We are the champions ...

[Deeje]

Every line of evidence into evolution had turned out to be 100% accurate. It happened, is still happening and is being observed in rapidly evolving animals like the Langkawi bent-toed gecko and Pygmy three-toed sloth

“Adaptation” is happening....but that is not what evolution is suggesting however.....there is proof for adaptation...but there is no solid evidence for their first premise....that all life sprang from that single-celled organism that just popped into existence one day for no apparent reason, fully equipped to transform itself over time into all living things.....that is what is in dispute....not that all living things have the built-in mechanism to adapt in small ways to changes in their surroundings or food supply. Adaptation never produces a new kind of creature.....all it does is produce a new variety within a specific taxonomic family.

So, if there can be no interbreeding between “families” or creatures, when did the established taxonomies begin? There are genetic roadblocks even in the interbreeding of related species (horses and donkeys....lions and tigers, which produce sterile offspring, or the end of the genetic line). These are artificially bred by humans and would never take place in the wild anyway.

 

[ChristineM]

“Adaptation” is happening....but that is not what evolution is suggesting however.....there is proof for adaptation...but there is no solid evidence for their first premise....that all life sprang from that single-celled organism that just popped into existence one day for no apparent reason, fully equipped to transform itself over time into all living things.....that is what is in dispute....not that all living things have the built-in mechanism to adapt in small ways to changes in their surroundings or food supply. Adaptation never produces a new kind of creature.....all it does is produce a new variety within a specific taxonomic family.

So, if there can be no interbreeding between “families” or creatures, when did the established taxonomies begin? There are genetic roadblocks even in the interbreeding of related species (horses and donkeys....lions and tigers, which produce sterile offspring, or the end of the genetic line). These are artificially bred by humans and would never take place in the wild anyway.

You are welcome to your opinion no matter how misinformed it is

You are confusing abiogenesis with evolution

Abiogenesis is a best guess based on knowledge of conditions and has been produced in different ways in labs several times this showing how easy life can develop from none life.

Evolution now has so much complimentary evidence to support it that it is beyond doubt.

And injecting straw men does not make that evidence go away

 

[Revoltingest]

I wouldn't say 100% disprovable, just like today, i am (almost) sure there was the odd skirmish, haggis may even have been thrown.

But i think saying 'at war for 100000 years' is pushing the limits or credibility

Let's not harsh someone's imagination regarding something so interesting.

 

[Revoltingest]

But how many do believe and with religious fervor?

I haven't met anyone who does yet.

Evolution has eliminated God in the eyes of many, but it has no basis in fact....it’s all based on conjecture, supposition and suggestion.....and it appeals to those who want a reason to ditch a Creator. Freed from the constraint of accountability to a higher power, humans are free to behave like animals because they have been led to believe they are animals.

If you base your opinions on conjecture instead of established facts, you can be led down many rabbit holes. Can you bet you life on “might have’s”? What if they are dead wrong?

I've no opinion about whether the theory is cromulent.
As for evolution eliminating God, that would only be for
some religious views. Others would allow that God used
evolution....one of his tools.

 

[Deeje]

You are welcome to your opinion no matter how misinformed it is

Ditto

You are confusing abiogenesis with evolution

I am doing nothing of the sort....I know full well the difference between how life arose and how it magically morphed into every life form. I fully understand why evolutionists divorce themselves from abiogenesis....a very uncomfortable topic.

Abiogenesis is a best guess based on knowledge of conditions and has been produced in different ways in labs several times this showing how easy life can develop from none life.

Please provide the evidence for this.....science know as much about how life began as it ever did.

Evolution now has so much complimentary evidence to support it that it is beyond doubt.

LOL who told you that? Was it science? How amazing!
What complimentary evidence would that be? More guesswork?
Evidence is only as accurate as its interpretation. Those who interpret the evidence already believe one scenario and will modify and “wishful think” everything into it.

And injecting straw men does not make that evidence go away

Ah straw men.....does science not manufacture their own?

Would you even know?

 

[Deeje]

I haven't met anyone who does yet.

I've no opinion about whether the theory is cromulent.
As for evolution eliminating God, that would only be for
some religious views. Others would allow that God used
evolution....one of his tools.

There have been many here on RF who engaged in conversations (slanging matches) with me as if I had insulted their mother

 

[Revoltingest]

There have been many here on RF who engaged in conversations (slanging matches) with me as if I had insulted their mother

Opinions will vary.
And we cannot judge all by the noisiest of them.

 

[Deeje]

Opinions will vary.
And we cannot judge all by the noisiest of them.

I'd settle for an intelligent conversation, but never managed one without insults.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd settle for an intelligent conversation, but never managed one without insults.

