• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Madagascar and Australia, a question for creationists.

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
again no- in this case there is several other possibilities:

Let's review them all.

1) convergent evolution (rabbit evolved twice)

Convergent evolution is the independent evolution of similar features in species of different lineages.
SIMILAR features. Not THE SAME feature.

Sight / eyes evolved multiple times, yes. But they are not THE SAME eyes.
Every single independent lineage has its own unique features and blueprint.

The eye of an insect is nothing like the eye of mammals for example.
They perform the same function. But they are wildly different in terms of structure and underlying genetics.

No, rabbits "evolving twice" is not an example of convergent evolution.
In fact, 2 different independent lines leading to the same genetically compatible species, would be extremely problematic for evolution theory.


2)the fossil somehow get to the wrong layer

That would require its own explanation. Just claiming it is not enough in science, as I explained before.

3) its a hox

Ditto. A hoax requires exposing as such. Just claiming it, is not enough.

see how "evolution did it" explain everything?

No. As we have seen, your 3 "possibilities" aren't actually possibilities at all.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: JD16 and tyke
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,211
52,660
Guam
✟5,153,785.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In the O/T the forgive-thine-enemy God had more people killed than he ever forgave and the Mafia boss analogy fits the God of the O/T perfectly.
Justify it any way you want, but we're not giving Mohammad or Shakti or anyone else equality.

I know you guys push diversity, but putting Mohammad and Shakti on the same pedestal as Jesus Christ is ... well ... something I would expect scientists to do.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
so you are claiming that wings cant evolve twice?

"wings" can. "eyes" can too. And indeed, both wings and eyes evolved several times independently.

But, again, they are merely similar in function and structure.
The mechanics, structure and blueprint of the wing of a bat is nothing like the wing of a bird.

Just like the eye of an insect is nothing like the eye of a mammal.

They perform the same function and, to an extent, they might even "look alike" from a distance.
But, again, the underlying genetics, the tissue, the "blueprint", the mechanics.... all different.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JD16
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,211
52,660
Guam
✟5,153,785.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That's kind of the neat thing about science - it applies everywhere, no matter the underlying religious beliefs or culture or what-have-you.
Really?

Is that why people argue against your "applied science"?

You know ... the right-to-lifers and NASA?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,211
52,660
Guam
✟5,153,785.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Hi stamp,

You're right! They came to be because men wrote them. My understanding is not that men didn't write the Scriptures, but that what they wrote - the words they actually set to ink - didn't come from their own thoughts and ideas, but they wrote as the Holy Spirit of God led them to write the things that they wrote.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Nevertheless, the words you read were put there by humans.
Whatever you happen to believe about said words, are also the words of humans.

So, no matter how you twist this... you will always first rely on the words of men, before you even get to start believing that they are "ultimately" the words of a god.

ps: are you aware that muslims believe that the Quran was, like, literally dictated by an angel directly to Muhammed? In christianity, it usually is limited to "inspired by" or something similar. Not so in Islam. There, the belief is that an angel literally appeared in the flesh before Muhammed and literally dictated the Quran word-for-word. Just to illustrate, that muslims drive this point home even a LOT more intensive then even you are doing here.

I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you don't agree with them... and that you'll just agree with us that they are depending on the words of humans that claim that this is the case.

Maybe you should apply the same logic to yourself.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi TM,

You responded to my post:
Science isn't in the business of "proving" anything.
There's always a degree of uncertainty. Even when your experiment or whatever is succesfull a gazillion times in a row. When you investigate a fire or a crime scene, you are not investigating the "here and now".

What you are doing then, is using evidence in the present to determine the flow of events of the past.

But, in its most simple form, your first statement would mean that you can't really be sure that the evidence found in the second statement can really be the truth. Eureka! That's exactly my point.

Then you responded:
That is why theoretical models in science need to be testable and falsifiable. So you can double, tripple, quadrupple check if they work.

But, you still can't be sure according to your first claim. You only narrow down the degree of uncertainty, but there is still that one in a gazillion chance that you're wrong, according to your first claim. Eureka!! That's exactly my point.

You also responded:
The idea that a woman can get pregnant without sperm?

Yes, if science would be able to observer such a thing, that would make a pretty good case for accepting that such a thing is possible.

But somehow, I don't think that was your point.

That is exactly my point! The Scriptures tell us that a young woman who had never 'been with' a man, gave birth. That child grew into a man who did some fairly miraculous things and then gave his life for my sin. According to your understanding, only if science could observe such a thing would it make a pretty good case for accepting that such a thing is possible.

