is a glitch, it's usually bad news, not good news.

I was just using embryology to show how similar we are in the early stages and how one cell can organize to a many celled organism. Life may have started as single celled organisms but if there was a selective advantage to organizing cells together in a more complex way then natural selection would select for a more complex organism. It takes long periods of time and isolation for differentiation that's all.

Does it really stand to reason that the miracle of life is all accidental? Do you not see the most complex organization and order in the universe and on this earth? How do you see laws that govern the universe and assume that they just....are? How do you attribute those things to undirected chance? That completely defies logic IMO.

There is evidence for evolution there is no evidence for a creator.

There is as much real evidence for an intelligent Creator as there is for the slow, gradual evolution of all the species on this planet.
You speak of evidence like it was proof but you know it isn't.

One has evidence so it is more than just a personal belief the other has no evidence and is only a personal belief. There is solid evidence that evolution is the process that life came about and there is no solid evidence that a Creator made our world. Overwhelming evidence in such great volumes is clearly more believable than having no evidence and believing in a myth written by humans a long time ago unsupported by any evidence in our world.

You can choose to believe that if you want but scientists cannot prove that macro-evolution is even possible, let alone happened the way they say it did. Nothing can be recreated or proven by experiment, so what have you got really?

 

[ecco]

As I see things, your veil is the one that science has thrown over you and other atheists that makes you believe that assumption and suggestion is the same as actual evidence.
Be specific?

Yes, I asked you to be specific. You weren't. On the other hand, the veil covering your eyes comes from early childhood indoctrination into belief in god. There is no such early childhood indoctrination into believing science.

Please tell me why scientists cannot tell us how life began,

The honest answer is that, at this time, science doesn't know. The make believe answer is GodDidIt.

Years ago when the question was what causes volcanoes to erupt, people like you said GodDidIt. Honest people, like me, would have said at this time science cannot answer that question.

but are so dead sure that they know everything that happened after the fact? What is the point of arguing about how living things changed, if you don't know how life started? Answer the first question and all the other answers follow on logically.

Scientists knew how atoms combined to make molecules long before they knew about quarks.

You apparently got sold a bill of goods for which there is no actual proof. There is loads of assumption about what "might have" or "could have" taken place, but the fact is no one knows for sure.

That sentence applies more to your religious beliefs than it does to my beliefs about science. The difference is that you got "god" pounded into your brain long before you had a chance to think rationally.

"Indoctrination" means to accept what is taught to you because you trust the ones teaching you.

Do you not understand what indoctrination is or are you just trying to make it acceptable to you?

"Indoctrination"
the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.​

You were indoctrinated into god beliefs before your brain was capable of critical thinking.

Do you understand what perception management is? Do you know how easy it is to sell people stuff they don't need? All you have to do is convince them that it will benefit them by appealing to their vanity usually. It's called marketing. The advertising industry couldn't function without knowing how to sway people's perceptions about a lot of things....from selling shampoo to political candidates.

Ask yourself why companies market to kids. It's because it's easier to convince a kid they want/need something than it is to convince an adult they want/need something. This is something that all religions have recognized since the beginning of god beliefs. Why do churches strongly encourage parents to bring their children to services even before the children learn to talk? Why do you think churches run Sunday schools for children? It's because they know it's easier to mold a child's brain.

In what way is science promoted that appeals to vanity? Every time I debate this subject with atheists, a common string of derogatory accusations are made.....questioning my education...my intelligence....my ability to read....my understanding of what evolution is.....and my sense of logic.

Well, you are discussing this with an atheist and I haven't made any derogatory remarks about you intelligence or ability to read. It isn't about your intelligence or ability to read. It's about the mindset that has been instilled.

This for many people is enough to make them back down and cower in the corner. Grown men will do anything to be accepted by their peers especially in the world of academia. No one does peer pressure quite like they do....except maybe teenagers.

Peer pressure? Really? When you were in middle school, how many atheist kids did you know? I knew one - me. The Pledge of Allegiance requires me to say "under god". Seals behind judges in courtrooms read "In God We Trust". Religious people want all children in public schools to recite, or at least listen to, prayers. High school and professional sports teams gather in prayer before games.

