Zero probability for Evolution

[ecco]

You can always claim he was influenced by his religion.

It's not just a claim. It's a provable fact. People like Sanford and you accept many different branches of science. At least I assume you do.

Do you accept the science that provides overwhelming evidence that the earth is a sphere?
Do you accept the science that provides overwhelming evidence that the earth revolves around the sun?

Hundreds of years ago people rejected both of these things. Christians based their disbelief on their reading of the Bible. However, today all but a tiny percentage of Christians overlook or rationalize those parts of the Bible that refer to "the four corners of the earth" and the belief that the sun actually moved across the earth from the East to the West.

Today, many people like you and Sanford accept these scientific findings and many others in the fields of medicine and aeronautics and cosmology because these findings are not contradicted in the Bible. You and Sanford completely reject evolution because it is in direct conflict with Genesis. The only reason you accept some science and reject other science is your religious beliefs.

 

[Polymath257]

That sounds like an athiests dream. That way a creationist can never be right about anything even though he is.

A creationist is wrong simply because the evidence shows this to be the case.

IF a creationist could come up with a testable theory that is supported by actual observations and does a better job of explaining the observations than the current theory, then *and only then* would they be shown to be right.

And that is exactly the same standard any scientists must reach to be shown to be right.

You can always claim he was influenced by his religion. But in reality the same applies to athiests refusing to see obvious design in the universe because it might lead them to seeing God's work.

Being influenced by the religion isn't the issue. Not having a testable theory that is supported by the evidence is.

Design is easy enough to show *if* you know what happens naturally and have evidence of something happening other than that.

For example, the tools used by human ancestors are often crude and look like simple rocks. But the way the breaks happen and the wear patterns show that they were designed and not simply the result of a rock falling on another rock. The wear pattern also shows that they were used to clear bones because such an activity shows a clear wear pattern that is different than anything produced otherwise.

So, to show design, all you have to do is show what would happen in the natural case and show that what *did* happen is distinguishable from that.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Are you saying that survival doesn't depend (in part) on genetics? And are you disputing that if organism dies, it doesn't pass on its genetics?

Talk about missing the point.

Whether it's anyone's dream or not, it appears to be how you are operating here. You are definitely not employing the scientific method, when it comes to your beliefs.

You could be right about a lot of things, if only you could demonstrate them. You could very easily prove that poster's statements wrong by posting evidence and clear demonstrations of the veracity of your claims, you know, like scientists do. So, were you planning on doing that or .... ?

Are you going to acknowledge that claiming that creationists are wrong simply because they believe in God is tilting the scales and making it impossible for you to ever consider anything a creationist says?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Today, many people like you and Sanford accept these scientific findings and many others in the fields of medicine and aeronautics and cosmology because these findings are not contradicted in the Bible. You and Sanford completely reject evolution because it is in direct conflict with Genesis. The only reason you accept some science and reject other science is your religious beliefs.

And how would you know that? And why would it make any difference about whether I was right about something or not?

 

[Wildswanderer]

A deer that, by some genetic mutation, have a sharper hearing that makes it better in sensing a leopard from far off WILL produce more offsprings than others because it will live longer.
That is NATURAL selection.

Not necessarily. If that were the case, all humans should now have super sharp hearing. But you aren't taking non beneficial mutations and entropy into account.

 

[tas8831]

Interesting choice of reference. Have you reviewed any of the scientific literature on the subject?

Nope. Plagiarists don't think they need to know what they assert.

 

[tas8831]

I don't find it so easy to believe that is as a result of a chemical anomaly.

You find it easy to copy the work of others and present it as your own. Sad.

 

[tas8831]

John C. Sanford is an American plant geneticist known for his inventions, scientific papers, and advocacy of intelligent design and young earth creationism. Wikipedia
Born: June 28, 1950 (age 71 years)
Known for: Gene gun, publications, patents
Field: Genetics
Education: University of Wisconsin-Madison, University of Minnesota

OOOOOO An appeal to authority! Too bad when he became a creationist, he decided to abandon legitimate science and threw his integrity to the wind... His take on Haldane is as hilarious as it is dishonest.

