What Would Evidence for God's Existence Be Like?

[Davian]

* The Spiritual rebirth and salvation of your soul leading to life eternal.

* It is your choice as to weather or not you want that.

If this is a good thing, why wouldn't I?

However, to judge its value, how does one determine that this is not simply religious mumbo-jumbo?

 

[Colter]

If this is a good thing, why wouldn't I?

However, to judge its value, how does one determine that this is not simply religious mumbo-jumbo?

The deep decision to turn to God is not like trying on a pair of shoes, and in the case of people who have been so obstinate it generally comes about as the result of a life crisis; ego deflation at depth. Those who have had the spirit rebirth can attest to that part, the resurrection in the next life is a matter of faith trust in Gods promise.

Trips About Rome​

(1466.1) 132:7.1 Jesus, Gonod, and Ganid made five trips away from Rome to points of interest in the surrounding territory. On their visit to the northern Italian lakes Jesus had the long talk with Ganid concerning the impossibility of teaching a man about God if the man does not desire to know God. They had casually met a thoughtless pagan while on their journey up to the lakes, and Ganid was surprised that Jesus did not follow out his usual practice of enlisting the man in conversation which would naturally lead up to the discussion of spiritual questions. When Ganid asked his teacher why he evinced so little interest in this pagan, Jesus answered:

(1466.2) 132:7.2 “Ganid, the man was not hungry for truth. He was not dissatisfied with himself. He was not ready to ask for help, and the eyes of his mind were not open to receive light for the soul. That man was not ripe for the harvest of salvation; he must be allowed more time for the trials and difficulties of life to prepare him for the reception of wisdom and higher learning. Or, if we could have him live with us, we might by our lives show him the Father in heaven, and thus would he become so attracted by our lives as sons of God that he would be constrained to inquire about our Father. You cannot reveal God to those who do not seek for him; you cannot lead unwilling souls into the joys of salvation. Man must become hungry for truth as a result of the experiences of living, or he must desire to know God as the result of contact with the lives of those who are acquainted with the divine Father before another human being can act as the means of leading such a fellow mortal to the Father in heaven. If we know God, our real business on earth is so to live as to permit the Father to reveal himself in our lives, and thus will all God-seeking persons see the Father and ask for our help in finding out more about the God who in this manner finds expression in our lives.”UB 1955 ​

 

[Davian]

The deep decision to turn to God is not like trying on a pair of shoes, and in the case of people who have been so obstinate it generally comes about as the result of a life crisis; ego deflation at depth. Those who have had the spirit rebirth can attest to that part, the resurrection in the next life is a matter of faith trust in Gods promise.

Trips About Rome​

(1466.1) 132:7.1 Jesus, Gonod, and Ganid made five trips away from Rome to points of interest in the surrounding territory. On their visit to the northern Italian lakes Jesus had the long talk with Ganid concerning the impossibility of teaching a man about God if the man does not desire to know God. They had casually met a thoughtless pagan while on their journey up to the lakes, and Ganid was surprised that Jesus did not follow out his usual practice of enlisting the man in conversation which would naturally lead up to the discussion of spiritual questions. When Ganid asked his teacher why he evinced so little interest in this pagan, Jesus answered:

(1466.2) 132:7.2 “Ganid, the man was not hungry for truth. He was not dissatisfied with himself. He was not ready to ask for help, and the eyes of his mind were not open to receive light for the soul. That man was not ripe for the harvest of salvation; he must be allowed more time for the trials and difficulties of life to prepare him for the reception of wisdom and higher learning. Or, if we could have him live with us, we might by our lives show him the Father in heaven, and thus would he become so attracted by our lives as sons of God that he would be constrained to inquire about our Father. You cannot reveal God to those who do not seek for him; you cannot lead unwilling souls into the joys of salvation. Man must become hungry for truth as a result of the experiences of living, or he must desire to know God as the result of contact with the lives of those who are acquainted with the divine Father before another human being can act as the means of leading such a fellow mortal to the Father in heaven. If we know God, our real business on earth is so to live as to permit the Father to reveal himself in our lives, and thus will all God-seeking persons see the Father and ask for our help in finding out more about the God who in this manner finds expression in our lives.”UB 1955 ​

I asked, how does one determine that this is not simply religious mumbo-jumbo?