When it comes to religion/atheism, you have no concept of peer pressure.

Ever watched Dawkins? He's the epitome of how to sell evolution.

Ever watched Joel Osteen? He's the epitome of how to sell religion. He's on TV every Sunday morning along with Joyce Meyer and Creflo Dollar and Pat Robertson. How many times is Dawkins on TV?

Actually I have only occasionally heard Dawkins debate. I believed in evolution long before I even heard of Dawkins. Dawkins is no reason to believe in or reject evolution.

I have examined the evidence presented to me on this subject and I have found every bit of it requires that the suggestions of scientists have to be accepted as if they were facts. There is an assumption put forward and this is then coupled with other assertions and then the natural consequence of the line of evidence is to suggest a conclusion that is then accepted as if it were beyond question.
Is that specific enough?

Your reply is not at all specific about my veil and how it would have come about.

The bottom line is that you can tell yourself that you have examined the evidence. But you, like every other person, are incapable of believing anything that conflicts with your ingrained religious beliefs. You believe in science up to, and only up to, the point that it conflicts with your ingrained religious beliefs.

For example, do you believe that hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine to make a molecule of water? Why do you believe that? Have you ever seen a hydrogen atom? Have you ever seen an oxygen atom? Have you ever seen hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine? You believe it because it doesn't conflict with your ingrained religious beliefs.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have yet to see a shred of convincing evidence for macro-evolution

Hardly surprising coming from a person who declared up front that no one could ever post anything that would cause her to change her mind.

 

[Jose Fly]

Every time I debate this subject with atheists, a common string of derogatory accusations are made.....questioning my education...my intelligence....my ability to read....my understanding of what evolution is.....and my sense of logic.

I wonder if it's ever occurred to you that the reason for all that is because, when discussing science, you come across as uneducated, willfully ignorant, and illogical?

I mean, if you're getting the same message from multiple people, there might just be something to what they're saying.

 

[columbus]

Every time I pour oil into a pan, the oil shapes itself to fit! How can canola oil know exactly what the shape of the pan is?

The world is just full of miracles, AmIrite?!
Tom

 

[Deeje]

Yes, I asked you to be specific. You weren't. On the other hand, the veil covering your eyes comes from early childhood indoctrination into belief in god. There is no such early childhood indoctrination into believing science.

That sentence applies more to your religious beliefs than it does to my beliefs about science. The difference is that you got "god" pounded into your brain long before you had a chance to think rationally.

You were indoctrinated into god beliefs before your brain was capable of critical thinking.

When you were in middle school, how many atheist kids did you know? I knew one - me. The Pledge of Allegiance requires me to say "under god". Seals behind judges in courtrooms read "In God We Trust". Religious people want all children in public schools to recite, or at least listen to, prayers. High school and professional sports teams gather in prayer before games.

This group of comments tells me quite a bit about your own indoctrination. Read them as a group.....what indoctrination did YOU receive as a child?
I am not American so I don't know what you call "middle school" or what age group you are referring to but I assume its before High School. Any child that young has not achieved critical thinking, according to you, and early introduction of emotive ideas are often retained into adulthood....your own included....but not always.

Some atheists when attending university as adults, upon examining the scientific evidence with critical thinking ability, have seen convincing evidence of intelligent design and have left their atheistic ideas and embraced belief in an all powerful and highly intelligent Creator. Science may protest about such defection by questioning their mental abilities, but it is not uncommon. The reverse is also true....so your theory does not stand up under investigation.

Its really a matter of how people use their critical thinking ability in adulthood. One can never dismiss the peer pressure aspect of this issue and how people view themselves as part of the pack, or as ones who can confidently stand apart from it.

Do you think someone with a science degree will all of a sudden just jump to a "Goddiit" mentality without due consideration of the evidence? Did they somehow lose their scientific training....or did they just see through the smoke screen?

