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.
Someone close to me is a CSI and deals with evidence. Evolutionary scientists speculate on the basis of dead remains, where the evidence trail has gone cold and build elaborate theories based on patterns that they observe now.
What you call a nested hierarchy is just a pattern of similarity that you have made sense of with a theory. The theory fits but there is more likely a better one you haven't grasped yet as is often the case with scientific models. Its not about the facts here it is about the theory laden interpretative filters and concepts that you use to explain them and organise them.
In other words, there is no model, there are no predictions and there are no observations that could ever confirm or falsify your idea of a creating God. Whatever you call it, that's not science.
There are no observations that could confirm or falsify evolutionary theory either we are well past the time and to assume that what we see today will tell us the story is the mother of all unproven assumptions.
Science is what a CSI or a man in a lab does. Evolutionary theory is philosophers mouthing off opinions from their arm chairs
There are no observations that could confirm or falsify evolutionary theory either we are well past the time and to assume that what we see today will tell us the story is the mother of all unproven assumptions.
Science is what a CSI or a man in a lab does. Evolutionary theory is philosophers mouthing off opinions from their arm chairs
Yes, all this fanciful talk from armchairs in ivory towers! All they go on about are these magical computational machines that allow near-instant communication across the planet. Sheer poppycock, right?I have discussed the authority of scripture most of my life with atheists like yourself to PhD level and beyond and the bible has won through that. The historical criticism movement of the nineteenth century was a severe test and accompanied with the claims made about evolution gave a lot of Christian pause for thought. But the bible survived that test intact and there are more Christians than ever today despite more being martyred for its truthes in the last 100 years than in the 1900 before that.
We live in a world where the high priests of knowledge cannot prove the claims that they make so aggressively about our origins and yet continue to receive billions in funding for their socalled theories. Wishful thinking is indeed a feature of the modern world
There are no observations that could confirm or falsify evolutionary theory either . . .
we are well past the time and to assume that what we see today will tell us the story is the mother of all unproven assumptions.
Science is what a CSI or a man in a lab does.
Evolutionary theory is philosophers mouthing off opinions from their arm chairs
From evolutionary perspective I guess you are looking at functionality being the primary issue but from a design perspective this may be a matter of ascetics rather than functionality and also of character which would be much harder to quantify and predict within the scientific paradigm.
What a truly extraordinary thread this is!
It began, effectively, with this challenge from 'ThouShaltNotPoe':
"If you have a cogent argument, why won't any of you evolution-deniers address nested hierarchies in the ape and human genomes? Tell us how COMMON DESIGN can explain nested hierarchies".
After 15 pages, no-one on the evolutionist side of the argument has proved that such a thing as a 'nested hierarchy' actually exists in the created world (or world of nature to speak more neutrally).
I think what 'ThouShaltNotPoe' and 'Loudmouth' are trying to say is that something like this is a nested hierarchy:
Common ancestor of apes & man > australopitchecines > ape-men > homo erectus > homo habilis > home neanderthalensis > homo sapiens.
Or something like that (these cladograms change from time to time anyway).
The theory that this, or something like it, is a 'nested hierarchy', assumes that the allegedly gradual transition from a common ancestor of apes and man to today's homo sapiens has actually happened. That simply cannot be demonstrated.
Indeed, all the evidence goes the other way.
The total absence of genuine 'missing links' is powerful evidence against evolution.
The facts of biology are also against the theory of evolution; no new DNA information can be transmitted to the next generation, except for mutations, which, as must be admitted by the evolutionists here, are corrupted data and not a mechanism for improvement.
The argument of 'ThouShaltNotPoe' and 'Loudmouth' boils down to:
"LOOK! Here is a nested hierarchy. Evolution explains it; creationism doesn't".
There is a simple problem with this argument.
There is no actual evidence of a nested hierarchy. It is merely a hypothesis, and one that should be rejected because the evidence doesn't support it.
One fascinating thing about this thread is that no actual examples of a 'nested hierarchy' have been given, except the very vague 'apes to humans'.
And yet, if evolution were true, EVERY SINGLE animal, plant, bird, insect, mammal, reptile, amphibian, fish or other creature would - axiomatically - be part of a nested hierarchy.
So where are all these 'nested hierarchies'?
Let's look to give just one example at the caterpillar > butterfly > caterpillar miracle.
What so-called 'nested hierarchy' does this magnificent creature fall into?
It doesn't, of course. It is gloriously unique, and with the most wonderful design features, if only your blindness didn't prevent you seeing this wonder of design.