 

[xXLoveisGodXx]

In practice.

 

[Colter]

I asked, how does one determine that this is not simply religious mumbo-jumbo?

It's like taking off the training wheels, there is no guarantee.

 

[JGG]

It's like taking off the training wheels, there is no guarantee.

Guarantee of what? And what do training wheels represent in this analogy?

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[stevevw]

Source?

You keep talking about this "evidence" that is supposedly forcing scientists to reconsider evolution, but you stop short of actually presenting the evidence, or at the very least, presenting the scientists who think that this emergent evidence is compelling enough to discard the theory altogether.

Because the post is so long I will reply to the evidence to support what I am saying first rather than debating about the side issues of whether some evolutionists are accepting this new evidence or not.
But surely in the time you have debated me you have seen some of those sources. It goes to show that perhaps you don’t accept them either. This is what I am saying with some people who are holding onto the older concepts and not recognizing the new discoveries which are casting doubt on how evolution works and the role the traditional Darwinian model plays in changing animals. Especially the role of natural selection and a common ancestor as genetics are also being traced sideways instead of down ways which would be necessary for tracing back to a common ancestor. And as I said that creatures may have a lot more capability already there within their genomes to draw upon for the changes they need.
In other words as a believer in creation God already made creatures with the genetics to create vast variety and adapt to their environments. They didn’t need to mutate into new creatures, especially the idea of common decent which states that all creates have mutated from one common ancestor. The tree of life is being dismantled and it is now turning into a hedge. Instead of 1 trunk we are starting to see many trunks showing each type starting the process and stemming out from there. That would mean that the chance and random creation of life would have had to happen many times over. Its hard enough to believe it happened once.
Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree. “I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. The technique “just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution”.
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment
We had expected to find identical changes in maybe a dozen or so genes but to see nearly 200 is incredible. We know natural selection is a potent driver of gene sequence evolution, but identifying so many examples where it produces nearly identical results in the genetic sequences of totally unrelated animals is astonishing. Genetic similarities between bats and dolphins discovered -- ScienceDaily
Horizontal gene transfer between bacteria and animals Horizontal gene transfer is increasingly described between bacteria and animals. Such transfers that are vertically inherited have the potential to influence the evolution of animals. Horizontal gene transfer between bacteria and animals

Extensive Gene Transfers Occur in Complex Cells Way More than Expected
A single gene from bacteria has been donated to fungi on at least 15 occasions. The discovery shows that an evolutionary shortcut once thought to be restricted to bacteria is surprisingly common in more complex, eukaryotic life. Extensive Gene Transfers Occur in Complex Cells Way More than Expected - Scientific American
BIO-Complexity Paper Shows Many Multi-Mutation Features Unlikely to Evolve in History of the Earth. Gauger
There is a common misconception that scientists who reject evolutionary theory must believe that species are fixed and unchangeable. However, that is incorrect. Non-evolutionary scientists accept that species can change, but they believe that biological change has natural limits. Instead of the single evolutionary “tree of life”, according to which all living things have arisen from a single common ancestor, non-evolutionary scientists characterize the relationships between different living things as an orchard of trees. Horse Evolution
But many biologists claim they know for sure that random mutation (purposeless chance) is the source of inherited variation that generates new species of life and that life evolved in a single-common-trunk, dichotomously branching-phylogenetic-tree pattern! "No!" I say. Then how did one species evolve into another? This profound research question is assiduously undermined by the hegemony who flaunt their "correct" solution. Especially dogmatic are those molecular modelers of the "tree of life" who, ignorant of alternative topologies (such as webs), don't study ancestors. Victims of a Whiteheadian "fallacy of misplaced concreteness," they correlate computer code with names given by "authorities" to organisms they never see! Our zealous research, ever faithful to the god who dwells in the details, openly challenges such dogmatic certainty. This is science.
(Lynn Margulis, "The Phylogenetic Tree Topples," American Scientist, Vol 94 (3) (May-June, 2006).) https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2006/3/the-phylogenetic-tree-topples
:] "Noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) accomplish a remarkable variety of biological functions.
"Today, the ncRNA revolution has engulfed all living organisms, as deep sequencing has uncovered the existence of thousands of long (l)ncRNAs with a breaktaking variety of roles in both gene expression and remodeling of the eukaryotic genome."https://gerdapeacheysviews.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/dna-rna-just-some-simple-evolutionary-stuff/
http://www.pubfacts.com/detail/2467...volution-trashing-old-rules-to-forge-new-ones.
Biologic Institute's Groundbreaking Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins
In a 2010 research paper that Douglas Axe published in BIO-Complexity, "The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations," he determined that when deleterious mutations are involved, a trait that requires more than two disadvantageous mutations could never form over the history of the earth. In other words, if you are trying to evolve a trait that requires more than two deleterious mutations, it's not going to evolve.Axe
The most shocking finding of ENCODE, however, is that perhaps as much as 80% of the DNA is “biologically active.” This means that not only the regulatory regions and genes are active but also much of the other 50% of “junk” jumping gene copies are active. This critical finding means that jumping genes (“remnants”, “useless copies,” and “junk” DNA) might be producing evolutionary changes. In fact, recent information makes this seem probable. See more at: Jumping Genes versus Epigenetics: Driving Evolution | Jon Lieff, M.D.
An important new finding has been that evolutionary change in proteins doesn’t usually occur with simple one amino acid point mutations, but rather by whole new sections, called domains. (Simple single mutations mostly are destructive.) See more at: Mind & Molecular Genetics in the Neuron 3: Evolution | Jon Lieff M.D.
In On The Origin of Species, Darwin used the image of a tree of life to illustrate how species evolve, one from another. Even today, branches sprouting from lower branches (representing ancestors) is how many people view the evolution of species.
However, for some time, evolutionary biologists have known that the picture is not quite so clear. A recent feature article in New Scientist investigates the current views of biologists - that organisms may pass traits not just to their offspring, but to other living organisms - and suggests that uprooting the tree of life may be the start of a revolutionary change in biology. Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because the post is so long I will reply to the evidence to support what I am saying first rather than debating about the side issues of whether some evolutionists are accepting this new evidence or not.