The honest answer is that, at this time, science doesn't know. The make believe answer is GodDidIt.

Years ago when the question was what causes volcanoes to erupt, people like you said GodDidIt. Honest people, like me, would have said at this time science cannot answer that question.

You see, this is a veiled accusation of poor thinking ability and lack of education,....as if those who choose to believe in an all powerful Creator are somehow on a par with primitive savages who had no knowledge of the cause of volcanic eruptions......nice try.

Scientists knew how atoms combined to make molecules long before they knew about quarks.

How amazing! .....where did the atoms and molecules come from? They just popped up out of nowhere....right?.....and magically knew how to form matter and to organize themselves to somehow become dinosaurs and all manner of other biological creatures.....all we have to do is believe that it happened. Just don't ask how, because all we can give you is a nice diagram.

The bottom line is that you can tell yourself that you have examined the evidence. But you, like every other person, are incapable of believing anything that conflicts with your ingrained religious beliefs. You believe in science up to, and only up to, the point that it conflicts with your ingrained religious beliefs.

Actually, that is not true. I have no problem at all believing what science can actually prove....and I don't have a problem with their investigations into the other branches like chemistry, physiology, geology, microbiology, physics, ecology, climatology. The only area that I have a problem with is evolutionary science where there is no way to verify the outrageous claims made for how living things evolved over all those millions of years. On what basis do they make these claims? On the basis of their own belief system......not on the evidence itself, but on their interpretation of that evidence.

The evolution of whales is a favorite of mine.....

What is the basis for this scenario, which can never be proven? Science wants to believe it happened and will fudge the evidence to fit their theory.
There is nothing that biologically links these creatures in an evolutionary chain...except in scientists' imagination. Does similarity prove relationship? Science seems to think so, a good deal of the time.....fill in the blanks with a nice diagram....and something about an ear bone.

For example, do you believe that hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine to make a molecule of water? Why do you believe that? Have you ever seen a hydrogen atom? Have you ever seen an oxygen atom? Have you ever seen hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine? You believe it because it doesn't conflict with your ingrained religious beliefs.

'Cause and effect' is a well established principle in science....whatever effect there is, has to have a cause....so what caused the atoms and molecules to exist and how did they know how to form matter into all these amazing substances? You concentrate so much on the effect that you don't even consider the cause. There has to be one.

When we ask the evolutionary scientists about how life began....we are quickly told that abiogenesis is not included in their branch of science...like they need to run away from the uncomfortable truth that their theory rests on something that science has never been able to replicate or to demonstrate how it could have happened by accident. If life is not an accident, and a Creator actually demonstrates his existence, then your whole theory collapses.....you knew that right?

So to me, science in this one area of study, cannot provide a basis, nor can they provide any real evidence for what they 'believe' happened all those millions of years ago. You have what I have...a belief system.

Ever watched Joel Osteen? He's the epitome of how to sell religion. He's on TV every Sunday morning along with Joyce Meyer and Creflo Dollar and Pat Robertson. How many times is Dawkins on TV?

Actually I have only occasionally heard Dawkins debate. I believed in evolution long before I even heard of Dawkins. Dawkins is no reason to believe in or reject evolution.

As far as this goes....name some well known celeb selling a product, whose rhetoric makes you cringe, and you have the religious equivalent of televangelists. These are selling religion for money.....they are hardly representing the Creator. Gullible people will always be victims of these 'marketers of religion' where money will buy them a place in heaven. But Dawkins is their equivalent in science IMO. His approach is to shame people into accepting "science" over God, as if that is the only choice. Having that either/or approach is counter productive IMO.

I can have science AND God with no conflict, because I believe that the Creator designed and made everything that scientists study.

 

[Deeje]

Every time I pour oil into a pan, the oil shapes itself to fit! How can canola oil know exactly what the shape of the pan is?

That depends on whether the oil and the pan just appeared out of nowhere for no apparent reason....

The world is just full of miracles, AmIrite?!

Depends on what you mean by "miracle" I guess....

