Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
are you aware that even synonymous codon has a functional meaning?

Yeah, they have identical meanings. The body uses them the same way. So there's no reason for them all to be the same kind when a different version could be used instead and still work just fine if they were designed. Evolution explains why this is the case.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I didn't ignore them, I mostly agree with them, but I was asking you to make sure we're on the same page.
So answer my question, then.
That God uses evolution to produce splits in those evolutionary branches is something we agree on. The question is, did that branching start with one origin point or with several? Either scenario accounts for the similarities, and ether scenario is consistent with divine providence. How shall we tell which is true?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I guess you're consistent. You don't know what evolution predicts, and you don't know what evolution doesn't predict.

This is where an understanding of how inheritance works would help. :/
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
But we don't see species of cats that have 6 legs, do we? You seem to think that evolution says that a bunch of weird stuff can happen, but it doesn't.
If creationism was true there would be no reason that there could not be such a creature.

Isn't it odd that the only sort of life that we see is life that fits the evolutionary model and creationists cannot even come up with one.
 
Upvote 0

Qwertyui0p

Active Member
Dec 20, 2019
266
71
40
New South Wales
✟33,804.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There, we have it from the guy himself.

So, @Qwertyui0p , please feel free to respond, knowing that Subduction Zone agrees with the definitions I have posted.
Okay.
(BTW I disagree with the quote from Christopher Hitchens, which implies that faith necessarily doesn't have evidence. Faith is not necessarily unreasonable either. When you take a bus or plane you have faith that the driver/piolets won't crash, you can't prove they won't.)
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,503
9,484
✟236,224.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Faith is not necessarily unreasonable either. When you take a bus or plane you have faith that the driver/piolets won't crash, you can't prove they won't.
That is not faith. That is a reasonable expectation based upon extensive statistical evidence and, for many, extensive personal experience. You don't know the plane or bus won't crash. Indeed, you do know that planes and buses do crash. But you also know that this is very unlikely to happen to this bus or this plane on this day with you on board. Anyone who boards a plane or bus believing they are 100% assured of reaching their destination safely is a fool.

Faith might be required if the pilots of the plane died and a passenger said, "I saw a film once where one of the passengers landed the plane safely. I'll give it a go." Other than that, faith has nothing to do with it.

Footnote: When flying Aeroflot on internal Russian flights and Homa (the domestic wing of Iran Air) in Iran, I had zero faith we wouldn't crash and an expectation of safety that was severely dented by the safety records of those airlines.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Which question again? I have a lot to reply to at the moment.
That's why I included my question in the post; but here it is again:

That God uses evolution to produce splits in those evolutionary branches is something we agree on. The question is, did that branching start with one origin point or with several? Either scenario accounts for the similarities, and ether scenario is consistent with divine providence. How shall we tell which is true?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
That's why I included my question in the post; but here it is again:

That God uses evolution to produce splits in those evolutionary branches is something we agree on. The question is, did that branching start with one origin point or with several? Either scenario accounts for the similarities, and ether scenario is consistent with divine providence. How shall we tell which is true?
Er, faith?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Okay.
(BTW I disagree with the quote from Christopher Hitchens, which implies that faith necessarily doesn't have evidence. Faith is not necessarily unreasonable either. When you take a bus or plane you have faith that the driver/piolets won't crash, you can't prove they won't.)
This is a Equivocation Fallacy. You are using different definitions of faith. The 'faith' in a plane or a bus is one based on the knowledge that bus companies and airlines constantly check their vehicles and the record demonstrates their safety. That is nothing like religious faith.
 
Upvote 0

Qwertyui0p

Active Member
Dec 20, 2019
266
71
40
New South Wales
✟33,804.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This is a Equivocation Fallacy. You are using different definitions of faith. The 'faith' in a plane or a bus is one based on the knowledge that bus companies and airlines constantly check their vehicles and the record demonstrates their safety. That is nothing like religious faith.
You have no reason to say that religious faith is necessarily unfounded. My belief is based on the historical event of Jesus' resurrection (Five reasons to believe Jesus rose from the dead - Adam4d.com) But this is off topic.
 
Upvote 0

Qwertyui0p

Active Member
Dec 20, 2019
266
71
40
New South Wales
✟33,804.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's why I included my question in the post; but here it is again:

That God uses evolution to produce splits in those evolutionary branches is something we agree on. The question is, did that branching start with one origin point or with several? Either scenario accounts for the similarities, and ether scenario is consistent with divine providence. How shall we tell which is true?
I don't agree that God uses evolution, because that would go against his nature.
“The problem that biological evolution poses for natural theologians is the sort of God that a Darwinian version of evolution implies … The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror … Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galápagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.”

—David Hull, The God of the Galápagos, Nature 352:485–86, 8 August 1991.

And also because the Bible says differently Genesis according to evolution - creation.com
And also because there're scientific problems with evolution. https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_2/j16_2_118-127.pdf
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You have no reason to say that religious faith is necessarily unfounded. My belief is based on the historical event of Jesus' resurrection (Five reasons to believe Jesus rose from the dead - Adam4d.com) But this is off topic.

