As the un-believers would have us believe, Man was created, specifically, by a form of deity for the purposes of testing. In this creation Man, being an inferior life form, would be subjected to a hostile world without an instruction manual, but no matter, Man could not read or write anyway. In this creation scenario Man, was left to his own devices to determine what plants were not poisonous, a trial and error thing, what thunder and lightening were and what a myriad of other things were or were not deadly. Man being, essentially, 98.7 % monkey is inherently a sexual animal, but this deity would find it amusing to inform his inferior creation, that such was a sin and could be punishable with damnation, yet another of this gods creations.
"Sexual activity generally plays a major role in bonobo society, being used as what some scientists perceive as a greeting, a means of forming social bonds, a means of conflict resolution, and postconflict reconciliation. Bonobos are the only non-human animal to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex (though a pair of western gorillas has been photographed performing face-to-face genital sex), tongue kissing, and oral sex.
Bonobos do not form permanent monogamous sexual relationships with individual partners. They also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by sex or age, with the possible exception of abstaining from sexual activity between mothers and their adult sons." Quoted from Nature, a journal of scientific discovery.
Perhaps, if we go by sexual traits and practices alone, are we not 100% monkey and in some cases, it would seem that, that is precisely what we are.
That one would think that somehow humanity was, again, created by a deity and not an evolved species, from the line of the Great Apes, is simply the denial of a reasoned truth in favor of an imagined supernatural deity that supplants the 1.3% difference of the capacity to reason with insecurity and possibly self loathing.
Man, by the definition of religious belief, is a denial, a disbelief, an unbelief in the reality that is Man, who exists in a universe unknown and now ignored by deity worshipers.
"the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day." (Westminster Confession)
More interesting, is the 1.3% difference
Anyone who can spin a yarn like that can surely finish the last 1.3%.
Not a yarn, but you are invited to show me where i am wrong. I can finish the 1.3 %
but I thought others may want to constructively participate. You are welcome.
The whole monkey thing is a yarn, and one not even all proponents of scientism agree with or support. Lots of room for disagreement since it is entirely built on speculation anyway. The best you could hope to do is say we are some percent similar in makeup or dna to a monkey....as we are to many other things.
Actually, an argument of any kind regarding evolution, or any topic for that matter, must pertain directly to the subject matter. If, for example, we are discussing bowling, the topics could be things like five pin verses ten pin, types of shoes or gloves. In any case, there would be arguments given that involve the details of the subject matter.
So, if you wish to argue evolution, you must talk the talk, and tell us exactly what you believe is wrong about it. You may use peer reviewed articles from scientific journals to support your argument, because that's exactly what you'll require to offer any kind of rebuttal.
To merely state "the monkey thing is a yarn" is by no means an argument, it is an insult to the author's intelligence and only demonstrates a lack of credibility on your part to raise an argument.
"it is entirely built on speculation"
Then, show us.
Actually, just saying the whole thing is a yarn built entirely on speculation is being rather charitable. In truth there is nothing to argue because you won't be able to produce a single fact that uniquely indicates macro evolution has ever occurred. Not one fact.
Indeed the burden of proof is on you. How many times have atheists said you can't prove a negative? Evolution is merely a belief you hold. Materialistically, I can't prove it wrong anymore than you can prove it right, (purple unicorns, invisible dragons, and all those atheist favorites come to mind).
Considering all the bluster it's adherents convey about how true macro evolution is, loving to call it a "fact" when nothing could be further from the truth, you would think one measly genuine fact for which there is no other viable explanation would be no problem. But you don't have one, or do you? I'm listening, but please don't cop out by presenting some observable item for which there are other plausible conclusions, all the while waxing on about how it must mean macro evolution has happened.
Actually, just saying the whole thing is a yarn built on speculation is being rather childish. Your follow up to that is self serving.
An argument to support your claims, sir, if you please. What exactly is wrong with evolution?
If you really don't know anything about it, allow me to offer the two simple postulates, so you may have a starting point.
1. Natural Selection
2. Diversity of Species
These are in essence, the two basic requirements for evolution. Do you see a problem with either one? If so, what is the problem and why is it a problem?
As anticipated, you don't have, (because there is not), a single fact exclusively supporting your beliefs.
As anticipated, you don't seem to be interested in discussion rather than just declaring stuff.
I know my understanding of theories is lacking, with me not being a scientist and all, but if evolution is a theory, how is anyone supposed to give you facts proving it to be true? Supporting evidence is what you want, which I thought natural selection and diversity of species fell under. You still haven't specified what is wrong with either or what other plausible explanations there could be.
It is reasonable that facts or a reasoned proof of a claim should be submitted should a request be made. So, lets begin with what the claim of evolution is based on. Once this information is submitted, I think it then would be in the reasoned best interest of the unbeliever to research that information and not simply dismiss it out of hand due to a bias or prejudice
Unlike a creationist position of, god said it and therefore I believe, evolution does not demand believe under penalty of damnation, but appeals to ones ability to reason and obviously such talent is not evenly distributed among humans. It is like capitalism and wealth.
" A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts." Stephen Gould
1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended."
From this humanity can be traced from 'now' going back some 200,000 years, the advent of the homo sapiens-sapiens to around 2,5 billion years ago to the first living cell with a nucleus
2. The fossil record. 3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
4. Common traits in embryos. "Pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor."
5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution.
This information is partially copied from various sites pertaining to the evolution of humanity. Such information is easily found.
Truth is very difficult to define and I think that the search of such an elusive element begins with the process of objective reasoning. That is to say that an open mind is the first requirement.
Here are five points that give credibility to the claim of evolution, now it is up to you to take these points, examine them, research their individual claims and foundation for such claims and return with a objective response.
Again, we would like to see an argument, not just a meaningless, dishonest denial.
The 1.3 % (1.3-2%) is Neanderthal for those who aren't 100% African. There is no debate regarding Evolution it happened. Deniers are the poorly educated, brainwashed individuals that think Kirk Cameron is smarter than Stephan Hawking. The clock on the wall says 9:36pm, my watch says 9:35pm and my cell phone says 9:37 but a creationist will stand firm that it's 3 in the afternoon.
I see you have been doing some reading, but I was more looking to that, which could shed some light on the uniquely human capacity to reason. We do see this talent in some other animals, but on a limited basis, the Magpie and the Bonobo pygmy Chimps are good examples.
I really enjoyed the Cameron and Hawking comparison. Hawking would chuckle at that.
Perhaps, you have run across the study that is now in full swing, that is making claim to a 99.6 % match to the Bonobo?
I got a giggle out of the 1.3% - makes sense to me!
But there are a few other animals, in the cetaceans, that may reason as well as we do. The problem is the tremendous difference in culture and environment - we may NEVER fully understand why they do what they do. At this point I don't think we can declare that we are alone on this planet in intelligence.
Not only are you prone to make religionistic statements, now sexist claims as well.
There is a big difference between monkey's and ape's.
Just read that. It may be a good idea to start with getting yourself educated. Bonobos are not monkeys. Bonobos are apes like chimps. Monkeys have tails, we do not. Which bring up an interesting point. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis. In rare cases humans are born with tails, it's called Human vestigiality, which is another piece in the puzzle of evolution. We have the remnants of organs we no longer use, but once did and some other mammals still do. The appendix, wisdom teeth, the vomeronasal organ, ear muscles that don't appear to move the ear and yet in some people the muscles function and list goes one.
My top two wisdom teeth are both in use, having replaced my top two back molars. That's their intended use and they are VERY useful. Of course people get them pulled and can't use them as intended.
According to some, the wisdom teeth won't move forward into the molar's spot and align nicely with the rest of the teeth. But mine both did.
This about the appendix from US Health Works may interest you:
Science has discovered mysterious immune-modifying cells in the appendix. These seem to serve a function in training our immune system. It is important for the body to get straight which germs to fight against and which ones to peacefully coexist.
Besides possibly having an immune system function, the lowly appendix turns out to be a well-built tubular structure handy for rebuilding internal body parts. Urinary tract reconstructions frequently make use of the appendix. So we stopped removing a normal appendix when we were there for another reason.
The whole treatment of acute appendicitis has been evolving. Traditionally there was one, and only one treatment for acute appendicitis – remove it. Recent studies show antibiotics work in treating the acute appendicitis, and work as well as surgery. It’s certainly a heck of a lot easier on the patient to use antibiotics.
Once again, the more you study the human body, the more you appreciate the design. We’ve learned that even something as lowly as the appendix is there for a reason.
Funny, you didn't explain the vomeronasal organ or ear muscles.
I don't have knowledge of them, but it's probably out there (I didn't research it). And even if undiscovered thus far, if people can discover that the appendix really has a purpose after they thought not for so long, I'm sure the purpose of the others is present and may someday come to light. Now the wisdom teeth, that's just plain obvious how that would continue to benefit us, lol!
Wisdom teeth? I had two of them removed. Without dentistry I would have most likely have had a serious infection at a rather young age, but I wouldn't have lived long enough for that without having my appendix removed when I was 13. Do you think God put those things there just to cause us harm or do you think it was part of our evolution? Why again do we have all those muscles for our ears that we don't use? Why again are some humans born with tails?
All four of mine had to go in my 20's. As humanity eats less and less of harder plant life we don't need them and are evolving away from them as our jaw shrinks. Many people (I'm one of them) simply do not have the room for 4 extra large molars; the jaw is not large enough to accommodate them) and as the evolution progresses some people never get them at all. Just one of the ways we're still evolving.
It's also the same reason some people can move their ears and some can't. I'm one that can't which makes me more evolved. LOL.
I like it! Evolution gave man our intelligence; I must have an increase of at least .001 IQ points above the average!
Sure, you can say that cause you have that little a in a box next to your picture and I, well, don't.
The sun gives us light and warmth, yet light and warmth come from the Lord! The seeds and all give us food, yet food comes from the Lord. Even for those believing in evolution, which would be a process, it's sad to speak of what evolution "gives" without recognizing the One who would be behind it, ultimately giving it.
Most people understand that things in life change and evolve, whether or not we accept Evolution Theory with its inference of a common ancestor. Regarding an evolution of intelligence: People seem to know more than they used to based on compulsory education, the availability of information on the internet and such, but are they more intelligent than many centuries ago if we control for teaching and the information provided? Of course there are different types of intelligence - verbal / written, mathematical, technological, spatial, artistic, social/emotional, analytical and so on. Do you think some types of intelligence are decreasing and some increasing? Do we really have much basis for saying humans are more intelligent than in the past, if we can't really control for what we humans have available to us, giving us such a great advantage?
Still attacking science I see. How odd that you feel so comfortable attacking and persecuting people who accept proven science yet whine so loudly when your beliefs are questioned.
Not going for the deal to end the persecution then?
Sure humans are getting smarter, that's why every few years they have to alter IQ test so that the norm for that time will be 100. IQ test generally don't test your knowledge, but your ability to perform tasks. We've gotten smarter, better looking and taller. Well not me, but you get the point.