 

[Bear Wild]

This group of comments tells me quite a bit about your own indoctrination. Read them as a group.....what indoctrination did YOU receive as a child?
I am not American so I don't know what you call "middle school" or what age group you are referring to but I assume its before High School. Any child that young has not achieved critical thinking, according to you, and early introduction of emotive ideas are often retained into adulthood....your own included....but not always.

Some atheists when attending university as adults, upon examining the scientific evidence with critical thinking ability, have seen convincing evidence of intelligent design and have left their atheistic ideas and embraced belief in an all powerful and highly intelligent Creator. Science may protest about such defection by questioning their mental abilities, but it is not uncommon. The reverse is also true....so your theory does not stand up under investigation.

Its really a matter of how people use their critical thinking ability in adulthood. One can never dismiss the peer pressure aspect of this issue and how people view themselves as part of the pack, or as ones who can confidently stand apart from it.

Do you think someone with a science degree will all of a sudden just jump to a "Goddiit" mentality without due consideration of the evidence? Did they somehow lose their scientific training....or did they just see through the smoke screen?



You see, this is a veiled accusation of poor thinking ability and lack of education,....as if those who choose to believe in an all powerful Creator are somehow on a par with primitive savages who had no knowledge of the cause of volcanic eruptions......nice try.



How amazing! .....where did the atoms and molecules come from? They just popped up out of nowhere....right?.....and magically knew how to form matter and to organize themselves to somehow become dinosaurs and all manner of other biological creatures.....all we have to do is believe that it happened. Just don't ask how, because all we can give you is a nice diagram.



Actually, that is not true. I have no problem at all believing what science can actually prove....and I don't have a problem with their investigations into the other branches like chemistry, physiology, geology, microbiology, physics, ecology, climatology. The only area that I have a problem with is evolutionary science where there is no way to verify the outrageous claims made for how living things evolved over all those millions of years. On what basis do they make these claims? On the basis of their own belief system......not on the evidence itself, but on their interpretation of that evidence.

The evolution of whales is a favorite of mine.....

What is the basis for this scenario, which can never be proven? Science wants to believe it happened and will fudge the evidence to fit their theory.
There is nothing that biologically links these creatures in an evolutionary chain...except in scientists' imagination. Does similarity prove relationship? Science seems to think so, a good deal of the time.....fill in the blanks with a nice diagram....and something about an ear bone.



'Cause and effect' is a well established principle in science....whatever effect there is, has to have a cause....so what caused the atoms and molecules to exist and how did they know how to form matter to into all these amazing substances? You concentrate so much on the effect that you don't even consider the cause. There has to be one.

When we ask the evolutionary scientists about how life began....we are quickly told that abiogenesis is not included in their branch of science...like they need to run away from the uncomfortable truth that their theory rests on something that science has never been able to replicate or to demonstrate how it could have happened by accident. If life is not an accident, and a Creator actually demonstrates his existence, then your whole theory collapses.....you knew that right?

So to me, science in this one area of study, cannot provide a basis, nor can they provide any real evidence for what they 'believe' happened all those millions of years ago. You have what I have...a belief system.



As far as this goes....name some well known celeb selling a product, whose rhetoric makes you cringe, and you have the religious equivalent of televangelists. These are selling religion for money.....they are hardly representing the Creator. Gullible people will always be victims of these 'marketers of religion' where money will buy them a place in heaven. But Dawkins is their equivalent in science IMO. His approach is to shame people into accepting "science" over God, as if that is the only choice. Having that either/or approach is counter productive IMO.

I can have science AND God with no conflict, because I believe that the Creator designed and made everything that scientists study.

Some of the best presentation of Religions Naturalism has been presented from people who were well grounded in Christianity or the Jewish religion who realized they could no longer support their beliefs in those religions. Yes some atheists convert to a monotheistic religion and some believers in a monotheistic religion leave that faith for a belief in the natural world. This happens both ways.

