Evidence for macro-evolution

[BCP1928]

Does my belief that Jesus walked on water constitute "wilful ignorance of science"?

Only if there is credible scientific evidence that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk on water (which there isn't) that you are denying.

 

[AV1611VET]

Re: Post 221

Nice.

 

[dlamberth]

In your opinion, would a loaf of raisin bread created ex materia in an instant of time constitute maturity-without-history?

Absolutely YES!!!

 

[SelfSim]

In your opinion, would a loaf of raisin bread created ex materia in an instant of time constitute maturity-without-history?

There are too many ways to think about the resultant .. the intitial conditions are unconstrained .. other than by way of your intent.

 

[AV1611VET]

Absolutely YES!!!

And I take it you don't think maturity without history is "wilful ignorance of science"?

 

[AV1611VET]

There are too many ways to think about the resultant .. the intitial conditions are unconstrained .. other than by way of your intent.

Well while you're thinking about it, I'll take any "wilful ignorance" remarks with a modicum of sodium chloride.

 

[dlamberth]

And I take it you don't think maturity without history is "wilful ignorance of science"?

My previous answer was only to an imaginary thought question that has no semblance to reality. It's not so much science that I'm looking at in my answer, but more in how the physical world operates. Raisin bread just doesn't pop up out of nowhere. It has history. And to think otherwise is wilful imagination, something my youthful grandchild might make up while playing in her playhouse.

Anyway, if one were to look at it with the scientific scrutiny that you asked for, maturity without history would be a "wilful ignorance of science".

 

[AV1611VET]

My previous answer was only to an imaginary thought question that has no semblance to reality.

Well, that's a start, isn't it?

Anyway, if one were to look at it with the scientific scrutiny that you asked for, maturity without history would be a "wilful ignorance of science".

Then science can take a hike, can't it?

 

[SelfSim]

Does my belief that Jesus walked on water constitute "wilful ignorance of science"?

Only if there is credible scientific evidence that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk on water (which there isn't) that you are denying.

Substituting one's beliefs, in the absence of evidence, is also deception.

Then science can take a hike, can't it?

Along with all knowledge science has ever produced.
And that isn't wilful ignorance, eh?

 

[dlamberth]

Well, that's a start, isn't it?



Then science can take a hike, can't it?

In your imaginary scenario, really what your asking is can the physical world reality take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

Substituting one's beliefs, in the absence of evidence, is also deception.

Then go out there and look for it.

Look for His footprints on the Sea of Galilee.

Can't do it, can you?

Science must be myopic then.

And so I'll highlight the Boolean standard that applies here:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

 

[AV1611VET]

In your imaginary scenario, really what your asking is can the physical world reality take a hike.

When a miracle occurs, that's exactly what happens.

And Mother Nature, with all her universal laws, cannot interfere.

And, in fact, she wouldn't even if she could; since she is obedient to God's commands.

For example, when God split the Red Sea, Mother Nature asked, "How wide?"

And when the Rapture occurs, Gravity is going to stand down.

 

[dlamberth]

When a miracle occurs, that's exactly what happens.

And Mother Nature, with all her universal laws, cannot interfere.

And, in fact, she wouldn't even if she could; since she is obedient to God's commands.

For example, when God split the Red Sea, Mother Nature asked, "How wide?"

And when the Rapture occurs, Gravity is going to stand down.

Sorry AV. I'm just not into a Greek/Roman pagan kind of God sitting up high somewhere looking down on the earth commanding this and that. All of that stuff strikes me as being generated by the religious beliefs of an ancient middle-eastern tribe of nomadic desert dwellers.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry AV. I'm just not into a Greek/Roman pagan kind of God sitting up high somewhere looking down on the earth commanding this and that. All of that stuff strikes me as being generated by the religious beliefs of an ancient middle-eastern tribe of nomadic desert dwellers.

Explain to me then, how these "desert dwellers" got into the desert in the first place.

 

[SelfSim]

Then go out there and look for it.

Look for His footprints on the Sea of Galilee.

Can't do it, can you?

Science must be myopic then.

And so I'll highlight the Boolean standard that applies here:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Your Boolean standards assume that a truth already exists and therefore, one must choose an option. They are therefore inapplicable in scientific thinking.
Whenever science says ø, there is no compulsion in science to make any such choice.
In fact, whenever science says ø, there's just more work to do.

Substituting a belief for a truth, when a 'ø' is evident, is unscientific, deceptive and wilfully ignoring the evidence of a 'ø'.
Then again, wilful ignorance of science would prevent one from knowing that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your Boolean standards assume that a truth already exists and therefore, one must choose an option.

Correct.

They are mainly built around this passage ...

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

They are therefore inapplicable in scientific thinking.

Then science can take a hike.

Whenever science says ø, there is no compulsion in science to make any such choice.