Good conversations happen occasionally.
One must be prepared to enjoy & remember
the fleeting moment.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Let’s see how sure the author is about this conjecture.....

Instead, for thousands of years, we must have tested their fighters, and for thousands of years, we kept losing. In weapons, tactics, strategy, we were fairly evenly matched. Neanderthals probably had tactical and strategic advantages. They'd occupied the Middle East for millennia, doubtless gaining intimate knowledge of the terrain, the seasons, how to live off the native plants and animals. In battle, their massive, muscular builds must have made them devastating fighters in close-quarters combat. Their huge eyes likely gave Neanderthals superior low-light vision, letting them manoeuvre in the dark for ambushes and dawn raids. Finally, the stalemate broke, and the tide shifted. We don't know why. It's possible the invention of superior ranged weapons – bows, spear-throwers, throwing clubs – let lightly-built Homo sapiens harass the stocky Neanderthals from a distance using hit-and-run tactics. Or perhaps better hunting and gathering techniques let sapiens feed bigger tribes, creating numerical superiority in battle. Even after primitive Homo sapiens broke out of Africa 200,000 years ago, it took over 150,000 years to conquer Neanderthal lands. In Israel and Greece, archaic Homo sapiens took ground only to fall back against Neanderthal counteroffensives, before a final offensive by modern Homo sapiens, starting 125,000 years ago, eliminated them. This wasn't a blitzkrieg, as one would expect if Neanderthals were either pacifists or inferior warriors, but a long war of attrition. Ultimately, we won. But this wasn't because they were less inclined to fight. In the end, we likely just became better at war than they were.

When you sell something by suggestion instead of basing it on solid evidence, you can invent all manner of scenarios to a willing audience. The “might have’s” become “must have’s”......

You see, there is no solid evidence for any of it. Imaginations can run riot.....and they have.

Well you might have got the gist of the thread from the title (and the music) - as questioning the amount of detail suggested, when even conflict between Neanderthals and H Sapiens has not been seen as definitely the case, and where other reasons might have been responsible for their demise. I was a bit surprised to see this on a science website, even if just a popular one.

 

[ChristineM]

Let's not harsh someone's imagination regarding something so interesting.

I do like a good novel

 

[ChristineM]

I am doing nothing of the sort....I know full well the difference between how life arose and how it magically morphed into every life form. I fully understand why evolutionists divorce themselves from abiogenesis....a very uncomfortable topic.

Obviously not bur it seems you believe you do

Please provide the evidence for this.....science know as much about how life began as it ever did.

Did i or did i not say "best guess" guesses by their nature do not have evidence.

However consider
World’s first living organism with fully redesigned DNA created | Genetics | The Guardian

LOL who told you that? Was it science? How amazing!

Facts, evidence, you know the sort of thing you like to ignore if they contradict pre scientific guesses

Ah straw men.....does science not manufacture their own?

Not without evidence

Would you even know?

Yes thank you.

 

[Deeje]

I was a bit surprised to see this on a science website, even if just a popular one.

It doesn’t surprise me.....they really can’t draw the line between fact and fiction.

 

[Deeje]

However consider
World’s first living organism with fully redesigned DNA created | Genetics | The Guardian

The one thing that is completely ignored in this kind of “evidence” is the fact that intelligent minds were needed to even consider producing “a living organism with fully redesigned DNA”. Could it ever happen on its own....accidentally.....with no intelligent direction......seriously?

 

[ChristineM]

The one thing that is completely ignored in this kind of “evidence” is the fact that intelligent minds were needed to even consider producing “a living organism with fully redesigned DNA”. Could it ever happen on its own....accidentally.....with no intelligent direction......seriously?

Well considering it has happened at least once, possibly more than one but thats just a guess i see no need to say god.

FYI, conditions are considerably different now than 3+billion years ago. The "intelligent minds" recreate those conditions for abiogenesis to occur, not the abiogenesis itself.

And anyone claiming to know even a little about the subject would be aware of that.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It doesn’t surprise me.....they really can’t draw the line between fact and fiction.

Very good - coming from a JW.

 

[metis]

Why is it that some people can fully accept the concept of there being one god, even though there's no objectively-derived evidence to support that, and yet cannot accept that speciation can and has happened even though there's substantial and objective evidence for that?

NOTE: I am not saying a belief in God is irrational, as this is something I also do accept on the basis of my faith. But "faith" by itself is not "objectively-derived evidence" by definition. Thus, imo, to elevate one's "faith" as somehow being objectively accurate, while at the same time ignoring the "objective evidence" of the basic evolutionary pattern seen through the fossil evidence and also tested through d.n.a. studies, actually cheapens any religion or denomination that pushes that agenda. I left my fundamentalist church for this and another reason many decades ago.