That's not a side issue steve, that's the issue. You claimed that "evolutionists" (i.e., scientists) are currently debating the merits of evolution and are considering abandoning it aside in favour of, well, you never really say what superior theory would replace it.

I also find it ironic that you of all people would complain about a post being long.

But surely in the time you have debated me you have seen some of those sources.

Yes, I've seen your sources. In fact, I read them, which is why I know that your claims are unfounded.

It goes to show that perhaps you don’t accept them either. This is what I am saying with some people who are holding onto the older concepts and not recognizing the new discoveries which are casting doubt on how evolution works and the role the traditional Darwinian model plays in changing animals.

Read your own sources. The authors don't dispute the reality of evolution. Like all good scientists, they gesture toward questions that remain to be answered.

Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree.
“I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. The technique “just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution”.

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment

I'm not going to go through and read every single source you present to show you that the authors are not in agreement with you. I've already done that for two papers. In one instance, you mashed together two sources - one a reputable science journal and the other a creationist website - to claim that evolution is being seriously reconsidered. In the second instance, you quoted an author who, in the opening line of the paper, noted that the contribution of Darwinian natural selection to evolution was "beyond serious doubt," which is exactly contrary to your claim.

We had expected to find identical changes in maybe a dozen or so genes but to see nearly 200 is incredible. We know natural selection is a potent driver of gene sequence evolution, but identifying so many examples where it produces nearly identical results in the genetic sequences of totally unrelated animals is astonishing.
Genetic similarities between bats and dolphins discovered -- ScienceDaily

How does this cast doubt on evolution? Did you even read the opening paragraph?

The evolution of similar traits in different species, a process known as convergent evolution, is widespread not only at the physical level, but also at the genetic level, according to new research led by scientists at Queen Mary University of London and published in Nature this week.

Or the author's conclusions?

Dr. Georgia Tsagkogeorga, who undertook the assembly of the new genome data for this study, added: "We found that molecular signals of convergence were widespread, and were seen in many genes across the genome. It greatly adds to our understanding of genome evolution."

Group leader, Dr Stephen Rossiter, said: "These results could be the tip of the iceberg. As the genomes of more species are sequenced and studied, we may well see other striking cases of convergent adaptations being driven by identical genetic changes."

Drs Tsagkogeorga and Rossiter can be contacted through ResearchGate. I encourage you to email them and ask how their findings put evolution in serious doubt.