Then don't make any choices.

Just don't criticize those who do make choices, or they just might criticize back.

In fact, whenever science says ø, there's just more work to do.

And I'm on record many times here as replying, "Keep looking", whenever someone says there's no evidence for this, that, or the other thing.

Perhaps I should go back to saying it?

Substituting a belief for a truth, when a 'ø' is evident, is unscientific,

Science has a pocketful of zeroes when it comes to the Bible.

Anyone who caters to those zeroes will end up either not trusting the Bible, or reinterpreting It to suit some zero that science is in possession of.

... deceptive and wilfully ignoring the evidence of a 'ø'.

Zeroes are zeroes.

And once science puts a zero to something, then it has no right to disagree with someone who takes that zero and runs with it.

Then again, wilful ignorance of science would prevent one from knowing that.

My lack of knowledge of science is just what it is.

A lack of knowledge of science.

And whether it's wilful or otherwise has no bearing on the Truth.

As I'm fond of saying:

A child should be able to look a scientist right in the eyes and tell him he's wrong.

 

[SelfSim]

Correct.

They are mainly built around this passage ...

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.



Then science can take a hike.



Then don't make any choices.

Just don't criticize those who do make choices, or they just might criticize back.



And I'm on record many times here as replying, "Keep looking", whenever someone says there's no evidence for this, that, or the other thing.

Perhaps I should go back to saying it?



Science has a pocketful of zeroes when it comes to the Bible.

Nulls .. not zeros.

Zeroes are zeroes.

.. and nulls are not zeros.

And once science puts a zero to something, then it has no right to disagree with someone who takes that zero and runs with it.

Science produces evidence .. which is rarely subject to disagreement, once the method and results are agreed upon.
'Rights' don't come into it.

My lack of knowledge of science is just what it is.

Acceptance of ignorance remaining 'as it is', is wilful ignorance.

And whether it's wilful or otherwise has no bearing on the Truth.

So anyone can make up any story without fact-checking .. and that story doesn't then impact the truth, eh?

As I'm fond of saying:

A child should be able to look a scientist right in the eyes and tell him he's wrong.

Pity that children are supposedly born with Original Sin, eh?
They are untrustworthy even before they can tell anyone else they're wrong .. because of that.

 

[mindlight]

Large scale change(evolution) occurring over a long period of time that results in the formation of new species.

Creationists do not object to speciation. There were not 20-plus species of Sparrow on the Ark. Type-to-type evolution is what is impossible and unproven.

 

[mindlight]

Hello


I think we should have a thread that is dedicated to show evidence for macro-evolution.

I do know we have "the quiet thread," but I think we should have a thread which is lighter, and easier for the average Joe to understand.


The purpose of this thread:
To provide evidence for macro-evolution


Rules:
1) no belittling, insults, or derogatory comments.
2) No debating whatsoever/ If a creationist wants to debate the material on this thread, please copy and paste the material and start a new thread.
3) cite your sources

Maybe we should first start by being honest about the methodology here. Science can observe fossils and geological layers. It can hypothesize on connections between these observed facts and come up with grand theories like those of common ancestry and evolution as a mechanism by which life develops over time. We can observe generation-to-generation micro-evolutionary changes but no genus-to-genus change has ever been demonstrably proven using the scientific method. It cannot be because we cannot wait thousands of years in a controlled experiment to see the start and end of the experiment.

Since the scientific method cannot demonstrate macro-evolution then this is not a scientific discussion but rather one of my model versus your model. You may well consider your model more credible than mine but you cannot prove that credibility.

There is evidence and then there is the Theory of Macro-Evolution but the evidence cannot be used scientifically to prove Macro-Evolution because the time spans involved rule that out.

 

[Shemjaza]

Maybe we should first start by being honest about the methodology here. Science can observe fossils and geological layers. It can hypothesize on connections between these observed facts and come up with grand theories like those of common ancestry and evolution as a mechanism by which life develops over time. We can observe generation-to-generation micro-evolutionary changes but no genus-to-genus change has ever been demonstrably proven using the scientific method. It cannot be because we cannot wait thousands of years in a controlled experiment to see the start and end of the experiment.

Since the scientific method cannot demonstrate macro-evolution then this is not a scientific discussion but rather one of my model versus your model. You may well consider your model more credible than mine but you cannot prove that credibility.

There is evidence and then there is the Theory of Macro-Evolution but the evidence cannot be used scientifically to prove Macro-Evolution because the time spans involved rule that out.

Untrue.

We have the genetic patterns of extant species and the fossil that demonstrate diversification and macro evolution in a compatible way.

There's also the fact that the entire Ark narrative is completely impossible without extensive miraculous intervention at every level to create the extra genetic diversity, fossils, geologic formations, heat sinks and flat extra plants and animals.