IQ tests measure a combination of crystalized and fluid intelligence (that is, knowledge and tasks). We have available to us things that from infancy promote both types. Even the tasks / fluid intelligence would be improved from video games and such. We would have to control for all these things to determine if we were naturally more intelligent than in the past.
As for good-looking, that's all a matter of perception, so we can't really say whether that's improving or not (they once considered plumper people better looking, for example).
Taller we are than people in recent generations, probably from both our genes AND all the hormones we're exposed to in our foods and other things. The desirability of the tall attribute fluctuates as well. In the fifties, for example, they preferred "little" girls and "little" ladies. But as far as I know, men were more esteemed when tall throughout.
It took a hundred thousand years to improve a chipped spear point. It took 50 years to improve the Wright Brothers plane to a landing on the moon. I'd have to say that the intelligence level increased.
We certainly do change according to environment! No arguments there!
Your heart can have/cause problems and kill you too, so the fact that something can become diseased and problematic absolutely does NOT indicate it was useless. Because they've now found there were unknown uses to the appendix and that antibiotics treat appendicitis, they are increasingly treating it with antibiotics rather than removing it. Wisdom teeth can certainly become a problem, but they can also work as intended, as my top two have. In the past before dentists people would have needed wisdom teeth far more than today, so they were certainly a useful design!
I've done zero research on ear muscles, so I'm not in a position to answer you on that one.
The "tails" can be a variety of things from a growth to a prolonged vertebrae. Many are simply fatty tissue and no bone. It's like other abnormalities upon birth - the girl in India born with four arms and four legs, or babies born missing various parts.
Why exactly would we be theorized to go through the stages of evolution within the womb? And why would we (humans, apes and allegedly common ancestors) ever lose something as extremely USEFUL as those tails are to creatures, when natural selection would be at play to maintain these useful aspects and increase not decrease them?
True, your heart can kill you. But I've lived without my tonsils or appendix just for quite some time now. It appears that while they both my play some kind of small role that cause far more harm than good. For hundreds of thousands of years he had no antibiotics or surgeries to remove them when they can kill us. From a design standpoint they are an error. From an evolutionary standpoint they are organs that evolution is taking care of. Our diets changed and we no longer used the appendix for what it had evolved to do so it's functions diminished.
It telling and interesting that we still have the muscles to move our ears, but few of us have the ability to use them. Chimps are somehow in the same boat as us in that regard.
Then there is the plica semilunaris, the palmar grasp reflex, male nipples, arrector pili and the list goes on.
I'm sorry to hear you had trouble with your appendix and tonsils. They are still both useful organs in most people, and probably even more so than we've yet discovered - the tonsils are the body's first line of defense against inhaled / ingested pathogens (see the earlier post about the function/benefits of the appendix). Certainly as we change and adapt, some of these things may become less useful, more problematic and so on. That still demonstrates nothing about the greater theory of common ancestry, and simply that we evolve / change (which no one disputes).
We're designed to survive for a time on this earth and then die so that we can enter eternity. All of our organs, from the most vital to the least vital, can present problems. This is not a flaw of design, but a part of the foretold "death" that entered in.
Grasping and such can be useful to an infant, especially in certain times and places. And perhaps it was more pronounced and more useful in the past. Again, no one is saying we don't change / evolve, even those of us who haven't accepted the theory of common ancestry. As for male nipples: the embryo follows a 'female template', and it's the effect of the Y chromosome and the hormone testosterone that makes the embryo male, causing the growth of the penis and testicles. Because nipples are there before the male process begins, the nipples remain. Arrector pili (goose bumps) make the hair stand up when cold to keep us warmer. We probably had more hair in the past when people were out in the elements more, and men had more hair because they were out hunting and such even more. Yet again, we agree that changes based on environment have and will continue to occur.
I am very familiar with the stories of evolution. Granted there are so many variations nobody can be privy to them all, but going to the stories is to get ahead of ourselves. I have asked for a single fact which exclusively supports the macro evolution myths, and nobody can provide one. At least CJ tried, giving 5 things he thinks might be such facts but none of them reveal anything that wouldn't be expected if a common designer made all things and engineered in fascinating adaptability. Not macro evolution, mind you, but still impressive adaptability. So are you ready to concede there is no such exclusive fact supporting macro evolution so we can move on to other problems with the stories and their premise? If not, please provide the fact for review. I will check back later.
I've seen many "definitions" of the macro evolution you reference. Can you give your own definition that you are using when you claim there are no examples?
Hello Wilderness. I have a lot of work to get done today, but am looking in occasionally, so for the sake of time allow me to paste these from someone else. Not super detailed but probably sufficient to convey the point for our purposes:
" Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.
Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog."
I make the distinction because the only defenses I have ever seen for speculating that macro evolution is real considers micro evolution, or more appropriately, adaptability, as it's proof.
Interesting. I discussed the question once with someone that said it was evolution of anything bigger than a bacteria. Then bigger than a fruit fly. Then bigger than a mouse and finally (after being given examples of everything asked for) she redefined macro evolution as a cat giving birth to a dog on every street corner in full view of herself. Laughable, but sad at the same time - her belief was simply NOT to be challenged; "I believe; don't confuse me with facts.".
The point is that that definition continually changes, from the smaller changes to ever larger. The most common definition used to be a species change (cannot interbreed) but you now demand a change in class. All while knowing that evolution does not provide for any such change in time frames shorter than man has been around but still insisting there is no proof. There is no proof because you do not wish to understand the biology of animals but instead use the old excuse that "God can do anything" as an answer as to why whales exhibit so many land dwelling attributes. To go from "large changes can be seen in animals as they evolve" to "But those changes can never result in a change of class as God could have done it" just doesn't make sense. The conclusion is based on religious belief instead of any real knowledge of how the world works.
It obviously works for you, but most of us would rather use deductive reasoning to find an answer that fits in with the rest of our knowledge and understanding of the natural world.
It seems you support my point, then. Evolution is a cornerstone in the belief systems rightly placed under the umbrella of "scientism". Macro evolution is certainly not a fact, just a speculative idea many embrace. Once we can agree on that we can look closer at the many assumptions it is built on.
Yes, I know. It is convenient to apply the label "belief system" to hard work and much research as if it were a religious belief as an effort to reduce that effort to the same kind of thing religion is based on. The difference might be analogous to my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, based on not only my personal experience of some 24,000 days that it DID rise coupled with the same experience of thousands of others, with the belief in a god. One has a great deal of supporting evidence, the other has nothing but desire and belief that it is true.
It just doesn't work. One is an honest effort to understand and has much to recommend it, while the other has nothing BUT belief as support. Nothing wrong with belief without supporting evidence as it keeps a great many people happy and content, but it just isn't a reason to degrade our best efforts at understanding to the same level.
We disagree. I appreciate genuine science. The actual facts. I consider all the accumulative speculation about those facts as a belief system and scientism as a religion. I realize defending that premise means making a big case of it, so let's just leave it as my opinion and I'll show my reasoning some time when I have the time to do it in Hubs. Until then, I am just making clear my view. Still, even if the "religion" charge requires support, the "belief" part should be obvious.
I think you said it better than I did. The "premise" of evolution is the thousands of observed facts (fossil and geological records, DNA comparisons, etc.), from which a logical conclusion can be reached. That the conclusion cannot be directly observed does mean it could be wrong, but it is the best we have.
The "premise" of religion, however, cannot be found or observed. IT is the "belief system", not the conclusions reached (although because the premise is unproven they, too, are a belief). As the premise is unproven it is NOT the best we have. It may be right, but we have no way of knowing that through either observation OR logical deduction/induction.
To equate the two "beliefs" then is not a reasonable tactic. They are very much different and are not comparable at all. Only the vagaries of the English language allows such comparison as the thinking and reasoning process behind each are 180 degrees apart.
Again we disagree. Macro evolution is pure speculation and assumptions built on speculations and assumptions. None of the facts, individually or collectively, conclusively or exclusively point to it. We will continue to disagree here as it is at spirituality that we part ways. Consistent with scripture, spiritual discernment is required to understand the "big picture" if you will, and those who deny spirituality, considering it foolishness and/or imagination will never see it since it is beyond the material world they restrict themselves to.
In understanding that "big picture" I have found this to be as valid and reliable a source of clarification and understanding as my physical senses are to the material world. Therefore I cannot prove to you the agenda that drives the desire people have to exclude a creator, or the spiritual influences supporting them to do so on a level of which they are not even aware. Again, no point going there as we have been round and round before. I am just explaining why we see this differently.
I understand we see things differently, and understand why as well. Which is what I was trying to say, but it obviously did not come through very well.
Science starts with observation and comes to a reasoned conclusion. Religion belief starts with the belief and reasons "backwards", forcing all premisses to conform to that belief. God exists and made everything; the premiss is that evolution happens cannot be true because of the conclusion that god did it would then be false reasoning. Your own comment that spiritual "discernment" is required to understand the big bang bears this out; any conclusion of the big bang must conform to a pre-set belief of a god. The decision to believe in a god requires it instead of the big bang requiring a god.
But you're right - we've been around this before and neither of us is going to change our method of reasoning to a conclusion. No reason to go over it all again.
Even the big bang is just part of that belief system. I also disagree in that logic and reason are not the driving force leading to the beliefs of scientism, as they are applied selectively to support the desired conclusion, just as you have charged "religion" with. Not being aware of the spiritual influences both internal and external just solidifies their conviction that they are above such nonsense and these factors are not in play. This is why so many here act as though they have solid ground but when called upon to show one fact that is solidly in their corner, exclusively supporting the belief system they are so sure of as to call it fact, none can.
Sorry, but any scientist worth their salt will not continue with a conclusion that has been shown to be wrong. Most go into an investigation/research with a desired conclusion in mind, but good (or even half good) will quickly drop it if it is shown to be wrong or even if it cannot be supported.
On the other hand, no good theologian will ever suggest a conclusion that a god isn't there, or didn't make us all. Truth, reasoning and even hard evidence is secondary and such a conclusion is simply not to be accepted; anything that leads down that path is automatically declared wrong and ignored. There is, after all, always the "Well it might be there" or "It might have happened that way" where the "might" takes precedence over anything else. Much like the whale moving back to the sea: regardless of any and all evidence showing it as a probability, God might have made the whale with land characteristics and therefore evolution can never be accepted.
No, while there will always be charlatans on both sides, at the root science and religion do not use the same kind of reasoning.
No, just as "religion" says there must be God, scientism denies spirituality and is therefore limited to materialism so they conclude there must not be god. Both have made a conclusion which influences their perspectives. Scientism sees religion as believing nonsense, and religion sees scientism as only seeing part of the data.
The same reason and logic will produce different conclusions if the data is different.