There is no reason to assume that sexual reproduction worked somehow differently in the past.

I agree. Except in the singular case of Jesus' conception.

Yes. I go by the evidence, and you go by an ancient book written by people who didn't even know that the earth orbits the sun.

The claim of people in those days believing that the earth orbits the sun, is based on very limited and flimsy evidence. Further, I am not putting my faith in all the people of the ancient world, but only the people of Israel. Even today, Jews, by and large, are a very smart and wise people as regards the search and understanding of knowledge. Some of our greatest scientists are Jewish. While I can't speak for the Huns of Europe and how much they knew about the basic operation of our solar system, or the Greeks or Romans or Asians, it is the Jewish race that I am concerned with because all of our knowledge of God comes through them. God raised up a particular people and through them He revealed Himself to the world. Only through them. Through them He delivered His Son to death. Everything that we know about God comes strictly and only through Judaism. That was God's plan and that was why God called Abram of Ur in Chaldea.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Lord of the Rings is history, is it?

You may pick any religious scripture or book you like, if that makes you feel better.
Actually, even including true history.

It doesn't change the point being made. That point being, one doesn't need to believe that a text is telling a true story, in order to understand that story.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JD16
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nevertheless, the words you read were put there by humans.
Whatever you happen to believe about said words, are also the words of humans.

So, no matter how you twist this... you will always first rely on the words of men, before you even get to start believing that they are "ultimately" the words of a god.

ps: are you aware that muslims believe that the Quran was, like, literally dictated by an angel directly to Muhammed? In christianity, it usually is limited to "inspired by" or something similar. Not so in Islam. There, the belief is that an angel literally appeared in the flesh before Muhammed and literally dictated the Quran word-for-word. Just to illustrate, that muslims drive this point home even a LOT more intensive then even you are doing here.

I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you don't agree with them... and that you'll just agree with us that they are depending on the words of humans that claim that this is the case.

Maybe you should apply the same logic to yourself.

Hi TM,

Yes, again you are right. What one believes of either of these religious works comes through faith. However, as I've said, the faith of the Scriptures delivered to us through the lineage of Abraham does have certain evidences that, just as your explanation of the scientific methodology allows, does work to separate the one from the other. But, ultimately, and the Scriptures are clear on this, it boils down to faith.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

Cearbhall

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2013
15,118
5,744
United States
✟129,824.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
We don't know how the various plants and animals migrated or moved about or found their specific places on the earth after the creation event.
We actually know pretty well what plant and animal species were where, and at what times.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JD16
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Find a mammalian fossil in pre-cambrian layers. Or a kangaroo fossil in America.

Or find anything that violates the predicted nested hierarchies. And I do mean anything. Genetic markers in the wrong place (like a tiger that shares more ERV's with humans then chimps do). A bone in a place where it shouldn't be (like a reptile with inner ear bones instead of a reinforced jaw). Traits where they don't belong (like a mammal with feathers or an amphibian with hair).

Evolution is extremely falsifiable. Due to the enormous amount of predictions it makes, especially in terms of nested hierarchies in both genetics as well as anatomy and things like geographical distribution), it is literally potentially falsifiable in uncountable possible ways.

If it is wrong.... it should be extremely trivial to show it wrong.


again: there is several other possibilities:

1) convergent evolution (inner ear bones evolved twice)
2)the fossil somehow get to the wrong layer
3) its a hox


so no- evolution will not falsified in this case.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

The Stamp

Active Member
Mar 7, 2017
217
190
35
UK
✟5,256.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
But, ultimately, and the Scriptures are clear on this, it boils down to faith.
Don't all the other religions use the same faith you do and don't they all get it wrong? it sounds to me that faith is not all it's cracked up to be if it leads most people to the wrong religions.
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
its amazing how its easy to falsified your video. the proteins in both flagellum and ttss are not even identical. so how many mutations we will need to change one ttss protein into a flagellum one? your video doesnt answer this. it's also doesnt answer or provide any experiment to test is model, that itself base on a belief.
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
1) that's not convergent evolution.
2+3) assuming those were ruled out it would falsify ToE

if wings evolved twice its not a convnergent evolution?

and how you will rule out a hox or an unknown geological process if its unknown?
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
"wings" can. "eyes" can too. And indeed, both wings and eyes evolved several times independently.

But, again, they are merely similar in function and structure.
The mechanics, structure and blueprint of the wing of a bat is nothing like the wing of a bird.

Just like the eye of an insect is nothing like the eye of a mammal.