 

[Deeje]

Well considering it has happened at least once, possibly more than one but thats just a guess i see no need to say god.

Yes, that is a guess. Are guesses real science though?

No one really knows much at all about the science of creation. You can eliminate an intelligent designer if you wish, but I can’t pretend that design requires no designer. When I see complexity working in perfect sequence and harmony with other complex mechanisms, I can’t assume than an infinite number of fortunate flukes were responsible.

Laws are in evidence everywhere in nature and in the universe.....laws require a law maker with intelligence so that the laws work with precision and constancy. Did all of that just “happen” with no intelligence guiding any of it? On what basis can you assume this?

FYI, conditions are considerably different now than 3+billion years ago. The "intelligent minds" recreate those conditions for abiogenesis to occur, not the abiogenesis itself.

How can anyone who uses guesswork really know what the conditions on earth were 3+billion years ago?

Would it matter what conditions scientists created?.....can they make life appear from nothing? All they can do is manipulate the life that already exists. Science knows that “all life comes from pre-existing life”.......except this one time when they believe it popped into existence all by itself and fully equipped to become every living thing on this planet???

You can hang onto that if you wish, but I think it takes more faith to believe in a multitude of fortunate flukes, than it does to believe that the power who created the universe has demonstrated superior intellect.......but it is denied because science cannot acknowledge it or test it.

And anyone claiming to know even a little about the subject would be aware of that.

LOL.....it does not take intelligence to accept what science suggests in relation to evolution. A collection of best guesses by those who proffer an unprovable theory, is all that is needed to convince a willing audience. “Faith” is as much a requirement for evolution, as it is for Intelligent Design. The only difference is that we are proud of our faith, whereas evolutionists deny it.

 

[ChristineM]

Are guesses real science though?

If it were real science i would have said it were real science, did i say it was?

No one really knows much at all about the science of creation.

Because its not a science

Laws are in evidence everywhere in nature and in the universe.....laws require a law maker

If thinking in legislative terms makes you happy, jolly good.

Gravity requires mass

Entropy requires time

I see no creator

How can anyone who uses guesswork really know what the conditions on earth were 3+billion years ago?

What? Observation, analysis, measurement of very old rocks tells of conditions. I am sure you know that but refuse to admit that you know it.

Would it matter what conditions scientists created?.....can they make life appear from nothing?

Of course it matters,

Can you make life by magic? Then why suggest science should? To cook a casserole you need to turn the oven on, its a required condition.

All they can do is manipulate the life that already exists. Science knows that “all life comes from pre-existing life”

You obviously have not read the papers and so are relying on criticism of Craig Venters historical work. Progress has been made since then.

LOL.....it does not take intelligence to accept what science suggests in relation to evolution. A collection of best guesses

Who said it takes intelligence to read the much verified data?

No guesses involved. But if thats what makes you feel better about a bronze age story being superceded by reality then that is up to you

The only difference is that we are proud of our faith, whereas evolutionists deny it.

Be proud, i am proud too, proud that science is filling gaps in knowledge traditionally filled with "i don't know so god". Yes i am proud that knowledge is replacing ignorance.

 

[Deeje]

If it were real science i would have said it were real science, did i say it was?

So those best guesses are OK by you because they satisfy your need to eliminate an intelligent power that is demonstrated to exist, but is denied by science because it is not testable by their only means of verification?

Because its not a science

Oh but it is....various branches of science study parts of it individually: ......biology....geology...chemistry....archeology....physics....mathematics.....all are parts of creation....science simply gives it another definition. They have no real idea how life began...but are very certain about how it evolved...but even that is based on so much guesswork. Assumptions are presented, and suggestions about what "might have" or "could have" happened are used to influence the weak minded among us to accept something that has no more real proof in reality than the Creator does. Can science promote blind faith....? I believe it has.

If thinking in legislative terms makes you happy, jolly good.

Gravity requires mass

Entropy requires time

I see no creator

Define "mass"...define "time"....define 'gravity'....
Laws exist to facilitate functionality.....laws do not come out of thin air.

Is your disbelief because you don't want to believe in what you cannot see?

Why do you believe in other things you can't see? The wind for example.....you see its power demonstrated in how it affects its surroundings. Can't God's power be perceived the same way? How is nature not a powerful testimony to an Intelligent Creator?