Again, sorry. Science has found no way to observe, test or work with the "spiritual world" and can thus have no opinion on it. Even Hawking has made it clear that while there was no need for a god behind the big bang he cannot rule it out.
Whereas all theologians are in the same fix; they cannot test or observe the spiritual world either, but nevertheless claim it is there.
Science does not see religion as nonsense; it sees it as unproven. Religion, though, is willing to claim that the data is there even when they cannot produce it. It HAS to be there in order to believe, and that it cannot be found in any way, shape or form is irrelevant. It has to be there and so science simply isn't seeing it.
So yes, differing data gives rise to different conclusions. Science requires data, though, whereas religion assumes it is there but has not been found and thus the conclusions are different. Back to the whale again; science and religion both see the same physical evidence in the whale but religion adds the all important "data" that god made the whale. Data that isn't there but must be there in order to disallow evolution (and allow a god) and so is accepted as true. The conclusion is producing the data through "reverse logic", in other words, instead of the other way around.
As we are seeing in this thread, in spite of lots of words from several folks, none are able to produce a single fact exclusively supporting macro evolution. Clearly macro evolutionary theory doesn't need any alternative theory to oppose it as it fails quite nicely on it's own.
I have to ask, because I find your thinking fascinating. Do you have an explanation for the hyena? They are not dogs nor cats, but closer related to cats, we have fossil records going back millions of years and then before that we have fossil records of things not quite cats nor hyena. The fossils are facts and evolution explains why we don't see fossil records of them before. Plioviverrops is an example.
Do you have another theory why we don't see them in the fossil records before 22 MYA?
Do you have another theory as to why we don't see records of humans before 200,000 years ago, and instead see fossils of something very similar to us?
Rad, sorry for the delay but I am hardly late. You infer I am ignoring you and that is not the case.
Your belief in macro evolution drives your need to see an association between hyenas and either cats or dogs. Knowing there is no proof macro evolution has ever occurred it comes as no surprise if hyenas are simply another animal, not bred from cats or dogs.
All three questions are based on the faulty premise that dating of 200,000 years and/or millions of years are facts. In truth those are just more speculations, not facts, so the questions are not valid. Offering an answer would be validating the faulty premise.
I have made clear my only purpose in this thread was to expose scientism's assertion that evolution is a fact when in truth it is nothing more than a belief, by showing there are no genuine facts exclusively supporting macro evolution having ever occurred. That is all I intended to do on this thread. I may address some of the many problem's with they myth of macro evolution on GA's new thread, but won't have time to do that and have the dating debate. If you really believe those dates are valid for some reason, you may want to research the plethora of problems with the dating methods online. If you still believe in them after the other thread concludes go ahead and start a thread on it and I will participate if I can.
I'm inclined to quit actively following this thread now since it has turned into just a couple of folks upset that they can't produce the fact they imagine to exist which would meet the challenge, resorting to baseless attacks against my intelligence and/or education. My point has been made. If they had one fact they would have presented it by now instead of all their worthless ranting.
Your point has not been made and you failed to answer my question. I specifically asked what your theory is. You simply dismiss all the facts and pretend the science is all wrong while you type on the computer that science has brought you. How do you account for the Hyena? Did it just poof into existence a few million years ago or was it a few thousand years ago?
My point has been made clear by the inability of anyone participating in this thread, in spite of their much speaking and constant derision, to produce one single fact that exclusively supports macro evolution. I have been asking this question of everyone including scientists and professors for a great many years and none has ever been able to do it. Allow me then to postulate: no such fact exists. If you believe it does, please present it, or acknowledge my point has indeed been made.
Sharing my theory in this thread is pointless. I have in the past, and will again admit here that to the materialist's mind much of my belief is foolishness, (just as to me much of theirs is). So why discuss one and not the other? Because I have full access to all you do in terms of materialism, so scientism is something we can discuss.
Anyone who does not acknowledge a god exists and denies spirituality will not be able to understand what I would present. It is a waste of time. This is my view, reinforced by scripture, so there is no point in our going there. I expect ardent adherents to scientism will never concede their beliefs are nothing more than that.
So why do I bother? Through no fault of their own, most of the 1st and 2nd world populations have for a great many years now been subjected to varying degrees of indoctrination into scientism. Our societies provide it via media, entertainment, pop culture and our education systems from kindergarten through post graduate school. So strong is the conditioning to believe scientism must have merit, that even believers are reluctant to speak out and expose the naked emperor. It is my hope when observers who have not yet fully acquiesced to this treatment see scientism revealed as the mere belief system it is, they will find encouragement to look beyond it and be open to considering other possibilities.
No facts have been presented to me yet, therefore no facts have been dismissed.
Frequently employed, this is one of the most baseless ruses in the scientism arsenol. Wanting both to believe and purport that scientism and real science are synonymous, proponents allege a rejection of scientism and it's wild speculations is a rejection of science itself. Pathetic. Neither your and others belief in evolution, nor my rejection of those myths have any bearing on the development of technology. Historically most of science was done by believers. Currently, that may or may not be the case, I don't know. Considering the previously mentioned indoctrination now intrinsic in academia, perhaps more development does now occur by people who have fallen prey to these efforts. Either way, technology has nothing to do with either ideology.
I answered you question already, but to rephrase, the heyna is part of God's creation. As are the dog and cat. As are you and I.
Mmm...and what exactly is your fact that exclusively supports this, if I may ask.
Don't need one. He asked how I account for them, and unlike scientism, I freely acknowledge mine is a belief system. As outlined in another response, to a materialist, that is all I can show.
So... You claim something as fact, yet when asked for evidence you turn around and say it is simply your belief, which shows that you acknowledge that you could be completely wrong, to continue on claiming things as fact.
Are you trying to be blatantly dishonest, or do you actually see nothing wrong with that?
That couldn't be further from the truth, you've done no such thing because you don't understand evolution.
That is because you don't have one.
Yes, your myths and superstitions do indeed sound foolish when standing in the light of reality as I'm sure reality sounds foolish to you.
Now, that is one of the lamest excuses I've heard from you.
You don't bother, that is the problem.
The hypocrisy of that paragraph is astounding. Why do you have a computer? It is the product of science. Why do have an internet connection and why do you write on these forums, both products of science? Do you have a GPS? Smartphone? What else do you own and use daily that science has provided for you?
You really have nothing, do you? You accused me of being childish yet this response couldn't be a more classic example of such behavior. I'll not bother to respond to each ridiculous portion, and the last point about science has already been addressed a couple of times. Technological accomplishments have nothing to do with the ideology you promote.
So God suddenly planted the first Hyena's in the jungles of Miocene Eurasia 22 million years ago?
What was his reason for creating Dracunculiasis? Does he simply enjoy torturing people?
Would you like to see the evidence in terms of fossil records of human evolution? Do you believe the fossil records are not fact?
Do you simply not believe any science that conflicts with your beliefs or are there specific rules that you follow when dismissing science?
Do you believe fossil and genetic records and dating methods are all wrong and bad science? If so you'll have to supply some evidence of better ways of studying nature because if you think that a group of people living in the middle east a few thousand years ago who thought the universe was a few thousand years older had a better understanding of the universe that modern science does you may want open your eyes.
Do you believe that God put African and Asian elephants on the earth and did so in such a way that they can't produce viable offspring?
The horse, donkey and zebra are another example of what happens when species are separated by environments for long enough, they can no longer produce viable offspring with crossbred. That is a fact.
Why would God put in water something that needs to breath air? The evolution of whales from land mammals is fact and can be seen in fossil records and with animals that are in transition from land to sea as we speak.
Please give Gods reason for the creation of Dracunculiasis and the other parasites that specifically attack humans?
You can however dismiss evolution if you supply and better explanation for the evidence we see for evolution.
We already know you don't believe God created a fully functioning world, which would inherently then have some appearance of age on day one, as Adam did when he was created. I do. Many times I have said I recognize and have no problem with your seeing my beliefs as foolishness, yet you continually solicit them. Is it so you can distract us from the point that scientism is nothing more than another belief system? I'm not interested in rehashing those conversations or starting new ones about what God had in mind with different aspects of creation when it is not at all relevant, (particularly to someone who does not believe there is a god).
I believe it is a fact that we have fossils. I believe it is a fact they have recorded them. I believe you can line them up, rock badgers and all, and say it represents the evolution of the horse, (oh wait, that has already been done).
I've not dismissed any genuine science. I have disagreed with the speculations and assumptions of many scientists regarding what factual observations mean.
Again, no problems with facts just the speculation. As I said, dating is whole other discussion so let's stay focused on facts exclusively supporting macro evolution having ever taken place, or lack thereof. Dating is just about creating a vehicle the myth of evolution would require to even appear remotely viable.
Just reviewing what I've already stated elsewhere in this thread in more detail;
I am not offering an alternative to your beliefs, I am simply exposing them as mere beliefs. Considering the amount of PR presenting scientism as truth that has been foisted on society at many levels, I am simply hoping to keep the near brainwashing from winning some of those for whom it is not too late.
I'm asking a lot of questions because I find your thinking fascinating, I'm not trying to be disrespectful at all, simply trying to understand.
Do you feel you have come to your beliefs about science based on your beliefs on religion, or do you feel that you would have come to the same conclusion without religion?
I guess I had forgot that you belief God made and old world, I'm just wondering why you feel he would do that? would have be trying to deceive us?
So contradictory! When we want to see a great multitude of fossils of transitional types, the excuse is that fossils are rather rare and we can't expect they be produced readily. Now you're saying that if they haven't found certain fossils of hyenas "dated" at a certain age, then they must not have existed in that form as early as whatever fossils they happened to have found? I thought you took issue with contradictions like this, or is that just when you misunderstand the Word of God and believe you've found a contradiction?
I've also seen the extensive literature on the inaccuracy of dating methods, and I believe dating is all less definitive than they'd have us believe, but I'm not committed to any particular theory about the age of the earth, so I won't say anything conclusively there. Still, your "evidence" regarding the "unfound" hyena fossils is weak.
Repeating your denials over and over is not an argument, it is just plain denial, obviously in light of your creationist worldview. Just like Ken Ham. There's no reasoning with you at all.
I have to question the honesty of your reply, with regard to your claim that you are familiar with the points that I put forward. There is no indication in any of your posts, with me or others, that you have any knowledge or understanding of these points.
But, if you were familiar, we would be hearing a valid argument, but we are hearing only denial.
That would show you don't know anything about evolution.
But, that is not your claim.
But, you don't understand evolution, so the facts would not make sense to you. But, we can now see your agenda of religious beliefs in a creator. Obviously, facts are irrelevant to you.
It would you will not be putting forth an argument, hence there is no point in your posts, they are merely troll bait.
How did cave men escape / evolve from the 100 % ape genetic code they started with?
Men never did have 100% "ape" code; whatever gave you that idea?