Horizontal gene transfer between bacteria and animals Horizontal gene transfer is increasingly described between bacteria and animals. Such transfers that are vertically inherited have the potential to influence the evolution of animals.
[FONT=&quot]Horizontal gene transfer between bacteria and animals[/FONT]

Extensive Gene Transfers Occur in Complex Cells Way More than Expected A single gene from bacteria has been donated to fungi on at least 15 occasions. The discovery shows that an evolutionary shortcut once thought to be restricted to bacteria is surprisingly common in more complex, eukaryotic life.

Extensive Gene Transfers Occur in Complex Cells Way More than Expected - Scientific American


BIO-Complexity Paper Shows Many Multi-Mutation Features Unlikely to Evolve in History of the Earth.
Gauger

There is a common misconception that scientists who reject evolutionary theory must believe that species are fixed and unchangeable. However, that is incorrect. Non-evolutionary scientists accept that species can change, but they believe that biological change has natural limits. Instead of the single evolutionary “tree of life”, according to which all living things have arisen from a single common ancestor, non-evolutionary scientists characterize the relationships between different living things as an orchard of trees.

Horse Evolution

But many biologists claim they know for sure that random mutation (purposeless chance) is the source of inherited variation that generates new species of life and that life evolved in a single-common-trunk, dichotomously branching-phylogenetic-tree pattern! "No!" I say. Then how did one species evolve into another? This profound research question is assiduously undermined by the hegemony who flaunt their "correct" solution. Especially dogmatic are those molecular modelers of the "tree of life" who, ignorant of alternative topologies (such as webs), don't study ancestors. Victims of a Whiteheadian "fallacy of misplaced concreteness," they correlate computer code with names given by "authorities" to organisms they never see! Our zealous research, ever faithful to the god who dwells in the details, openly challenges such dogmatic certainty. This is science.
(Lynn Margulis, "The Phylogenetic Tree Topples," American Scientist, Vol 94 (3) (May-June, 2006).)
https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2006/3/the-phylogenetic-tree-topples
:] "Noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) accomplish a remarkable variety of biological functions.
"Today, the ncRNA revolution has engulfed all living organisms, as deep sequencing has uncovered the existence of thousands of long (l)ncRNAs with a breaktaking variety of roles in both gene expression and remodeling of the eukaryotic genome."

https://gerdapeacheysviews.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/dna-rna-just-some-simple-evolutionary-stuff/
The noncoding RNA revolution-trashing old rules to forge new ones..
Biologic Institute's Groundbreaking Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins
In a 2010 research paper that Douglas Axe published in BIO-Complexity, "The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations," he determined that when deleterious mutations are involved, a trait that requires more than two disadvantageous mutations could never form over the history of the earth. In other words, if you are trying to evolve a trait that requires more than two deleterious mutations, it's not going to evolve.
Axe

The most shocking finding of ENCODE, however, is that perhaps as much as 80% of the DNA is “biologically active.” This means that not only the regulatory regions and genes are active but also much of the other 50% of “junk” jumping gene copies are active. This critical finding means that jumping genes (“remnants”, “useless copies,” and “junk” DNA) might be producing evolutionary changes. In fact, recent information makes this seem probable.
See more at: Jumping Genes versus Epigenetics: Driving Evolution | Jon Lieff, M.D.
An important new finding has been that evolutionary change in proteins doesn’t usually occur with simple one amino acid point mutations, but rather by whole new sections, called domains. (Simple single mutations mostly are destructive.)
See more at: Mind & Molecular Genetics in the Neuron 3: Evolution | Jon Lieff M.D.

In On The Origin of Species, Darwin used the image of a tree of life to illustrate how species evolve, one from another. Even today, branches sprouting from lower branches (representing ancestors) is how many people view the evolution of species.
However, for some time, evolutionary biologists have known that the picture is not quite so clear. A recent feature article in New Scientist investigates the current views of biologists - that organisms may pass traits not just to their offspring, but to other living organisms - and suggests that uprooting the tree of life may be the start of a revolutionary change in biology.
Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket

This is a gish gallop. As I said earlier, I don't have the time to go through every single source you perceive to be doubtful of evolution. I've already shown that, for a number of sources, you have misconstrued new discoveries or unknowns as signifying the death knell of evolution, even though the authors themselves don't view it as such.