Can you see the electricity that powers your appliances? No, but the fact that they function reveals that the electricity is there, doing what it was designed to do, being witness to its designer. I see God in the same way. In nature I see his stamp on everything....the complex Eco-systems...the symbiosis in living things....the fact that our planet is covered in undrinkable salty water, but condensation draws up moisture from those oceans and takes them over land in clouds to deposit fresh drinking water for the land dwellers. Every drop of water on this earth is recycled without any intervention from us.

The atmosphere on our earth is just the right mixture of gases for life to thrive. Oxygen is a vital component but it is diluted by the other gases so that when lightning strikes, there isn't an explosion. We can light a fire to warm ourselves and cook our food without endangering our life and surroundings. Trees breathe in what we breathe out....and vice versa....a perfect recipe for perpetual clean, fresh air. Is it all just a fortunate fluke?

And the design of the human body.....so delicately balanced in all its functions and yet when something gets out of balance, we fall ill. God provided food and medicine in the form of plants so that sickness could be prevented or treated. We labor under the false assumption that modern medicine is somehow more successful at treating these ailments.....if that was true, then why are so many of us still dying of preventable diseases? We might be living longer but we are not living better.....nursing homes are full of the barely living results of modern medicine...Its appalling!

"None so blind" as the saying goes. I see the Creator's intelligent hand everywhere in nature.....it is man who is ruining the earth and he is using science to accomplish it.....apparently he has no plans to stop doing it either.

So....what if there is a Creator who does require something from us and he will soon demand an accounting? What then?

Most who reject God have no idea who it is that they are rejecting.....I believe that the blame for that lies squarely at the feet of ignorant creationists.....those who claim that the earth and its inhabitants are no more than 6,000 years old, which is utter nonsense.
Creation must agree with established science....but it does not necessarily agree with the unprovable theories of men.The Bible allows for a very old earth and the creatures that inhabit it are way older than man.

What? Observation, analysis, measurement of very old rocks tells of conditions. I am sure you know that but refuse to admit that you know it.

Compared to what can be known....what science actually knows about the earth at that time would fit into a thimble. Observation? What observation? Who was there to observe anything?
How accurate are the measurements of those very old rocks? What can a rock actually tell you in any detail?

All evidence requires interpretation.....and interpretation relies on the biases of those who do the interpreting.

Of course it matters,

Can you make life by magic? Then why suggest science should? To cook a casserole you need to turn the oven on, its a required condition.

You see what you did there? You resorted to justifying your own views by demeaning those who believe in God as those who believe in magic. You condemn and slight those who express respect for an Intelligent Designer.....but how can you dismiss someone you know nothing about?

Tell me who can enjoy a casserole without the guy who made the oven.....without the deliberate collection of the correct ingredients in an established recipe, and the cook to put them all together....so that you can eat it? Seriously...?

You obviously have not read the papers and so are relying on criticism of Craig Venters historical work. Progress has been made since then.

I know that science will never duplicate what the Creator did when he brought life to this planet. And I believe that the first life was microscopic because vegetation was the first biological lifeform mentioned in Genesis.....and in order for vegetation to break down, there has to be bacteria in the soil to facilitate the process. Genesis only mentions sentient life because it is all that humans of the day could comprehend. What would have been the point of a lengthy science text book for those not yet versed in science? That was millenniums away.

Having the right ingredients will never spontaneously produce life. Just as having the right ingredients will never spontaneously produce a casserole.
We can put a man into space, but we can't recreate what precipitated life in the first place.
Just like a computer is a careful assembly of various well designed components, the machine itself is useless without a power source. Its the power source that science cannot duplicate. Only the Creator can produce life....He is the pre-existing life that science already knows about, but denies his existence.

Who said it takes intelligence to read the much verified data?

No guesses involved. But if thats what makes you feel better about a bronze age story being superceded by reality then that is up to you

See what you did again? You belittled the idea of creation as something lost to the "bronze age". Does that somehow make what you believe seem more important, more relevant and scientific? God will never be superseded by puny humans who like to think that they have somehow discovered something new and exciting, as if the Creator didn't wait for thousands of years for them to catch up on even the fringes of his work......the pomposity of man! It actually makes me laugh at the thought of it.....the proverbial ant on the railway track screaming at the other ants that the locomotive bearing down on them does not exist!

Be proud, i am proud too, proud that science is filling gaps in knowledge traditionally filled with "i don't know so god". Yes i am proud that knowledge is replacing ignorance.

The gaps in evolution are filled in by guesses.....and no real evidence to date has ever surfaced....are you claiming superiority? Based on what.... "I don't know, so evolution did it"? Really? You think that sounds more scientifically accurate?

And I am proud that the kind of ignorance that is stifling the world right now will be replaced by a knowledge of the Creator. I eagerly await what is coming. What do you eagerly await?

To each their own I guess.....