What is very interesting is you have no problem with other branches like chemistry, physiology, geology, microbiology, physics, ecology, climatology and yet they share the same method as the study of evolution. You singled evolution out by itself as the only branch of science that is not acceptable. Explain why you can accept the other branches that have the same methods and similar difficulties to overcome (which have all progressed with time)! The only reason I can see is you want to feel superior and feel you are closer to god than any other organism. Your feeling of self importance blinds you from the truth.
Clearly you do not understand the theory of evolution well especially when you show a diagram showing the proposed steps in the evolution of the whale. The diagram shows dramatic changes but does not indicate the time frame between these changes thus you have misunderstood what it was showing. You need to clearly learn more about evolution before putting in a diagram which you cannot comprehend.

 

[Deeje]

Is there some reason why you have not responded to my post to you, but twice now you have responded to my replies to @ecco?

Some of the best presentation of Religions Naturalism has been presented from people who were well grounded in Christianity or the Jewish religion who realized they could no longer support their beliefs in those religions.

Leaving YEC for evolution is hardly a leap forward IMO. It's a no brainer as far as I am concerned.....like swapping pink marshmellows for white ones. Both are baseless....they have no foundation in fact.

What cannot be supported is YEC, which the Bible does not teach anyway. We are on an old earth in an old universe, and the Bible supports creation as a slow and deliberate process over many thousands or even millions of years. This is what the I support. I don't have to give up science for the Bible, or the Bible for science because I find them to be completely compatible.

Yes some atheists convert to a monotheistic religion and some believers in a monotheistic religion leave that faith for a belief in the natural world. This happens both ways.

Yes, that is what I said.....people make their choices for their own reasons. As I mentioned, some need to belong to the pack, while others can stand alone, confident of their position without the need for approval from others.

What is very interesting is you have no problem with other branches like chemistry, physiology, geology, microbiology, physics, ecology, climatology and yet they share the same method as the study of evolution. You singled evolution out by itself as the only branch of science that is not acceptable. Explain why you can accept the other branches that have the same methods and similar difficulties to overcome (which have all progressed with time)!

It's the subject matter. No other branch of science relies so heavily on things that cannot be substantiated, with no way to prove their validity except by the sheer weight of numbers all agreeing with the core belief without question.

Take adaptation for example....it has been demonstrated in lab experiments for speciation where it was clearly seen that organisms have the ability to adapt to new environments...from bacteria to large animals, this is seen. But all adaptation ever produced was variety within one taxonomic family of creatures or organisms. Science OTOH wants to take adaptation ( micro-evolution) and take it past all established boundaries and propose that it could go way beyond what any experiment could establish (macro-evolution).

It was a virtual play on the old adage that "if a little is good, a lot must be better"....and that is where the true science ended, and the fantasy began. You see when Darwin was making his observations on the Galápagos Island, he noticed that the finches had some physical differences in their beaks compared to their cousins on the mainland. He noticed that the tortoises were different too....and the iguanas. What Darwin did NOT see however, was finches changing into some other kind of bird. They were all still clearly part of the finch family. The tortoises were still tortoises and the iguanas, although adapted to a marine environment, were still clearly identifiable as iguanas. So you see why I have a problem with science's leap of faith on that score. Adaptation never changed taxonomy....and there is no way to prove that it ever could. Creatures only breed with their own "kind".

Ask science students at any University if they believe in creation and see how many affirmatives you get. Then ask them if they believe in evolution.....the very fact that you have to ask if they "believe" it, is confirmation that evolution is not provable and therefore requires belief in the first place. If it were a fact, we would not be having this conversation.

The only reason I can see is you want to feel superior and feel you are closer to god than any other organism. Your feeling of self importance blinds you from the truth.

Feel superior? Are you serious? Who challenges evolution and expects to feel superior? According to scientists, I am nothing but an uneducated ignoramus....but I am just exposing evolution's very naked underbelly and they don't like it.....it makes them feel uncomfortable because they have no real defense. Sometimes it is tantamount to criticising one's child. It evokes all kinds of hurt emotions and knee jerk reactions for some reason.