 

[cuja1]

deleted

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes I do, everyone has to decide for themselves. Believers can carry the massage but that's about it.

I am struck by this response, not because I don't welcome it, but because it is completely incongruous with your past behaviour toward myself and other atheists. If you acknowledge that it is not unreasonable for others to not share your theological commitments, and that we aren't intellectually obligated to them, then why did you accuse me (and others) of being insincere? Why cast aspersions on our character, claiming that we are stubborn, subversive, rebellious, and proud? If it's not unreasonable, then why did you call my questions disingenuous and why have you either implied or outright declared that atheists here harbour some nefarious purpose?

 

[Davian]

It's like taking off the training wheels, there is no guarantee.

What do the training wheels represent in your analogy? Reason? Logic? Critical thinking? Intellectual integrity?

 

[madaz]

stevevw-In other words as a believer in creation God already made creatures with the genetics to create vast variety and adapt to their environments. They didn’t need to mutate into new creatures, especially the idea of common decent which states that all creates have mutated from one common ancestor.

Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree.

“I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. The technique “just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution”.
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment

http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885

madaz-stevevw, I do not see how Pattersons mammal phylogeny research challenges the idea of common decent which states that all creates have mutated from one common ancestor.

He just re-arranges the traditional tree.

Have I missed something?

http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7...gen/derivatives/fullsize/MicroRNA-graphic.jpg

 

[Archaeopteryx]

madaz-stevevw, I do not see how Pattersons mammal phylogeny research challenges the idea of common decent which states that all creates have mutated from one common ancestor.

He just re-arranges the traditional tree.

Have I missed something?

http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7...gen/derivatives/fullsize/MicroRNA-graphic.jpg

Apparently we've all missed some profound insight that dispels evolution utterly. In fact, we're not the only ones to have missed it; it appears that the authors of these papers have themselves missed it also.

 

[stevevw]

That's not a side issue steve, that's the issue. You claimed that "evolutionists" (i.e., scientists) are currently debating the merits of evolution and are considering abandoning it aside in favour of, well, you never really say what superior theory would replace it.

I also find it ironic that you of all people would complain about a post being long.

What makes you think I was complaining. The fact that you think that says to me that this is going beyond just a simple debate. It doesn't really matter who is right or wrong, we are just discussing and debating a topic. I acknowledged the post was long and wasn't inferring any fault with anyone or that there was any problem with a long post. I just wanted to break down the post into a couple of sections so that it would be more manageable.

I dont regard the rest of the post as a side issue and that it is dismissive. I just wanted to get to the point of evidence across first as this is what you were mainly wanting by the sounds of things. You have just started to attack my reply from the beginning in saying I am not citing evidence before even checking out the evidence I have included in the first place. So maybe you need to take a deep breath and sit back and read some of what is linked.

By the way you keep saying that I am saying that scientists want to completely abandon evolution. As I said you dont clarify what you mean by evolution. I and many other people have maintained that there is a form of evolution at work. Its just that some take it to far and beyond what the evidence is showing. This is what I mean by the Darwinian theory that is coming into question. Some of the ideas of Darwinism are getting outdated and the evidence is contradicting what is actually occurring.

Yes, I've seen your sources. In fact, I read them, which is why I know that your claims are unfounded.

Thats fair enough but they are not my claims but the claims of experts who I think can make the judgement better than you or I. But you just said that you havnt bothered to read all of them so how do you know what the evidence is. Arent you assuming a lot here.

So let me understand, you dont believe the possibility that changes to genetics and therefor a creatures shape and other features that make up their anatomy can be made through other things besides natural selection and mutations. You dont believe a creatures existing genetics has a great capacity to make changes already. That the entire genome which is now being discovered may have more ability to make changes to an creatures gens to be passed down by drawing upon vast functions in the so called junk DNA. You dont believe in epigentics and HGT. Is that right.

Because if you do believe in these things which is what I have been saying then all these factors can also make changes to animals. Chunks of genetics can be passed from one creature to another by HGT therefore injecting genes without mutations making new genes. This can only cast doubt on the role natural selection plays. It means that there are several players in causing animals to change and noit just the darwinian method of gradual change by mutations. This is the least of what is being proposed by the evidence. The full implications could be that mutations may be a minor player and that they only cause error and are deleterious. There is also evidence for this which I have enclosed.