I thought it was the theory of evolution… we evolved from apes…at some point there were only apes… but then from them, cave-men evolved...thats the percent we are pondering, right?
or did apes and man evolve from Big Foot?
It's not confusing if you, like deBerean would take the time to actually learn something about evolution, you too would understand it.
But, it's obvious that's asking way too much from you believers.
That both man and apes evolved from bigfoot is more accurate. If, at least, you wish to name our common ancestor "bigfoot". The point is that man was never an ape - that far back we weren't even that far up the evolutionary scale.
You most certainly are confused. We are still apes.
According to the taxonomy charts, yes. The gorilla, chimpanzee, bonobo, orangutan and man are all classified as the great apes. The term "ape" has a very specific in biology (and evolution) and is not the common definition of all the lesser apes, great apes and monkeys.
Earlier, however, I spoke of the common usage, where the entire group of monkeys and apes are lumped into one. We were never any of those animals, although we DID have a common ancestor with many of not all of them.
...then what did you mean by this:
"The point is that man was never an ape - that far back we weren't even that far up the evolutionary scale."
... then what were we? pre apes? what is a pre ape? When did the ability to reason come into existence? when/ how did our large brain evolve? We have superior abilities compared to apes. How did we get our very superior abilities? How did we loose body hair?
PS I have taken Anthropology. I don't remember anything.
Whoops; crossed posts. Check the one above again, where that is explained.
"we DID have a common ancestor"
... what was it?
- did we always have more capacity to reason than the apes?
There is only one conclusion:
God must have done it.
It was an animal - you can name it if you wish.
We were probably no smarter than the apes, assuming that we developed at the same time (I'm not sure). Intelligence seems to have come when we came down from the trees onto the plains and began to walk upright and eat meat.
Why? Because it was a survival trait. Genetic mutation sometimes results in that, and if conditions are right and the individual with the mutation reproduces the trait stays around. No god necessary, just a common mutation that worked with the environment to promote survival and reproduction.
Superior abilities? As in stronger? More able to withstand temperature variations? Faster?
I don't think so. In only one attribute can we beat out apes, and that is our mind. Other things, such as the ability to vocalize better, are sidelines that perhaps help, but that's all.
You mean talk to each other???
You mean use tools better?
You mean …????
We run much faster than apes.
We swim faster than apes.
We do handstands better than apes!
Our faces are more beautiful and our bodies are more beautiful.
(Please don't tell me I am racist!)
… and all the result of RANDOM genetic mutation!
No, it was God.
Ever watch naked and afraid? Think those people could live indefinitely, naked and afraid, in the forest where gorillas do just fine?
As far as evolution goes, that's the only test that counts at all - can you survive and reproduce. The gorilla is obviously much, much better at it than man is...except for that brain. The brain that has allowed a society of man to take over everywhere on earth. Not only the gorilla's forest, but the mountaintop, the desert and everything in between. We are the better survivor because of that brain, not because we swim faster (and I don't think you can outrun a gorilla but don't know for sure) or can do a handstand.
And yes you would be...uh...speciesist maybe, to a gorilla. They are very obviously more beautiful...to another gorilla.
speciesist. Huh! They are handsome for sure… but we are not animals, as they are!!!!!!!!!!
The notion of the "random genetic mutation" as the driving factor behind evolution is incorrect. There are very specific reasons why some traits are passed on and others are not. In the harsh environment of the wild world prior to human "civilization" only the strongest and most advantageously positioned individuals survived to procreate - this is still observable behavior in animal species today. The traits inherited by successive generations were specifically only the traits available in survivors. Random genetic mutation had very little to do with the evolution of most modern species.
The common ancestor between humans and the rest of the great apes is many millenia in the past. In the time between that ancestor's existence and the rise of homo sapiens (humans) there are numerous intermediate creatures that form a chain of evolution - homo habilis, homo erectus, homo africanensis, etc. Homo neanderthalis or Neanderthals were contemporary species with early man. We have plenty of archaeological evidence showing their co-occupation with homo sapiens of Europe and Asia Minor.
Neanderthals were in many ways "better" than humans - they were taller, stronger, faster and had larger cranial capacity. Within Neanderthals there is also a distinction between the size averages of the European versus the Asian variety - even within their own species we see diversity of evolution. We have found evidence from grave sites in the Middle East to show that they respected their dead, might have had a religious or afterlife beliefs, and we have found their art and tools in their camp sites. The major distinction between the success of Neanderthals and Humans is the choice in living quarters - Humans tended to live at the tops of high elevated places where they could observe the movement of the game herds needed for both groups to feed. Neanderthals tended to favor caves and low places. Since neither group had yet developed farming, access to game and warning that the herd was moving give Humans a competitive advantage. There was violence between the groups and the superior tool making of Humans assisted in their out-competing Neanderthals.
Additionally, evolution and the acceptance of the scientific evidence behind it does not disprove a God and belief in God does not disprove evolution. I personally think of it as one of God's many tools for creation and it behaves according to free will, which we were provided by God according to the religious texts of most major religions. Evolution is not the singular point by which religion should be evaluated however and an anthropological lens applied to religious belief is very enlightening when shown how human behavior has directly informed religious belief now. The Christian Church as a whole today is wholly different from how it was in decades, centuries and millenia previously. It is constantly changing and reassessing and taking on new ideas or rejecting old ones. This in and of itself is evolution - simply cultural evolution versus biological evolution.
I am an anthropologist so I feel well equipped to speak on this subject (although I am a Native Americanist, not an early man specialist. My specialty is the Great Basin US and also cannibalism, which is relevant here due to new evidence of Neanderthal cannibalism discovered in Europe). The "Theory" of Evolution is the closest theory will ever come to fact and to reject evolution out of hand because it is "only a theory" is to close your mind to an aspect of creation that is highly observable, highly repeatable, and is not a threat to the belief in God. Rather think of it as one of the many ways to observe the mechanisms He has put forth into the universe to facilitate His creation.
"...I was interested in the question of whether there had been a big bang singularity, because that was crucial to an understanding of the origin of the universe. …I developed a new set of mathematical techniques for dealing with this… We showed that if general relativity is correct, any reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe *should* begin: For that, one would have to appeal to God." pg. 91
"… I now think that … the laws of physics can… determine *how* the universe began…In order to discuss the theory of the universe, we need a theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics." Pg. 92
"That theory is quantum gravity."
Oh, now I get it. Of course!
(Excerpts from: Black Holes and Baby Universes
by Stephen Hawking. Published September 1st 1994 by Bantam Books)
CJHunsinger and EncephaloiDead,
If you find you are completely unable to meet the challenge of producing any genuine facts that exclusively support macro evolution having ever occurred, (not just speculation and conjecture), you may want to do as you often do and employ an immature, but sometimes effective diversionary tactic such as attacking my intelligence and/or knowledge. Granted, neither are relevant to your failure to elevate your belief system to anything more significant, but at least perhaps folks will follow the new bunny down a trail and forget about it.
Oh wait, please disregard as I see you have already done that. Nevermind.
Rad and Wilderness, I was only able to pop in for a few minutes here, but will address your last posts when I can. If not tonight, then probably this weekend. Sooner if time allows.
We both understand the facts and the evidence of which there is plenty. I already provided two of postulates, which are facts.
But, that isn't the issue here, YOU stated there was something wrong with evolution, but have made no argument whatsoever. It is obvious you're incapable of making an argument because you don't know a thing about evolution. This is not a diversionary tactic, it is fact that you're using to make denials.
We understand, you don't. But, that's not a problem because the scientific community will continue to find more facts and evidence regarding evolution, and we will learn much more,while the scientific illiterate will continue to spout denials. Of course, over time, the scientific illiterate who wave their bibles to support creationism will eventually go the way of the dodo.
Facts, facts, everywhere!
How's there not a one to share?
No, you have not shared a single fact. Neither has CJ. Just yarns spun from whole cloth. You call them a fact for your much speaking, which is typical. "Thinking themselves wise"...it fits to well.
By now it's clear you have nothing, which is no surprise. Bantering is pointless if you are just going to pretend you have countless facts at your disposal yet can't declare one.
One last time. Do you have a single tangible, verifiable, genuine fact that exclusively supports your ridiculous claim that macro evolution has ever occurred anywhere but in the minds of adherents to scientism?
Going forward let's politely call them "scientismists." Surely if you do, one such as yourself could present it in such a manner that even those you perceive as uneducated, intellectually challenged, misinformed or simpletons could grasp it. Show me what you consider one to be, and I will show you where your going wrong in thinking it fits the bill.
If you do indeed know there is something wrong, you should be able to tell us. I don't understand your reasoning for me to begin guessing as to what that is, seems like some sort of childish game you wish to play.
You see, that's how it works. You make a claim towards a topic in which you state the postulates, or any other fact contained within the theory, are wrong. You would use reason, facts and evidence that support your claim. You would have to understand the subject so well and have studied the evidence in such great detail to be capable of putting forth such a rebuttal, where so many others who were greater thinkers than you and I put together have failed.
I even offered you something to start with...
So, let's begin, do you think there is something wrong with Natural Selection? If so, what is it exactly?
All I have been doing from the get go here is exposing macro evolution as nothing more than another belief system. No facts exclusively support it. Two die hard believers in evolution have failed to produce one fact that does. I have studied your belief system and have no interest in wasting further time with it. I just tire of the constant posturing as though it is some real, proven, factual thing when it is nothing more than a whimsical idea far too many tax dollars have been wasted on and far too many people have been indoctrinated into accepting as true. It has been exposed here. I am satisfied with that.
So, you have no rebuttal, only denials. Then, your claims are just hot air balloons. No, you haven't studied evolution, that is obvious.
You've yet to present even a single genuine fact to rebut, and I have no time or interest in simply reminiscing over the stories and myths that are the entire substance of your belief called evolution. I will remain open to hearing what you consider a genuine fact exclusively supporting macro evolution in the event you ever think you've found one. So far for all your talking you have offered nothing.
Here we have the problem of societies led by religions, folks who refuse learn anything about the world around them, noses buried deep within their holy books, teaching them to be dishonest and deny knowledge and understanding. It's little wonder there are so many conflicts in the world when these folks try to keep us in the Dark Ages, living with myths, superstitions and lies, all of which they are more than happy to repeat over and over to the detriment of us all, an embarrassment to mankind.
Like the Ray Comfort's and Ken Ham's of the world, they try to drag us down to their depths of ignorance, thumping their bibles with zealotry, attempting to shoot down anything that would jeopardize their ridiculous beliefs, but failing miserably because they have no clue what they're talking about.
Big words for a fellow who has repeatedly failed to produce a single fact exclusively supporting macro evolution thereby also failing to elevate it beyond just being your faulty belief. You keep asking what I see wrong with it while ignoring the challenge you can't meet, which represents my first problem with the myth of evolution. Get past that one and we will go from there.
Why would you lie about that considering I have already provided two facts, natural selection and diversity of species, and then asked you to tell us all what is wrong with natural selection.