Clearly you do not understand the theory of evolution well especially when you show a diagram showing the proposed steps in the evolution of the whale. The diagram shows dramatic changes but does not indicate the time frame between these changes thus you have misunderstood what it was showing. You need to clearly learn more about evolution before putting in a diagram which you cannot comprehend.

Do you know how many times I have been told that I don't understand the theory of evolution....? I understand it well enough because people like you keep trying to "educate" me.....what you fail to understand is that I have researched this subject quite thoroughly and the whale evolution diagram that I posted is how science understands the process of how whales supposedly began as four-legged land animals that, over many millions of years, morphed themselves into what we now identify as whales. But the truth is, there is no biology to link these creatures in some evolutionary chain. It is assumed that this might be the case, but there is no way to prove it. It is an assumption....not to be confused with a fact.

 

[ecco]

ecco:

Yes, I asked you to be specific. You weren't. On the other hand, the veil covering your eyes comes from early childhood indoctrination into belief in god. There is no such early childhood indoctrination into believing science.​

That sentence applies more to your religious beliefs than it does to my beliefs about science. The difference is that you got "god" pounded into your brain long before you had a chance to think rationally.​

You were indoctrinated into god beliefs before your brain was capable of critical thinking.​

When you were in middle school, how many atheist kids did you know? I knew one - me. The Pledge of Allegiance requires me to say "under god". Seals behind judges in courtrooms read "In God We Trust". Religious people want all children in public schools to recite, or at least listen to, prayers. High school and professional sports teams gather in prayer before games.​

This group of comments tells me quite a bit about your own indoctrination. Read them as a group.....what indoctrination did YOU receive as a child?

None.

I am not American so I don't know what you call "middle school" or what age group you are referring to but I assume its before High School. Any child that young has not achieved critical thinking, according to you, and early introduction of emotive ideas are often retained into adulthood....your own included....but not always.

I don't know what that jumble is supposed to mean.

Some atheists when attending university as adults, upon examining the scientific evidence with critical thinking ability, have seen convincing evidence of intelligent design and have left their atheistic ideas and embraced belief in an all powerful and highly intelligent Creator.

I don't suppose you can support that allegation with any evidence. You can make up all the stories you want. Critical thinking cannot lead to Creationism.

Science may protest about such defection by questioning their mental abilities, but it is not uncommon. The reverse is also true....so your theory does not stand up under investigation.

What investigation? Your assertions are not evidence of investigation. I don't suppose you can support that allegation with any evidence.

Its really a matter of how people use their critical thinking ability in adulthood. One can never dismiss the peer pressure aspect of this issue and how people view themselves as part of the pack, or as ones who can confidently stand apart from it.

More jumble

Do you think someone with a science degree will all of a sudden just jump to a "Goddiit" mentality without due consideration of the evidence? Did they somehow lose their scientific training....or did they just see through the smoke screen?

To whom are you referring? Behe?

You see, this is a veiled accusation of poor thinking ability and lack of education,....as if those who choose to believe in an all powerful Creator are somehow on a par with primitive savages who had no knowledge of the cause of volcanic eruptions......nice try.

They are quite the same. The primitive savages, as you call them, had no evidence. The creationists cannot accept the evidence. Both turn to GodDidIt.

How amazing! .....where did the atoms and molecules come from? They just popped up out of nowhere....right?.....and magically knew how to form matter and to organize themselves to somehow become dinosaurs and all manner of other biological creatures.....all we have to do is believe that it happened. Just don't ask how, because all we can give you is a nice diagram.

So you are saying that god puts hydrogen and oxygen atoms together to form water molecules. Does he make one molecule at a time or does he magically do ten at a time?

Actually, that is not true. I have no problem at all believing what science can actually prove....and I don't have a problem with their investigations into the other branches like chemistry, physiology, geology, microbiology, physics, ecology, climatology. The only area that I have a problem with is evolutionary science where there is no way to verify the outrageous claims made for how living things evolved over all those millions of years. On what basis do they make these claims? On the basis of their own belief system......not on the evidence itself, but on their interpretation of that evidence.