Read your own sources. The authors don't dispute the reality of evolution. Like all good scientists, they gesture toward questions that remain to be answered.

It depends what you mean by evolution. Like I said most people including Christians agree that there is a form of evolution. I am talking about the Darwinian evolution that is proposed by trees and states that mutations are the main key for gradual change. If you read the links many are saying this model and those trees may have to be changes or even scrapped.

I'm not going to go through and read every single source you present to show you that the authors are not in agreement with you. I've already done that for two papers. In one instance, you mashed together two sources - one a reputable science journal and the other a creationist website - to claim that evolution is being seriously reconsidered. In the second instance, you quoted an author who, in the opening line of the paper, noted that the contribution of Darwinian natural selection to evolution was "beyond serious doubt," which is exactly contrary to your claim.

No the website which was not a creationists site linked that scientific paper as part of what they were saying. They just happen to say in a a clear way so that people can understand the implications. Afterall an evolutionists site will not ever admit that even if it were true. But what they were saying is backed by scientific sites and evidence.

The point is all the other links say similar things. There is more and more evidence coming out all the time. To much so that its is getting hard for people to deny. And there will be more in the coming years even months as the ENCODE project announces more new discoveries about our genome and that Junk DNA is actually functional and our DNA is amazingly complex. To complex to have come from chance mutations that randomly build complex creatures from info and materials that wasn't there to begin with.

How does this cast doubt on evolution? Did you even read the opening paragraph?

You dont understand the implications. When they use to find convergent evolution of say distant unrelated animals evolving similar traits they just put it down to a coincident. But now they are finding it happens a lot. To much so that it could be a coincident. Not only are unrelated creatures getting similar traits but also similar genetics. Not just a sequence here and there but many and large chunks as well. So there must be something else causing these creatures to get that genetic info and have similar genes even if they are distant. That could be because of HGT between animals or even that animals have a pre set of genetics that do the same thing when needed. That implies they either got that very early on in evolution and dint gradually get it through natural selection or they were made that way. Thats why the athor emphasized natural selection being the driving force. Because these results were indicating something else. He left it at we will have to do some more research to see whats going on but the results are very surprising and dont add up.

Or the author's conclusions?

Its according to new research and this is some of that new findings I am talking about that you are not accepting. Scientists are finding this and they are not creationists just scientists doing research. And its not just the scientist quoted here but many so its not an opinion but what the evidence is showing.

Drs Tsagkogeorga and Rossiter can be contacted through ResearchGate. I encourage you to email them and ask how their findings put evolution in serious doubt.

You want me to go to all that trouble just because you dont accept what the evidence is saying. Compare their findings with all the other ones that are linked. Do a search and check out the evidence. Its there for all to see if they choose to see it.

This is a gish gallop. As I said earlier, I don't have the time to go through every single source you perceive to be doubtful of evolution. I've already shown that, for a number of sources, you have misconstrued new discoveries or unknowns as signifying the death knell of evolution, even though the authors themselves don't view it as such.

The links relate to different aspects of the evidence so thats why there are so many. If you bothered to read them then you would know. I dont perceive these things as its not up to my personal view of things. The evidence speaks for itself and is from expert scientists in their fields. They are not creationists or come from religious sites though I cant see how that automatically means something is wrong.

If you cant see that many are saying that there are a lot of findings now that are contradicting the darwinian model of evolution, the tree of life that has been built to show the connections between animals and organisms that lead to common decent and how natural selection is not the only way animals get their genetics then you are not willing to see this. By the fact that you dont want to check out the sites Ive connected and dismiss them as more bull I have said then that shows that you have already made up your mind and dont want to know.

 

[madaz]

Apparently we've all missed some profound insight that dispels evolution utterly. In fact, we're not the only ones to have missed it; it appears that the authors of these papers have themselves missed it also.

Some of those links were strangely dead too.

I think ol'mate just has a very strong desire for Science to eventually dispel evolution. Its as if his worldview necessitates it. Sad really.

Evolutionary theory is adjusted sometimes whenever new evidence is found, but the new evidence is still supportive, which only goes to strengthen and improve the accuracy of evolutionary theory.