Again, only lame denials were in your posts and nothing else.
The challenge is yours, to tell us all what is wrong with evolution. Where is your argument?
Why would you lie about having provided two facts? Natural selection and diversity of species, (if being expanded to speculate that they go beyond adaptability and support macro evolution), are not facts. I've told you repeatedly my first problem with your belief system.
Btw, I am working through the comments in the order received, and have not read the most current posts yet.
verb: postulate; 3rd person present: postulates; past tense: postulated; past participle: postulated; gerund or present participle: postulating
suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
"his theory postulated a rotatory movement for hurricanes"
synonyms: put forward, suggest, advance, posit, hypothesize, propose; More
assume, presuppose, presume, take for granted
"a theory postulated by a respected scientist"
noun: postulate; plural noun: postulates
a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
"perhaps the postulate of Babylonian influence on Greek astronomy is incorrect"
I would like to postulate, (suggest or assume), this may help.
This really is getting very childish. A distraction tactic? Wow.
...and why not??? EncephaloIdead made it so much clearer! I, for one appreciated it very much.
Truth is, Kathryn, while to some it may come across as a bit much, I suspect many benefit from your postings like this. You usually do it when you feel some readers may need clarification on something, or you want to show something has been misrepresented. In either case, a worthy gesture.
Actually that was me correcting EncephaloiDead's misconception that postulates are facts.
Q."Humans are 98.7% chimpanzee and bonobo monkeys and 1.3% what?"
Sorry, but what is obvious is what is obvious! LOL!!!
The postulates of Wallace and Darwin are just that, theories. But more, neither had the background to make such statements as are attributed to them. Their relationship is sketchy, with one "theory" being Wallace, a brave man in war but a failure in all else, was actually the developer of theories attributed to Darwin but the info was either plagerized by Darwin or purchased. Wallace had no standing in London society and Darwin did. So whose trumpet would sound the loudest. Neither was an anthropologist. Both were botanists or naturalists, whatever the needed term of the day might have been. Some years ago we assigned folks of that mind set the label of "hippies." Of late they would be called "tree-huggers." One cannot fault their interest in society, except for Wallace socialist leanings and are free to follow their leadings. But to try to make fact out of theory, without knowledge, is foolishness.
But in reading the OP, I am pleased to find that, in some classification, I have finally made it out of the middle class and move up to the top 1.3%. Just waiting for the money to roll in now.
I'm still waiting for my answers to my questions.
"But in reading the OP, I am pleased to find that, in some classification, I have finally made it out of the middle class and move up to the top 1.3%. Just waiting for the money to roll in now."
Oh dear. Not the "just a theory" nonsense again. Odd you cling to ancient myths and make that lame argument. Your relationship with majickal super beings is pretty sketchy. Evolution is fact. Deal with it.
- the process of evolution reveals God and God explains the mysteries of evolution,
It would indeed be refreshing to see the self indulgent "logical people" state their position using proofs rather than darts.
I disagree with the OP and CJ on his premise but one can see he spent and does spend time looking for answers instead of portraying himself as one who has all the answers. Though we may never agree, I appreciate his work and candor. He doesn't stand in the shadows sniping. He challenges the astute to study. His responses highlight the ridiculous remarks on both sides of the Cross. And he shows a little emotion on occasion. A worthy adversary, Proverb 27:17.
Why would think that? It was the self indulgent "believer" who made claims against evolution, yet produced nothing other than lame denials. What proofs exactly are you looking for? Have you not taken the time to learn about evolution?
So, you too are making claims against the OP? What exactly do you disagree with and why? Please show peer reviewed articles to back up your claims. Thanks, I look forward to hearing your well thought out, evidence based, logical and rational argument against evolution, something we have yet to see.
Too make a claim against something, as you state, would seem to mean that it existed before. I would submit that it is the reverse. Natural selection or evolution, so called, appeared as a postulate in the mid 1800's. God existed long before that. So premise is wrong to begin.
Peer review? Not really sure what that is, but if it means whose writings do I present to support my belief, I would present the 40 plus writers of the Bible, Old Testament and New Testament.
So the concept of God existed before the concept of evolution therefore the concept of God is the correct one. You may need to work that logic out a little bit. It's like saying the concept of the sun orbiting the earth came before the concept of the earth orbiting the sun therefore the sun orbits the earth.
I believe your initial Ptolemaic analogy is correct and eventually Copernicus proved it wrong. The issue here is God has never been proven non-existent. So until a "new Copernicus" comes along with that proof, all else is moot.
Again, logic eludes you. We can't prove something doesn't exist, we can only prove it does, so you are making the claim that God exist you must supply evidence. I could claim that the easter bunny exists and you would be unable to prove me wrong.
I can however show you that no evidence for any Gods can be found besides written records of stories passed down for generation. I can also show you that people are easily fooled by such claims and point to many religions with false holy books as examples, but you most likely will dismiss that evidence and claim he just is.
Correct, as the evidence is hypothesis, and supposition. Understand, you have a right to believe as you will, as do others. In place of hard proofs, we are obligated to approve that which we know by study and experience.
And I'll catch to your following comment here also. Hinduism as the oldest of religions is in debate. Prior to the Flood was the god Enki/Enlil of the Sumer/Akkadian folks. And prior to that were the od kings of Nippur. Prior to that were the baals of humanism. Prior to that is less that hypothesis, again, as Spock would say, "My best guess."
Guess work science, the science of evolution, only gets a name on a certificate, round of drinks and maybe a nobel prize. And proves that man really doesn't know but is fond of pretending. "All is vanity" Ecclesiastes 1:14.
Oh dear, you are one of those who believes there was a global flood a few thousand years ago and all of humanity came from the few Arab survivors despite the lack of evidence and the conflicting genetic evidence.
Oh well. By your logic the first religion is the right one.
Correct again. And we should understand that religion is a set of rules which has, in most cases today, very little to do with God.
PS. "Arabs" did not exist at that time.
LOL. All of the diversity in humans we see today came from what?
The Bible says Noah had wife. He had 3 sons, each had a wife. Can we factor in diet, topography and the other -ographies? Do these affect genetics? Isn't this what the real sciences do? Could this be the true theory of evolution?
Are you sure you are going to go with the diversity we see in people of the earth (Africa especially) came from one man and his three sons and their wives a few thousand years ago in the middle east? Have you ever studied genetics and how it relates to the human movement out of Africa?
Yes, I'll stay with the Bible on that. No, I do not have a deep understanding of genetics, but that does not cause me any concern. Geneticist learn new things by the hour it seems so as a lay person, I am quite sure they would lose me in the first paragraph. Note my last comments to you were mostly in the form of questions. Until empirical evidence if found, and I am quite sure it will not be found, I'll stick with God's Book for proofs, unashamedly.
If you don't understand anything scientific, how are you going to understand empirical evidence? That would appear to be a direct contradiction you are using as an excuse to not bother to understand.
The genetic, fossil evidence tell a different story of creation and human diversity than we get from the bible. The age of the earth, sun and universe tells a different story than what's in the bible. How do you justify science being that far off while you site and type messages to others over the internet?
Are you sure of that? Many theologians would not make that statement.
As far as "science" is concerned, again, they have no proofs, just theories.
Many people are not even aware that the Geologic Time Table is the product of men who were not even "geologists". So, again relating to your comment following the above, whose ignorance do you speak of?
Don't know if you already went into it, but what proof does the Bible contain?
The Bible is proof of the history of present day mankind. The Bible is the proof of the existence of God. The first is akin to knowledge by description. The second is knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by association.
The bible is evidence that Paul thought slaves should faithfully serve their master and that he thought the end would come in his lifetime. He was wrong.
One thing we cannot debate in a mixed forum is the interpretation of scripture. God is quite clear, through Paul's writings that one who does not believe, cannot understand, 1 Corinthians 2:14. I am quite sure that my interpretation would not meet your criteria. Until we agree on the existence of God, this type of "discussion" would be useless.
Yup - thanks for reminding us why this religion causes so many conflicts.
40,000 different denominations of Christian believers tell me believers cannot understand either.
I'm guess I'm simply not able to understand why Paul thought being a Good slave was important to God and why he and others (including Jesus) were wrong about when the end would come. Only believers can understand why God needs well behaved slaves.
You can be a reasonable person as I have seen. It would seem you would understand that some discussions in a forum of this nature only end up in stone throwing and jibes. (Check above. Its already started.) But I don't want you to think I am evading you. Even in the theological circles where most agree with each other, some questions bring heated responses. I would prefer to keep our debate here on a very basic level, toward the more secular lines. I would have said intellectual but that would leave me out of the game in many cases.
Please explain why it seems reasonable to believe a man that believed God wanted slaves to be obedient slaves and that the end of times would have come in his lifetime, 2000 years ago?
Apparently I was wrong. So we will just go back to the original challenge which you have conveniently sidestepped to other issues. You will first have to prove there is no God or accept the fact there is God. Until such time, there is no reason to discuss things of theology, Proverb 10:23.
Hmmm, still not understanding how logic works. You've made the claim that God exists and therefore it's up to you to prove he does. I can show you where the bible, quran and the book of mormon are incorrect. I can show that the studies that show that prayer doesn't work. I can show you the science behind our superstitions (that's all religion is anyway), but I can't prove a negative just and you can't prove that big foot doesn't exist.
If I claim the easter bunny exists is it up to you to prove it doesn't?
You: Hmmm, still not understanding how logic works. You've made the claim that God exists and therefore it's up to you to prove he does.
Me: No, you and your cohorts made the claim He does not. I just asked for your proofs.
You: I can show you where the bible, quran and the book of mormon are incorrect. I can show that the studies that show that prayer doesn't work.
Me: I am confident the Bible is correct. You can shelve those other two books with your "proofs."
You: I can show you the science behind our superstitions (that's all religion is anyway)
Me: Fire away.
You:, but I can't prove a negative just and you can't prove that big foot doesn't exist.
Me: That's nothing new.
You: If I claim the easter bunny exists is it up to you to prove it doesn't?
Me: What chapter of "Origin of the Species" would I find that in?
This would be the difference between baseless irrational beliefs and theories based on facts.
I claim the Easter bunny exists. Surely - by your "logic" this is a fact until proven wrong. Go!
But, that is just a book, how is that a proof?
If what you say is true, then the Lord of The Rings and Harry Potter series of books are also proof of Middle Earth, Hobbits, Orcs and magic.
None of those are an area of interest so I can't speak to them. You are free to believe as you wish.
Edit: Oops, missed the first part. The Bible proves itself.
Sorry, but pleading ignorance to those other books does not make your claim true. And, if you are not interested in reading them, that too only serves to discredit your claims further.