 

[ecco]

Today, many people like you and Sanford accept these scientific findings and many others in the fields of medicine and aeronautics and cosmology because these findings are not contradicted in the Bible. You and Sanford completely reject evolution because it is in direct conflict with Genesis. The only reason you accept some science and reject other science is your religious beliefs.

And how would you know that?

Him: Based on Sanford's published views.

You: Based on your posts. You do know what you posted, don't you?

However, perhaps you could clarify...

Do you accept the science that provides overwhelming evidence that the earth is a sphere?
Do you accept the science that provides overwhelming evidence that the earth revolves around the sun?

And why would it make any difference about whether I was right about something or not?

You being right or wrong makes no difference whatsoever. That's what people have been trying to tell you.

 

[ecco]

If that were the case, all humans should now have super sharp hearing.

Your comment proves, once again, that you do not understand evolution. Humans didn't and don't need "super sharp hearing" to survive.

Bats and dolphins use echo-location for hunting and hear far better than humans. Humans got along with averge hearing.
Bears and sharks have an excellent sense of smell that they use for finding food (and mates). Humans got along with averge noses.

Some sharks have sensors that can detect the electrical activity of prey hiding under the sand. That would be of no use to humans. Guess what, humans don't have it.

Animals that migrate long distances like butterflies and geese can sense the earth's magnetic field. That would be of no use to humans. Guess what, humans can't sense the earth's magnetic field.

Learn. Ignorance is not bliss.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You being right or wrong makes no difference whatsoever. That's what people have been trying to tell you.

It's pointless to have a conversation with people who are already programmed to reject anything a creationist says. Your evolution religion makes you close minded.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Your comment proves, once again, that you do not understand evolution. Humans didn't and don't need "super sharp hearing" to survive.

Bats and dolphins use echo-location for hunting and hear far better than humans. Humans got along with averge hearing.
Bears and sharks have an excellent sense of smell that they use for finding food (and mates). Humans got along with averge noses.

Some sharks have sensors that can detect the electrical activity of prey hiding under the sand. That would be of no use to humans. Guess what, humans don't have it.

Animals that migrate long distances like butterflies and geese can sense the earth's magnetic field. That would be of no use to humans. Guess what, humans can't sense the earth's magnetic field.

Learn. Ignorance is not bliss.

Nice explanation of God's design.

 

[sayak83]

Not necessarily. If that were the case, all humans should now have super sharp hearing. But you aren't taking non beneficial mutations and entropy into account.

Evolutionary biology takes everything into account. Have you taken any undergraduate or graduate level course on the topic? Your doubts will be cleared if you had. Maybe take a course in courseera or udemy?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Talk about missing the point.

Are you going to acknowledge that claiming that creationists are wrong simply because they believe in God is tilting the scales and making it impossible for you to ever consider anything a creationist says?

Nobody has claimed that. And in fact, several of us have specifically pointed out exactly what we are claiming.

So why are you arguing against strawmen??

 

[metis]

...claiming that creationists are wrong simply because they believe in God is tilting the scales and making it impossible for you to ever consider anything a creationist says?

But that's not what the ToE does as it neither posits nor denies Divine creation. You're seeing it as being some sort of enemy of God or Gods whereas it really isn't.

 

[metis]

Nobody has claimed that. And in fact, several of us have specifically pointed out exactly what we are claiming.

So why are you arguing against strawmen??

Ah, ya beat me to this! As always, I'm a minute late and a dollar short.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nice explanation of God's design.

No, that's something that would need to be demonstrated, not just asserted.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ah, ya beat me to this! As always, I'm a minute late and a dollar short.

LOL That's usually me.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nobody has claimed that. And in fact, several of us have specifically pointed out exactly what we are claiming.

So why are you arguing against strawmen??

That's exactly what you said.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But that's not what the ToE does as it neither posits nor denies Divine creation. You're seeing it as being some sort of enemy of God or Gods whereas it really isn't.

The claim was made that creationist are always inherently biased when comes to science because of thier belief in God creating. Quit trying to spin it.