Nonsense. First off, you have a problem with evolution because it conflicts with what's in the bible. Physiology, microbiology, physics, ecology and climatology do not directly conflict with your biblical beliefs.

You shouldn't include chemistry. Based on your comments about water molecules, it's clear you don't believe in chemistry either. You definitely should not have included geology since it disproves your Great Flood.

The evolution of whales is a favorite of mine.....
What is the basis for this scenario, which can never be proven? Science wants to believe it happened and will fudge the evidence to fit their theory.
There is nothing that biologically links these creatures in an evolutionary chain...except in scientists' imagination. Does similarity prove relationship? Science seems to think so, a good deal of the time.....fill in the blanks with a nice diagram....and something about an ear bone.

Let's not bother discussing evolution. It's already been established that your childhood indoctrination prevents you from believing it.

'Cause and effect' is a well established principle in science....whatever effect there is, has to have a cause....so what caused the atoms and molecules to exist and how did they know how to form matter to into all these amazing substances? You concentrate so much on the effect that you don't even consider the cause. There has to be one.

You called it magic. Then you said you believed in Chemistry. Now you're questioning chemistry. You seem conflicted and confused.

When we ask the evolutionary scientists about how life began....we are quickly told that abiogenesis is not included in their branch of science...like they need to run away from the uncomfortable truth that their theory rests on something that science has never been able to replicate or to demonstrate how it could have happened by accident.

Evolution and Abiogenesis are two different branches of science. Would you go to an optometrist to discuss your chest pains? There are a lot of people studying abiogenesis. They don't run away from researching it or writing about it. But, since you do not believe in chemistry, this will be just another line of science that you will disparage out of ignorance.

If life is not an accident, and a Creator actually demonstrates his existence, then your whole theory collapses.....you knew that right?

You are so deeply immersed into your indoctrinated beliefs that you choose to blindly ignore the fact that people have been predicting proof of gods for thousands of years.

Still waiting.

So to me, science in this one area of study, cannot provide a basis, nor can they provide any real evidence for what they 'believe' happened all those millions of years ago. You have what I have...a belief system.

I believe in the accumulated knowledge of mankind.
You believe in the fairy tale you were indoctrinated to believe in.

There is a difference.

As far as this goes....name some well known celeb selling a product, whose rhetoric makes you cringe, and you have the religious equivalent of televangelists. These are selling religion for money.....they are hardly representing the Creator. Gullible people will always be victims of these 'marketers of religion' where money will buy them a place in heaven.

You can disparage these people all you like. However, all of them and all of their followers believe in god just as much and just as blindly as you do.

But Dawkins is their equivalent in science IMO. His approach is to shame people into accepting "science" over God, as if that is the only choice. Having that either/or approach is counter productive IMO.

I can have science AND God with no conflict, because I believe that the Creator designed and made everything that scientists study.

You pick and choose which sciences to accept and which to reject. You probably do that with your holy scripture as well - pick and choose. You live in your own make-believe reality of "Whatever deeje believes must be true.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why do creationists call the science that they do not understand "by accident"?

Just because something was not caused by magic does not mean that it was caused by accident.

OK. Serendipity, then.

ser·en·dip·i·ty
/ˌserənˈdipədē/
noun

the occurrence and development of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way.
"a fortunate stroke of serendipity"
synonyms: (happy) chance,​

Ok....

chance
/CHans/
noun

1. 1.
   a possibility of something happening.
   synonyms: possibility, prospect, probability, likelihood, likeliness, expectation, anticipation; More
   
   
2. 2.
   the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design.
   synonyms: accident, coincidence, serendipity, fate, destiny, fortuity, providence, happenstance; More

adjective

1. 1.
   fortuitous; accidental.
   synonyms: accidental, fortuitous, adventitious, fluky, coincidental, serendipitous; More

verb

1. 1.
   do something by accident or without design.

Well, that don’t fit your objection, either!

What would you call it?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You definitely should not have included geology since it disproves your Great Flood.

Gelology diasagrees with the young Earth concept.
Does it *disprove* a Global Flood?
No, it does not!