To have faith that one day evolutionary theory will be dispeled is extremely unlikely.

I think there is a far greater chance of lightning striking the shark that is attacking ol'mate in the middle of the Sahara on a cloudless day.

Never going to happen!

 

[Colter]

I am struck by this response, not because I don't welcome it, but because it is completely incongruous with your past behaviour toward myself and other atheists. If you acknowledge that it is not unreasonable for others to not share your theological commitments, and that we aren't intellectually obligated to them, then why did you accuse me (and others) of being insincere? Why cast aspersions on our character, claiming that we are stubborn, subversive, rebellious, and proud? If it's not unreasonable, then why did you call my questions disingenuous and why have you either implied or outright declared that atheists here harbour some nefarious purpose?

I still stand by every one of those characterizations for different atheists in reference to various posts. But as far as the meme that atheist promote I think it's common that they are ignorant of where they came from or the influence of the fall of Lucifer, the impact on our world and particular the influence of confusion, suspicion and mistrust towards God and his messengers over the ages.

Any atheist who joins a Christian forum and heckles believers in an attempt to undermine and mock their faith is simply evil no matter what "I'm only trying to help" self delusion they may present.

 

[Colter]

What do the training wheels represent in your analogy? Reason? Logic? Critical thinking? Intellectual integrity?

To me the training wheels represent the overdeveloped, worldly human ego, (Easing God Out) an inheritance from our evolutionary animal past. It served to protect us from the pack, a time when man was dominated by his instincts.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What makes you think I was complaining. The fact that you think that says to me that this is going beyond just a simple debate. It doesn't really matter who is right or wrong, we are just discussing and debating a topic. I acknowledged the post was long and wasn't inferring any fault with anyone or that there was any problem with a long post. I just wanted to break down the post into a couple of sections so that it would be more manageable.

I dont regard the rest of the post as a side issue and that it is dismissive. I just wanted to get to the point of evidence across first as this is what you were mainly wanting by the sounds of things. You have just started to attack my reply from the beginning in saying I am not citing evidence before even checking out the evidence I have included in the first place. So maybe you need to take a deep breath and sit back and read some of what is linked.

As I said earlier, I have read some of what you linked to. It doesn’t support your claims.

By the way you keep saying that I am saying that scientists want to completely abandon evolution. As I said you dont clarify what you mean by evolution. I and many other people have maintained that there is a form of evolution at work. Its just that some take it to far and beyond what the evidence is showing. This is what I mean by the Darwinian theory that is coming into question. Some of the ideas of Darwinism are getting outdated and the evidence is contradicting what is actually occurring.

Your own sources disagree with this. I even quoted one of them (Philip Ball) to show you this.

Thats fair enough but they are not my claims but the claims of experts who I think can make the judgement better than you or I.

As above, if you defer to the experts you’ll notice that they don’t share your sentiments about the situation.

But you just said that you havnt bothered to read all of them so how do you know what the evidence is. Arent you assuming a lot here.

No. I’ve already given my reasons for why I’m not going to read through every single link you post, especially given the strong impression that you haven’t read half the links you post.

So let me understand, you dont believe the possibility that changes to genetics and therefor a creatures shape and other features that make up their anatomy can be made through other things besides natural selection and mutations. You dont believe a creatures existing genetics has a great capacity to make changes already. That the entire genome which is now being discovered may have more ability to make changes to an creatures gens to be passed down by drawing upon vast functions in the so called junk DNA. You dont believe in epigentics and HGT. Is that right.

This question is along the lines of “Have you stopped beating your wife?” If I tell you that I accept the findings you have linked to, you will say that I am in agreement with you, even though that clearly isn’t the case. If, on the other hand, I say no, you will accuse me of denying the findings altogether, which also isn’t the case. Let me make explicit the question you have yet to answer in my next comment below…

Because if you do believe in these things which is what I have been saying then all these factors can also make changes to animals. Chunks of genetics can be passed from one creature to another by HGT therefore injecting genes without mutations making new genes. This can only cast doubt on the role natural selection plays. It means that there are several players in causing animals to change and noit just the darwinian method of gradual change by mutations. This is the least of what is being proposed by the evidence. The full implications could be that mutations may be a minor player and that they only cause error and are deleterious. There is also evidence for this which I have enclosed.