They perform the same function and, to an extent, they might even "look alike" from a distance.
But, again, the underlying genetics, the tissue, the "blueprint", the mechanics.... all different.

its funny because even eyes among mammals are also different. but you still believe they evolved from a commondescent. even more: lets say that they was identical. the same can be said here: its an identical convergent evolution.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But, in its most simple form, your first statement would mean that you can't really be sure that the evidence found in the second statement can really be the truth.

Yes, you successfully reformulated the statement "science isn't in the business of proving things".

Science can tell you what is likely true. Approaching Truth (capital 'T'), is the best we humans can do.

Eureka! That's exactly my point.

Then why are you disagreeing with me?

But, you still can't be sure according to your first claim. You only narrow down the degree of uncertainty, but there is still that one in a gazillion chance that you're wrong, according to your first claim

Are you just going to continue repeating/reformulating that science doesn't deal in certainties? Because you are just stating the obvious.


Eureka!! That's exactly my point.

Then why are you disagreeing with me?

That is exactly my point! The Scriptures tell us that a young woman who had never 'been with' a man, gave birth. That child grew into a man who did some fairly miraculous things and then gave his life for my sin.

So?

According to your understanding, only if science could observe such a thing would it make a pretty good case for accepting that such a thing is possible.

Errr... yes? Just like observing someone with spider DNA who can crawl on walls and shoot webs out of his wrists, would make a pretty good case for the existance of Spiderman.
Again - so?

I agree. Except in the singular case of Jesus' conception.

Talk about special pleading...

The claim of people in those days believing that the earth orbits the sun, is based on very limited and flimsy evidence.
I'll go ahead and assume that in context of that sentence, you meant to write "sun orbits the earth".

Geocentrism was the "standard model" of antiquity, well into the middle ages when heliocentrism came along (and met with the inevitable resistance).

Nothing in the bible suggests that the authors of those books, believed any differently.
In fact, several passages seem written with exactly that framework in mind.

Further, I am not putting my faith in all the people of the ancient world, but only the people of Israel. Even today, Jews, by and large, are a very smart and wise people as regards the search and understanding of knowledge. Some of our greatest scientists are Jewish.
While I can't speak for the Huns of Europe and how much they knew about the basic operation of our solar system, or the Greeks or Romans or Asians, it is the Jewish race that I am concerned with because all of our knowledge of God comes through them.

Indeed, everything you think you know about the abrahamic god, has found its way to you in one of the largest scale telephone games in the history of humanity.
Generations upon generations of humans.

:)

God raised up a particular people and through them He revealed Himself to the world. Only through them.

Lucky them.

Through them He delivered His Son to death

Neat.

Everything that we know about God comes strictly and only through Judaism. That was God's plan and that was why God called Abram of Ur in Chaldea.

Quetzalcoatl disagrees. And I know, because he just told me. These are his words, not mine. ;-)
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Hi TM,

Yes, again you are right. What one believes of either of these religious works comes through faith. However, as I've said, the faith of the Scriptures delivered to us through the lineage of Abraham does have certain evidences that, just as your explanation of the scientific methodology allows, does work to separate the one from the other. But, ultimately, and the Scriptures are clear on this, it boils down to faith.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Faith is not a pathway to truth.
Faith is what you need when you do not have evidence, but wish to believe anyway.

And you complain about science not being able to express absolute certainty?
Do you think "faith" is a better option, instead of methodology that leads to ever-more accurate models?
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
its amazing how its easy to falsified your video. the proteins in both flagellum and ttss are not even identical. so how many mutations we will need to change one ttss protein into a flagellum one? your video doesnt answer this. it's also doesnt answer or provide any experiment to test is model, that itself base on a belief.

First, I'm not a geneticist.

Second, you are asking about "exact genetic pathways through each and every generation" of features that we observe today.

Think about what you are asking here...
The oldest traces of life on earth are about 4 billion years old.
So let's assume for a second that 99.99% of scientists are correct and that all life has a genetic evolutionary history going all the way back to first life.

That's 4 billion years worth of
- reproduce
- mutate
- survive
- repeat

No, I'm terribly sorry that humanity is unable to meet a standard of evidence that demands a list of all mutations that occured every single generation for the past billion years.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
its funny because even eyes among mammals are also different.

Obviously there are many differences among the different branches of mammals.
But those are differences that make sense in context of nested hierarchies resulting from an evolutionary history.

If you would find a mammal with an insect eye...now that would be a problem.

but you still believe they evolved from a commondescent. even more: lets say that they was identical. the same can be said here: its an identical convergent evolution.

As I already said... if the exact same thing evolves twice, that would be really problematic for evolution to explain.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JD16
Upvote 0