That book is nothing but a collection of superstitions. Do this get into heaven, do that and go to hell. Pray like this and get into heaven…
Superstition is caused by a desire to gain control over ones life and it's considered by Psychology to be irrational thinking. Ever listen to the tricks psychics do to make you think they are actually psychic? They throw out all kinds of ideas until they hit something about you and that's all you remember, you don't remember anything he/she said wrong. This is exactly how the bible works my friend. Your superstitions give you a sense of control so you latch on and won't let go.
How many times have people here told us how they prayed for something and then got it, forgetting how many times they have prayed and not got anything, only remembering the thing they got they run with that just like any other superstition.
However if your superstitions make you a better person go for it, but if they are causing conflict with people in your life it may be time to examine them for what they are.
Once again I ask for your proofs, this time in the way of errors in the Bible and your response is only what you think of the subject. You will eventually have to come up with direct answers in order to keep any form of propriety to your position.
Errors in the bible? I must have missed that part of your answer. That's the easy part, we can start with the first page, the order of creation is wrong and humans didn't arrive 6 days after the earth creation. The we can skip to the global flood that never happened because we have evidence that it hasn't. Would you like me to discuss the inconsistancies of the gospels? I could but your superstitions will skip over them and pretend they didn't happen just as I've explained superstitions do. Latch onto that one thing that gives you a sense of control and forget where God is said to be a jealous God who killed newborns rather than killing a slave owner.
If we could, lets just address one issue at a time. Where is the error in creation?
BTW, I have read the coran and the Mormons book.
Still waiting on you to disprove the Easter Bunny, which is fact.
The universe was not created in six days.
The earth did not have seed-bearing plants and trees on the land before we had a sun and stars and The earth didn't have birds before land animals.
We could go on and on on that first page.
The Bible does not say "the universe was created in 6 days," which seems to be a common misconception.
As to the present day dispensation of time and creation, and believing the Bible as a whole to be correct, why would an omnipotent God not be able to create as it is laid out?
BTW, which game were you watching? Lions?
Don't watch football, American or Canadian. I do enjoy a hockey game.
It most certainly does say the universe was created in 6 days and defines a day as "And there was evening, and there was morning".
Did fruit trees home exist before the sun? Did the earth have birds before land animals?
The word universe is not here nor is it implied. These verses speak directly to the formation of the earth and that which is appurtenant to it. How long the universe, or the earth for that matter,has been around is for all an unanswerable question, but for the Christian not really that important in the scheme of things. Maybe I should tone that done a bit, its not that important to me.
Perhaps, the important question we should be asking is why couldn't God, being omnipotent, not be able to create the entire universe in less time than it takes to blink an eye?
So, if the universe was not created in 6 days ... a common misconception, how long did it take, exactly?
Interesting, Wy woz there no light in the universe?
Lite waz befoe da univarse, kozz Godd IZ lite!
But dukness duzzent undustan-it!
Hop, diss ansuzz ya queshon!
Just more drivel. As expected from some one like yourself. No wonder your religion causes so many conflicts,.
Pretty sure that is make up nonsense to escape the obvious dichotomy of god needing to create light when the Universe already existed. Assuming the "Creation" story only deals with the earth and lol appertances. Odd it starts "In the beginning" - no doubt Mr Aka has another one for that.
Nothing new here.
Atheists clutching at straws.
Christians routinely "debunk" eternal universe to posit a more irrational strawman.
Sorry aka - you have debunked nothing. Just posited some nonsense about god being light and darkness not understanding. Guess you didn't bother reading the post you are defending either huh?
No wonder your religion causes so many conflicts.
More speculation, presenting theories as fact, and trying to claim rejecting scientism is rejecting science, and that the ideology of scientism has anything to do with the development or use of technology.
I see skulls. We can agree, that's a fact. These are skulls. If I were retired and had nothing better to do I could probably find you photos of living people who own very similar examples of many of them. I have no doubt you can also show me examples of extinct animals, perhaps even apes. What you can't do is say who is related to who, or for that matter even which ones had kids.
Of course, we could line them up in all sorts of orders and write stories about them. In fact we could probably make up whatever path you wanted to imagine evolution had taken and support it with a similar line up. Shall we go frogs to lizards to birds, back to frogs, down to fish then cats, then dogs, then monkeys then humans? I really think we should include bears. I like bears.
Actually they don't have to line them up, they were dug up from the same area of earth at different levels and dated using different techniques. Anatomically modern humans showed up around 200,000 years ago. Before that time we find none of us, before that time we find something different.
The problem is that there is simply to much evidence and facts to ignore and so little evidence to support the biblical representation of reality.
Talk about straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel, your belief system has all life coming from one source and yet producing much more diversity than all of current mankind coming from people would need to. You can do math on the genetics and find it wouldn't take that long. We needn't pretend anything could happen if once upon a time, (aka: millions of years), is applied.
Are you seriously suggesting the diversity we see amongst humans genetically and physically all happen in the last few thousand years. We all came from 1 dad, 1 mom, his three son and their wives a few thousand years ago and that didn't produce a vacuum of evidence in the fossil or genetic evidence of that time. I mean we didn't see all the peoples native to North America disappear and then suddenly come from the middle east a few thousand years ago. Genetically speaking we have been able to gain sample of DNA from thousands of years ago and match them with todays people and as it turns out humans evolved from Africa and spread out that's why we have more genetic diversity in African than we do elsewhere and that's why African's don't share any genes with Neanderthal as does the rest of us.
Actually in this thread I am just saying there are no facts exclusively supporting the belief that macro evolution ever occurred. Somehow I feel like I'm being redundant, but it seems to keep needing to be clarified.
Oh, so you don't want to discuss the issues with your theory and reality?
In my experience with believers, when you ARE shown incontrovertible proof of a class change due to evolution the definition of "macro" evolution will then be changed to swapping kingdoms as proof (plant to animal). An ever raising bar that can never see the top.
The real problem is that nothing at all will ever be accepted (by the believer) showing that man arose from evolution instead of a gods hand. Those that have accepted that evolution could have been the tool God used understand and accept it happens; those that decide God used no tools will never accept.
Yes, and it was pure guesswork that brought you the computer and internet connection you are now using to discredit science, amongst a host of other discoveries and technologies. Pure guesswork.
We seem to have come to an impasse so lets be foundational. You have asked for proofs regarding my position. The primary is the Bible. My personal studies have led me to the conclusion that the Bible is provable, for the most part by common knowledge and common sense. Therefore, I believe God exists.
Now you and "science" can show your proofs where the Bible is incorrect before we move on. Logic, postulate, hypothesis, theories and subjective reasoning are not proofs, but feel free to present them. However, I have little interest in websites and opinions of self made experts and pseudo-sciences. I am interested in what you as an individual knows from personal study and experience.
And yet, the Bible is not provable by any stretch of the imagination, but you're free to try even though many other great thinkers before you have failed.
Why would science care about your myths and superstitions when it is focused on demonstrating the world around us so we many understand it? Science can show easily how your computer works and how it can connect to the internet and to these forums, allowing you to pen your beliefs at your discretion. Can you do the same with the Bible and your belief system?
No one is claiming they are or are not proofs other than yourself. Science doesn't work with proofs, that is for mathematicians.
As do I. What is your point?
You have made my point. I offer a debate and you declined. So much for your proofs. We have no common ground for continuing this, so I'll move on. I had hoped for a more responsible response.
Would you like me to explain to you how we know both the age of the universe and of the earth and of how long humans have existed? And then would you like me to explain to you how that conflicts with what some slave keeping goat herders wrote about a few thousand years ago?
You often purport this, and have even sent me links you think support it, but we "know" neither of these things. More speculation and assumptions.
You do realize scientists as well as believers in scientism do not even agree amongst themselves on this, and guesses frequently change. How is it you say you "know"?
May I paraphrase an online friend here? "Again, logic eludes you. We can't prove something doesn't exist, we can only prove it does, so you are making the claim that a method or process by which our existence is possible without a God exists, you must supply evidence. I could claim that the easter bunny exists and you would be unable to prove me wrong.
You are claiming that we exist because of God, but you can't supply evidence for that claim nor can you supply evidence that any God exists and the evidence that we do have conflicts of what we see in any of the the holy books. Fossil records are facts, Genetic records are facts, Geological records are facts. And those facts contradict what was written in any holy books.
You are akin to Muslim's who try to convince me that the earth is egg shaped.
Would you like to see the fossil records of humans going back millions of years of evolution?
Anyone claiming with no proof whatsoever that there is a means possible by which our existence could come to be without a god, is making a positive claim they cannot defend. There is no support for this imagined process or power, but it in effect becomes their god and the structure of speculation and assumption they construct to support their belief is in effect their religion. I have been referring to it as scientism.
Actually that's been well explained by some very smart people and of course tested and proven possible.
That's being said, have you yet explain how your God was created? If everything needs a creator then everything includes your God and saying it doesn't is a logical fallacy.
That is a logical fallacy. Leprechauns and unicorns also have never been proven non-existent. So what?
Sorry, let me get this straight, your argument is based on the fact religion came before science, therefore religion is correct? Seriously?
Peer review is the process in which scientists put forth their hypotheses for critique and scrutiny to the world so that others may poke holes and attempt to refute it. There MUST be in every hypothesis the capacity for falsifiability in that any given facts or evidence to the contrary can show the hypothesis is false.
Hence, anyone who comes along to state such things that evolution is wrong must show facts and evidence that would refute it. No one has accomplished that.
Again, the hypothesis you speak of comes after the existence of God. So you have much study and words with no result, that being proving God does not exist.
Hinduism is the oldest religion and they believe in multiple Gods. Since it came first it must be right.
Sorry, I really have no idea what you're talking about.
It's shocking the lack of reading comprehension I see in theists on this site.
I would be interested in your expanding on this comment.
Encephaloidead opened up the floor for you for a debate perfectly. You either ignored half the comment or didn't understand any of it.
No, I don't see that. I see subterfuge. When one asks a question, one expects a direct answer. There was none, only an excuse why he has no proofs. If you ask me for one of my foundational proofs on a subject such as psychology and I give you a dialogue on why I don't believe in psychology, then the request was not fulfilled. If I missed something in our conversation, please show me where.
Science doesn't work on proofs. That is what you missed.
Very good, we have agreement on something. Science does not work on proofs. The only thing left is "their best guess." I can understand your confusion. Charlatans of pseudo-sciences of geology, astronomy, palm reading (let see what else tickles the mind), oh yeah, evolutionary scientology, a mix of facts from proper fields of science and assumption. But we are free to chose that which we believe, Proverb 14:12.
Would you like a link so that you can read about how science actually works?
Of course, if what you say is true, then everything science has provided for you, including your computer, internet connection and these forums were all just best guesses? That is obviously absurd.
Of course, you are free to believe whatever you want, even if it does contradict reality, no problem.; We are also free to expose and acknowledge those beliefs as irrational, illogical and delusional.
A mix of guess work and qualified sciences is still guesswork.