Your reasons all fail. They are not historical. They all fail when investigated. When presenting a list the strongest evidence should be presented first. They presented "The Empty Tomb". That is a biblical claim, not a historical one. You won't find that anywhere in history. The rest fail for similar reasons.

Now there is nothing wrong with admitting that your beliefs are faith based, but one should present that belief honestly. It is not the same sort of "faith" as the faith in a plane or a bus. The beliefs are not supported by history.
 
Upvote 0

Qwertyui0p

Active Member
Dec 20, 2019
266
71
40
New South Wales
✟33,804.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That is not faith. That is a reasonable expectation based upon extensive statistical evidence and, for many, extensive personal experience. You don't know the plane or bus won't crash. Indeed, you do know that planes and buses do crash. But you also know that this is very unlikely to happen to this bus or this plane on this day with you on board. Anyone who boards a plane or bus believing they are 100% assured of reaching their destination safely is a fool.

Faith might be required if the pilots of the plane died and a passenger said, "I saw a film once where one of the passengers landed the plane safely. I'll give it a go." Other than that, faith has nothing to do with it.

Footnote: When flying Aeroflot on internal Russian flights and Homa (the domestic wing of Iran Air) in Iran, I had zero faith we wouldn't crash and an expectation of safety that was severely dented by the safety records of those airlines.
The definition of faith is 'great trust or confidence in something or someone' (FAITH | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary) and faith can be based on evidence or without evidence.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I don't agree that God uses evolution, because that would go against his nature.
“The problem that biological evolution poses for natural theologians is the sort of God that a Darwinian version of evolution implies … The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror … Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galápagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.”

—David Hull, The God of the Galápagos, Nature 352:485–86, 8 August 1991.

And also because the Bible says differently Genesis according to evolution - creation.com
And also because there're scientific problems with evolution. https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_2/j16_2_118-127.pdf
It took a while to find this article. And you should know better. Without even seeing it you should have heard alarm bells ringing. I am betting that your creationist sources did not provide a link to the original article. That tells you that your sources probably lied through quote mining. You did not lie yourself, but you are a party to it since you passed it on.

https://www.nature.com/articles/352485a0.pdf

Though this was in Nature it is not a peer reviewed article. It is a book review of a creationist book that did not like the fact of evolution. The review points out the endless flaws in the book. The quote lifted from it is merely how the fact of evolution is extremely worrisome to some Christians that accept evolution. You appear to be trying to tell God how he had to get life to its current state. Does that not smack more than just a little of blasphemy on your part?

At any rate here is the conclusion of the article:

"The questions that Johnson asks have been asked over and over again. Most have received very straight answers. Others are still moot. If any scientists have tried to keep these questions from being asked, they have failed miserably. Johnson's problem is that he does not like the answers that he hears. He wants evolutionary biologists to include reference to God in their professional writings in the way that he, I presume, does in his. If Johnson had written a religiously motivated criticism of thermodynamics, quantum theory or plate tectonics, it might have been worth reading, but I cannot imagine why anyone would want to read yet another rehash of creationist objections to evolutionary theory."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Qwertyui0p

Active Member
Dec 20, 2019
266
71
40
New South Wales
✟33,804.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That is not faith. That is a reasonable expectation based upon extensive statistical evidence and, for many, extensive personal experience. You don't know the plane or bus won't crash. Indeed, you do know that planes and buses do crash. But you also know that this is very unlikely to happen to this bus or this plane on this day with you on board. Anyone who boards a plane or bus believing they are 100% assured of reaching their destination safely is a fool.

Faith might be required if the pilots of the plane died and a passenger said, "I saw a film once where one of the passengers landed the plane safely. I'll give it a go." Other than that, faith has nothing to do with it.

Footnote: When flying Aeroflot on internal Russian flights and Homa (the domestic wing of Iran Air) in Iran, I had zero faith we wouldn't crash and an expectation of safety that was severely dented by the safety records of those airlines.
The definition of faith is 'complete trust or confidence in something' (FAITH | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary) and faith can be based on evidence or without evidence.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I don't agree that God uses evolution...
Then how do you account for speciation, which you agree occurs?
because that would go against his nature.
“The problem that biological evolution poses for natural theologians is the sort of God that a Darwinian version of evolution implies … The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror … Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galápagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.”

—David Hull, The God of the Galápagos, Nature 352:485–86, 8 August 1991.
LOL! I won't argue with any of of that--I'm not a Protestant. ;)

And also because the Bible says differently Genesis according to evolution - creation.com
Such sneering condescension towards Christians who don't require a literal reading of Genesis is offensive and entirely out of place here.
And also because there're scientific problems with evolution. https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_2/j16_2_118-127.pdf
Maybe so, but if you're going to quote an authority in support of that contention you would do better to find one without a PhD from a notorious diploma mill on his CV.
 
Upvote 0