How does any of this cast evolution into serious doubt? At best, all this shows is that the picture is more complicated and that questions remain, which is exactly what Philip Ball articulated in the Nature paper wherein he also noted that the contribution of Darwinian natural selection was “beyond serious doubt.”

No the website which was not a creationists site linked that scientific paper as part of what they were saying. They just happen to say in a a clear way so that people can understand the implications. Afterall an evolutionists site will not ever admit that even if it were true. But what they were saying is backed by scientific sites and evidence.

Then you should have linked to the creationist website, since that is the source. By not differentiating the two sources you fostered the misleading impression that the words of the creationist site were in fact the words of the Science paper authors. If this was deliberate, then it was dishonest. The authors did not make the claims you attributed to them.

The point is all the other links say similar things.

No, the point is that they don’t, as I’ve already shown you by quoting the authors’ themselves. You’ve ignored the bulk of the text and cherry-picked only those passages that support your claim, and even then it’s not clear how they support your claim.

There is more and more evidence coming out all the time. To much so that its is getting hard for people to deny. And there will be more in the coming years even months as the ENCODE project announces more new discoveries about our genome and that Junk DNA is actually functional and our DNA is amazingly complex. To complex to have come from chance mutations that randomly build complex creatures from info and materials that wasn't there to begin with.

What are you talking about? I already corrected your misconception on this point: evolution doesn’t operate on nothing and it’s not random. Did you even read the link I posted? Or am I expected to read everything you post while you ignore what I’ve posted?

You dont understand the implications.

Have you ever considered that maybe you don’t understand the implications? Here you are pontificating on the status of evolutionary theory when the above paragraph strongly suggests that you harbour misconceptions about what evolution is.

Its according to new research and this is some of that new findings I am talking about that you are not accepting.

Where did I indicate that I don’t accept the findings. It’s your spin that I don’t accept.

Scientists are finding this and they are not creationists just scientists doing research. And its not just the scientist quoted here but many so its not an opinion but what the evidence is showing.

You are fond of saying “That’s what the evidence is showing,” but my impression is that you really don’t know what the evidence is showing.

You want me to go to all that trouble just because you dont accept what the evidence is saying. Compare their findings with all the other ones that are linked. Do a search and check out the evidence. Its there for all to see if they choose to see it.

How much trouble is it to send a brief email to the study authors’ asking them whether their findings cast evolution into serious doubt? Is it more trouble than writing out long drawn-out responses on an internet forum? Go on, email them. You might learn something.

The links relate to different aspects of the evidence so thats why there are so many. If you bothered to read them then you would know. I dont perceive these things as its not up to my personal view of things. The evidence speaks for itself and is from expert scientists in their fields.

If you’re so confident that your interpretation of their work is correct, then why don’t you take up my challenge and email the experts and ask them whether your conclusions follow from their findings?

If you cant see that many are saying that there are a lot of findings now that are contradicting the darwinian model of evolution, the tree of life that has been built to show the connections between animals and organisms that lead to common decent and how natural selection is not the only way animals get their genetics then you are not willing to see this. By the fact that you dont want to check out the sites Ive connected and dismiss them as more bull

I don’t dismiss the findings, steve. I question your spin on them.

… then that shows that you have already made up your mind and dont want to know.

Why don’t you email the study authors’ and ask them what they think about your views? Or don’t you want to know?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I still stand by every one of those characterizations for different atheists in reference to various posts. But as far as the meme that atheist promote I think it's common that they are ignorant of where they came from or the influence of the fall of Lucifer, the impact on our world and particular the influence of confusion, suspicion and mistrust towards God and his messengers over the ages.

Any atheist who joins a Christian forum and heckles believers in an attempt to undermine and mock their faith is simply evil no matter what "I'm only trying to help" self delusion they may present.

Simply evil? Wow. Earlier in our conversation you noted that it's not unreasonable to question whether a religious person's experiences reflect something genuinely divine (1, 2), especially when those experiences are used to assert authority over others. Yet when such questions are posed you say that those pursuing the line of inquiry are "simply evil." It is extraordinarily disingenuous of you to, on the one hand, pretend that inquiry is not unreasonable and even welcome, but then to shut down those who inquire by casting aspersions on their character - calling them insincere, stubborn, subversive, rebellious and proud, among other things.