And yet, the science that went into your smartphone, computer, internet connection and these forums was not guesswork, but instead, the meticulous, observational rigor of people smarter than both of us put together making factual based predictions of the world around us and using that information to create those things you use almost every day.
There are other means to an end for theories. It was predicted there should be a background radiation, if indeed the Big Bang occurred as predicted. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, while building a radio telescope accidentally discovered the "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" for which they both received the Nobel Prize.
With this information and the latest detection technology, they can now map out what the visible universe looks like. I suppose if you wish to call all of this guesswork and not see for yourself how science actually works, that's fine, you can believe what you want to believe.
Not really sure what your point is unless you are putting mechanics, mathematics and the like on a par with geology and botany.
Seriously, can you not comprehend what I wrote? The point is entirely the hypocrisy of your posts, using everything science provides for you and then turning around and dissing science in favor of your religious beliefs. Do you need me to provide you with the definition of hypocrisy?
Not sure how you make the jump. In your statement you are saying something to the effect that present day technology required to develop the most up to date computer is the guess work of botanist and their cohorts.
Still not comprehending what I wrote? How can I dumb it down for you?
The problem is not in comprehension. On the contrary, the hypotheses you present as proofs of fact are honeycombed with guesswork. One cannot read a single page, probably a single paragraph, of the so-called evolution process without finding a "thought to be", "theorized", "supposed", etc. (And by the way, the ridiculous statement by one of your group that "science doesn't have written proofs", ugh. Must got that from his friend the easter bunny.)
It seems it take more faith to believe this nonsense than to belief God exists. Macro evolution is fraught with error. Micro evolution is just capitalism in the "animal kingdom", supply and demand. Natural selection is "what shall I eat today. Why of course, that which is most abundant."
Humanism, the "I am God" syndrome, the foundation of evolution, is really nothing new and nothing more than an "I am so great because I can reason" attitude. Evolution could really take a step by refining themselves with a new label, maybe "Ego Et Al." It has a nice ring.
No, try as they might the botanist guessers will never eliminate works of the God of the universe with "hydrothermal vented rna micro-organisms."
Everything you have said is false.
There is no such thing as micro and macro evolution and it takes no faith to "believe" proven science.
Humanism is not the basis of evolution - scientific facts are.
Only religionists think they are better than anyone else.
God does not appear to exist.
Thus it does indeed appear that comprehension is the issue here. Perhaps a basic biology course would help?
"It seems it take more faith to believe this nonsense than to belief God exists."
Really? It takes more faith to take a known, understood and observed process and extend it to a time frame we cannot directly observe in our lifetimes than it does to postulate another universe populated by a single omnipotent entity that created this one 14 billion years ago and continues to create each and every new species, all without ever being detected? And then believe that postulated universe and entity as the only possible answer to "where did the horse come from"?
I think not.
To the contrary, as I stated, evolution is a series of "items" like modules of a computer program. It would not run as there would be too many syntax errors. To many "maybes" and "ifs", best guesses, if you will. And I am not the one presenting these words. We find them in every evolutionary treatise. And those folks that write them readily admit these "missing links." But the guess-work naturalists and humanist thinking group just skip over these holes as if they do not exist.
Whereas the Bible is simple, logical, progressively connected events, the majority of which is accepted by secular history. And I use the word "majority" as related to secular history, which is still catching up.
So it takes more faith to believe evolution than to believe God exists.
Assumptive composites. Layers of dry facts soaked in assumption, but that catalyst never cures. They pretend it does. They present a fact, add the speculation, turn it into an assumption, proceed as though it's a fact, then move on to add another layer. Sometimes there is only one "fact" to build the entire structure, and it may be a "sketchy" "fact" at that.
I hope you will expand on your comment, but please note I said it progresses in a logical manner.
"Whereas the Bible is simple, logical, progressively connected events"
Simple, logical, progressive events. Like making light before stars. Like a flood that never happened. Like changing water to wine. Like making woman (necessary for man) from a man's rib. Like re-populating the earth in seconds after killing all life.
Logical and connected? Simple, like surviving in a fish for days or resurrection after 3 days of rotting? You must read a different bible than I do.
It sounds like we read the same Book. Again, logical progression of events is not the same as the "logic" you have cited.
And what would that "logic" be? Anything stated in the Christian bible is automatically assumed to be true? Whatever you wish to be is logical and therefore true?
What do you consider "logical"? (Or "simple" for that matter - rotting flesh that comes back to life doesn't seem "simple" at all!)
Missed this. Belated response.
I have made a division between "logical progression" and "logic". The first has to do with events. The second has to do with the thought process and belief system.
I believe the Bible presents a logical progression of historical events. It has even helped natural/secular history in its search for truth.
Sadly this is just a "belief" and has no basis in logic.
Hate to break it to ya, but snakes don't talk. Never did. Nor is 2 a big enough gene pool to populate a species. Don't you just hate it when facts get in the way of an irrational belief? Try attacking proven science as a way of defending your beliefs. Oh wait.....
Historical what now?
The most interesting part of this post is that you had to say "I believe the Bible presents…" because you have no way of backing any of that up.
To continue your analogy of the computer and life, I would point out that computers do NOT operate well with too many errors; it's why all programs continually issue updates to correct the errors. The computers operate, just not as well as they could.
Same with life; the organism lives, but not as efficiently as it could if this were different, or that. In addition, the computer's "environment" changes continually as can be seen in the continual need for more memory and speed. Old computers will still operate, but not well, with later versions of software, and are thus discarded and newer versions used with the hardware upgrades.
Same with life; as the environment changes so must the organism. The old one dies out as a species and a new, improved version takes over the niche. The only difference is that the computer is "mutated" via an intelligence and in a matter of months while life changes via random mutations and it takes millenia to accomplish.
Good analogy; thank you.
(We've already discussed the "history" of the bible as well as the "logical progression" of the events there. Saying they are logical and correct does not make them so and continually presenting the tale that way only shows that you will ignore what data doesn't fit your theory instead of moving on to find another one that DOES fit.)
Adaptation and related change for the purposes of surviving and thriving is a fact, and this is the ONLY fact within Evolution Theory.
Everything else is inference, all circumstantial and all explained as readily by the "common" Creator of all things, who created things to adapt and change for purposes of survival.
Good posts, bBerean!
The biggest problems I have with Evolution Theory are: 1) It's pushed on us (falsely as factual) with demands for unquestioning acceptance, despite its reliance on inferences and circumstantial "evidence"; 2) It is altogether unproven AND un-provable in its entirety (because of the necessary inferences); 3) It was developed and is pushed in order to remove God our Creator from the picture; 4) at best macroevolution would explain a "process" and still not do away with the need for intelligent design, as NO amount of time can make possible without design the existence of all we have within us and within our universe (anyone able to convince themselves of this VASTLY underestimates all there is to the universe and each and every thing within the universe); 5) It's nonsensical when you take a step back from it, and those who seem to find it sensible are those who strongly DESIRE that it make sense, and those types who can see "trees" but lose sight of the "forest" (hey, there's trees - changes, similar DNA and structures, etc. - it must mean...); 6) Even if it doesn't contradict with a more symbolic interpretation of Genesis (I don't have full assurance on the literal versus symbolic interpretation of Genesis), I believe it contradicts with a basic truth within the faith - that we were made in God's image (though I understand some argue that we were eventually made in his image); 7) Evolution Theory is inherently racist in nature, as people would be evolving at different rates, and it is UNSUPPORTED in its inherently racist stance - the similarities amongst different groups within the human race are too great and the differences too small (e.g., given the same environment, the IQs of different "races" are strikingly similar considering the likelihood of ENORMOUS differences if the assertions within Evolution Theory were truly at work). Given the amount of time people have existed, we should see MUCH GREATER differences amongst groups if Evolution Theory's postulates were correct.
Evolution rests on two basic facts: 1) mutations DO occur, and 2) statistically, individuals most fit to survive do so while those least fit for their environment do not.
Which do you disagree with? Do you feel that mutations never happen? Or that, on a statistical basis over thousands or millions of individuals those with the best fit to their ecological niche will survive?
Or is it your feeling that individuals do not pass their genetic material to their offspring?
"Evolution" may rest on those two facts, but "Evolution Theory" unfortunately steps far beyond those facts, relying on inferences, and then many falsely claim those inferences are as factual as the actual facts. So it is not the facts upon which it stands that are the problems, but it is the inferences treated as facts that are the problems. But nice try.
If you accept those two ideas, you must also accept the basis of evolution; that mutations occur and that succeeding generations will be changed by those mutations. The cumulative effect seems pretty straightforward; that species change over time and thousands or millions of generations.
I agree that "mutations occur and that succeeding generations will be changed by those mutations". Creation MUST adapt and change in order to survive. So whether we accept evolution theories, creationism, some combination thereof, or anything else, we'll predict adaption and change via mutations.
The inferences about life "thousands or millions of generations" ago are still necessarily inferences. There's not even agreement on the accuracy of dating methods, let alone the common ancestry of current life forms. There's also plenty of evidence that contradicts evolution theory. Further, the evidence alleged to support the inferences within evolution theory (i.e., common ancestry) are all circumstantial and easily explained by the alternative explanation of a common Creator.
Because I don't hold to a necessarily literal view of the creation account, I won't say anything with certainty regarding many of the assertions within evolution theory (only that I know with certainty that God is the Creator of all things). However, the circumstantial nature of all the "evidence" and the reliance on inferences make the theory as a whole both weak and un-provable.
"Do you feel that mutations never happen? Or that, on a statistical basis over thousands or millions of individuals those with the best fit to their ecological niche will survive?
Or is it your feeling that individuals do not pass their genetic material to their offspring?"
So, was your comment supposed to discredit those 3 questions so you wouldnt have to answer them? Or Did you just purposely ignore them to get your barb in?
Mutations occur in a proactive way to ensure survival of a species in some form…altered if need be.
Case in point: Right before the industrial revolution, right BEFORE the air got smoggy, white and black moths became peppered. They were able to blend in better on trees after the smog and smoky air developed with pollution.
Well, anyway I did a report on this in college and I believed it at the time. I know all will be laughing hysterically and there is no way to prove it.
Stop! I said never mind! Please don't get a concussion on my account!!!
(aaaugh! I should have known better… SORRY! )
It is somewhat frustrating to see someone so apparently incapable of understanding - this is no doubt the reason for the head banging. You have given a perfect example of evolution at work yet completely misunderstood how it functions. Not sure it is worth trying to explain it any further.
Is that evolution at work? She claims the moths changed in anticipation of an environmental change, not as a reaction to it. It sounds more like she would be advocating divine intervention.
The example she gave is a good example of evolution at work - yes. She some how suggested that this was divine intervention before the fact. Complete lack of understanding of the process. The moths always had both versions - with environmental changes the darker moths flourished.
The peppered moths were in existence just before the air pollution occurred. Some mutations happen for a reason, it seems. How do you explain species of birds which have disappeared and then much later were found existing again?? Universal Intelligence/ Creative force! Not a possibility? Why not? If I exist, anything is possible!
Pardon my Craziness.
Bangs head some more.
Yes, the peppered moths were in existence before the industrial revolution and they in abundance because they could camouflage perfectly with the trees before the trees darkened, once the trees darkened the black one became numerous then when the trees lightened again the peppered once became numerous again.
Evolution doesn't think. Climate change spurs evolution because only those suited for that environment survives. People with dark skin living in the far north or far south have to take or should take vitamin D supplement because their skin is not suited for that a reduction in sun light.
Edit. How do you explain all of the species that have gone extinct? I guess God only wants what's alive today to be alive today? You seem to think the success stories can be attributed to God and ignore all the species that have gone extinct.
No, the white ones on the the pale trees and the dark ones on the dark trees would flourish once again. Not the peppered ones. Did they go extinct now that there is no air pollution? What is the update? I think there is still air pollution and the peppered moths are doing just fine thanks to the timely mutation.
My heavens Kathryn, please do your homework.
The moths are called peppered moths and they come in two colours, light and dark. They came in that colour before the industrial revolution and after. Before the industrial revolution there were few dark ones because they were being eaten by birds because they stood out. When the trees were blackened they became plentiful because they were harder for the birds to find and the light coloured peppered moths we being eaten by the birds. When pollution because less of a problem and the trees lighted the light coloured peppered moths became numerous again. Natural selection. Peppered moths were not white, they were peppered. The diversity of their colours allowed them to survive the soot on the trees.
"How do you explain all of the species that have gone extinct?"
Death came about due to sin in the earth. All now die, just as it was foretold - humans were specifically told they would surely die if they did the one forbidden thing, and yet at the suggestion of Satan they acted in disobedience and did that one thing, thereby choosing to follow Satan (the one attempting to be like God) rather than the true God and Creator. So now since death was introduced, all things not only eventually die, but all are in danger of extinction (though humans have been given another promise that they will not pass away before the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ).
Extinction is evidence of Scriptural fulfillment, not only of evolution.
We see a vast array of varied life forms. If evolution is true, survival of the fittest means extinction is appropriate, but fear not for if evolution is true we would see new life forms flourishing in their stead.
Agreed. And thanks, I edited my post to what it should have said!
uh.... was there a bit of sarcasm in there somewhere? Survival of the fittest does not necessarily mean survival in all cases. Sometimes even the fittest don't survive. And then we either see nothing - or a new species.
Ipso facto walla walla bing bang! - from T-Rex to a gecko, Neanderthal to Homo sapiens, and cats to hyenas. (sorry, just had to toss the hyenas in there, even if it doesn't make any sense).
I disagree. My understanding is this: Life forms change bodies, but do not die. Human souls who do not ascend (back into spirit) come back to live in human form for another lifetime.
This is not something I perceive as direct truth. It is something I have read and it makes sense to me. It is actually based on the Bhagavad Gita. Take it or leave it.
Reincarnation? I've read about reincarnation as well, but I'm not impressed with the ideas of humans, and will follow the teachings of my Lord only.
Jesus speaks of reincarnation, as well. He speaks of ascending into spirit. The Gita and the Bible speak of the same things but in different ways. They actually compliment each other, according to what I have been reading. They both speak of and reveal the same truth. The Gita actually explains what Jesus was teaching and Jesus explains what the Gita was originally teaching.
Do I know what I am talking about? Are these ideas factual?
Just believe that I believe what I have stated.
Where does Jesus speak of reincarnation? I believe John the Baptist played the "role" of Elijah, but wasn't actually reincarnated. I'm not clear on the "ascending into spirit" you speak of. We are in Jesus Christ who is in the Father, and He is in us through the Holy Spirit.
While you may find certain similarities in morality and exhortations, the most essential truths of the Word - the truth of our Lord Jesus Christ - is not found in the Gita / the Hindu religion. Sounds dangerously like worship of the Lord AND idols. There is only One.
You disagree with me. Thank you for sharing and revealing what you comprehend / understand to be reality.
"We are in Jesus Christ who is in the Father, and He is in us through the Holy Spirit." It seems you accept this phrase for what it is, but I need to understand it more clearly. For me, the Gita does explain what these words actually mean.
According to My Research.
Thought the following may be of interest.
"Neanderthals and humans first mated 50,000 years ago, DNA reveals"
By Charles Q. Choi
Published October 22, 2014
The DNA from the 45,000-year-old bone of a man from Siberia is helping to pinpoint when modern humans and Neanderthals first interbred, researchers say.
"Although modern humans are the only surviving human lineage, others once lived on Earth. The closest extinct relatives of modern humans were the Neanderthals, who lived in Europe and Asia until they went extinct about 40,000 years ago. Recent findings revealed that Neanderthals interbred with ancestors of modern humans when modern humans began spreading out of Africa 1.5 to 2.1 percent of the DNA of anyone living outside Africa today is Neanderthal in origin."
The problem is you think everything thinks, including evolution. A mutation happens and if beneficial the mutation stays, if it's detrimental if dies. By your way of thinking all the species that have died off must have anticipated a way of going extinct.
The Peppered moth an example of natural selection. During the English industrial revolution much of the light coloured peppered moths died out because they were no longer camouflaged because of the darkening of trees. The dark moths flourished because could hid in the darkened trees. When the environment improved the light coloured peppered moths returned in numbers.
The facts are fine and agreed with, and were not being ignored. The point is that these simple facts do NOT imply anything beyond themselves. Evolution Theory steps beyond the facts into the unknown and there makes inferences that we're instructed to believe as factually as the actual facts.
The moths were dark and light colored to avoid being picked off the trunks of dark and light trees by birds. The instinct of self-preservation was at work in the genetic code of the moths. How did this level of survival intelligence even occurr in the first place? Mutations through mere chance? It just doesn't seem like it.
What about the Fibonacci series occurring in all of nature?
How about horses evolving in size until they became the perfect size for humans…? How trees came along to provide an environment for winged and climbing creatures? Anything that occurs in evolution proves the existence of invisible blueprints… a destiny, almost…. well, maybe exactly.
Probably majick huh?
How many species have gone extinct do you think? As a percentage of all that have existed. What happened to their instinct of self preservation? Did god hate them?
If they went extinct, they went extinct. Maybe their ability to survive or even their usefulness was up. No need to think about an imaginary creature with human-like emotions destroying them. Whatever force is behind Mother Nature, it is mysterious and very intelligent.
And it is aware of the whole picture. Everything is in harmony with everything…. except us... and we could care less. Well, not all of us. But, we ALL need to care and cooperate with the intelligence behind nature…
It is a start to at least acknowledge it.
For instance, if cell phone use, (if electromagnetic radiation could affect bees, hypothetically) were destroying the bee populations which are vital for the growth of fruits, flowers and vegetables...
would we stop using cell phones?
By tuning in to the 1.3% part within each of us, we would care enough to consciously cooperate with Mother Nature.
According to Me.
It would be a start to understand it, not make up majickal intelligence where none exists. Clearly you are not interested. We know what is killing the bees and there are strong efforts afoot to prevent it. I guess you are not really interested in that either huh?
Please don't tar me with the same brush as yourself. I am tuned in, I know what the bee problem is and I am doing my best to help with that because I am actually tuned in instead of positing nonsense to fill the blanks I don't understand.
By being willfully ignorant - you are the one tuning out.
What happened to the instinct in the genetic code of the Atlas Bear, Sivatherium, Koala Lemur, Canary Islands Giant Rats, Western Black Rhinoceros, Chinese Elephant, Stegodon, Saber-toothed cat?
BTW, that thing about the horse evolving to be the perfect size for humans to ride was very funny. Talk about arrogance.
Probably that is why the dinosaurs died out - they were the wrong size for humans to ride.
Oh I missed it! !
Now I know why god created christians, otherwise world would be such a drab.
I wonder if he created the mosquito to keep down the human population in countries with a warm climate or the guinea worm to cause pain and suffering to the less fortunate? Perhaps birds to remind us we need to invent the airplane? Perhaps bears to remind us we don't have to be able to outrun the bear, just whoever is accompanying us?
Why didn't he make a bird big enough for us to ride?
He just told me, 'Because birds will not obey directions like a horse will."
Birds are untrainable? Well that's not true, but if it were why didn't he make them trainable?
Birds do not obey directions like a horse will. Because birds were meant to fly in the treetops, consume the seeds of fruits and redistribute them for the sake of propagating the many species of trees, which by the way, were designed to provide fruit for bats, animals, insects, primates which eat fruit and humans who eat fruit.
Sorry Kathryn, this is just too silly for me, I'm out of here.
You're the one wanting to fly around on a great big falcon.
Or were bats and people designed to be able to take advantage of the fruits the trees produce?
If you choose it the other way, why? What evidence is used to make the claim, bearing in mind that plants appeared on the planet before animals did? Just because one way makes evolution possible and the other requires magic from heaven?
You mean theists in general... and yes, it would be DRAB without us!!!
Christians. .. none else displays such ignorance and dishonesty.
This is an example of drastic impoliteness.
Holy Cow! (no wait, that's the wrong analogy) You really are confident in your beliefs aren't you.
You mean like the Clydesdale that is too big for anyone to ride? Or the Shetland that is too small?
Horses come in all sizes and humans make appropriate use of the differing sizes. No outside intelligence involved; just the intelligence of picking the right horse for the job. Or camel. Or donkey. Or mule. Or dog. Humans use a variety of animals for a variety of jobs; that the one labeled "horse" fits best for riding does not indicate anything beyond mere chance. (Don't forget, there WERE no horses in the new world until man brought them there.)
by Justin Earick3 years ago
Sodom wasn't smited for homosexuality (false-idol worship, poor treatment of strangers and the poor, gang rape). Leviticus doesn't matter (old covenant, pork, lobster, tattoos, mixed fibers, period sex,...
by Emile R5 years ago
I was just reading another thread where they were arguing about the ark. How many animals, what kind, etc. Everyone argues about creation versus evolution. Dinosaurs and dragons. I am curious. I understand the desire of...
by Baileybear6 years ago
The incorrectly claim that evolution has zero evidence, ask how a monkey + monkey gave birth to a human overnight and of course attack evolution (but clearly have zero understanding of it). Is is just religious...
by mishpat2 years ago
On Episode 2 of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, when host Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "Evolution is a scientific fact," is he going too far?One has to recognize the "scientific fact" is not fact in...
by emrldphx5 years ago
As I'm not being allowed to discuss this interesting claim where it was originally posted by Mikel G Roberts, I will post my analysis here.Mikel uses the following definitions for his claim of scientific...
by Cecilia6 years ago
The hilarious pattern of people in the forums is not realizing they are in the wrong genre.There is a scientific discussion and then the churchgoers who know nothing about science pipes in.Then the churchgoers want to...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.