It is so sad to see these attempts to back up a theory - evolution - with all the facts stacked against it.
It is because of sin.
Some of us have had the great good fortune to have been allowed to understand the truth about our existence, namely that the world and the universe and everything in it was created by God - a world in which, however, we have brought death and ruin by our rebellion against Him.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to earth, died and rose again to bring forgiveness of sins.
So long as we reject Him, we will keep clinging on to desperate theories like evolution as a rationalisation for avoiding Him.
We can stop here. Can you figure out your own misunderstanding here, or do you need help.What a truly extraordinary thread this is!
It began, effectively, with this challenge from 'ThouShaltNotPoe':
"If you have a cogent argument, why won't any of you evolution-deniers address nested hierarchies in the ape and human genomes? Tell us how COMMON DESIGN can explain nested hierarchies".
After 15 pages, no-one on the evolutionist side of the argument has proved that such a thing as a 'nested hierarchy' actually exists in the created world (or world of nature to speak more neutrally).
I think what 'ThouShaltNotPoe' and 'Loudmouth' are trying to say is that something like this is a nested hierarchy:
Common ancestor of apes & man > australopitchecines > ape-men > homo erectus > homo habilis > home neanderthalensis > homo sapiens.
Or something like that (these cladograms change from time to time anyway).
The theory that this, or something like it, is a 'nested hierarchy', assumes that the allegedly gradual transition from a common ancestor of apes and man to today's homo sapiens has actually happened. That simply cannot be demonstrated.
Simply astonishing. Have you ever stepped foot in a biology lab? Are you really unaware that biologists all over use evolution in their studies, and that they also spend an awful lot of time in the lab? Have you ever even read a scientific paper?Science is what a CSI or a man in a lab does. Evolutionary theory is philosophers mouthing off opinions from their arm chairs
In other words, there is no model, there are no predictions and there are no observations that could ever confirm or falsify your idea of a creating God. Whatever you call it, that's not science.
That's fine. But, you are talking to scientists who do science and science doesn't work that way. In other words, they can't resort to the supernatural in order to explain the observations. By its very definition, the supernatural is outside the bounds of science. They only have the physical and natural laws to work with.
Sure, there is more to life than just materially living our lives. This does not mean that we cannot explain life as arising through purely material means. At best, we don't know whether this is the case or not. So far, all attempts to point to the thing that sets (conscious) life apart from all other things in the universe have failed.Nothing could falsify the existence of God- TRUE. But the real question is whether or not my assumptions work better or not in explaining the evidence. Even atheistic thinkers like Thomas Nagel think a purely materialistic approach is inadequate in explaining the formation of consciousness etc. I know that there is more to our existence than just the material by which you try and label our existence as do the vast majority of the worlds population regardless of religious position, including many scientists. These non material realities have a bearing on such issues as the formation of life and it is dishonest and in the end bad science to exclude them by definition.
As for falsification, a bunny in the Precambrian would do.
I don't know what to say at this point.
All of biology is predicated on ToE. It is one of the most robust scientific theories with Mt. Everest sized evidence to support it. I can only assume you're trolling at this point. I see no value in discussing this further with you.
Yes there are. Strong violations of the nested hierarchy would do the trick. Fossils of mammals or birds in cambrian layers would do as well. Falsification of mutations or natural selection would also work. The list of potential falsifications go on and on.
Yes, all this fanciful talk from armchairs in ivory towers! All they go on about are these magical computational machines that allow near-instant communication across the planet. Sheer poppycock, right?
Including the reality of a God who is able to raise the dead, create out of nothing and in human form walk on water and encourage others to do so also.
Yes, there are. We have been talking about them this entire thread. Observations of a nested hierarchy confirms the theory of evolution while numerous and gross violations of the nested hierarchy would falsify it.
Why can't we use evidence in the presence to test hypotheses of what happened in the past?
And just like a crime scene investigator, we use evidence in the present to reconstruct what happened in the past. We even use DNA fingerprinting to determine common ancestry just like a forensic scientist does. Science is exactly what we are doing.
Not even. It is scientists doing real science.
So the creator just made it look like animals evolved just because he liked the way it looked? Your posts are getting very preposterous.
Even more, vestigial organs fall into a nested hierarchy. We never see fish with vestigial hair, birds with vestigial teats, or mammals with vestigial feathers. Why is that?
What a truly extraordinary thread this is!
It began, effectively, with this challenge from 'ThouShaltNotPoe':
"If you have a cogent argument, why won't any of you evolution-deniers address nested hierarchies in the ape and human genomes? Tell us how COMMON DESIGN can explain nested hierarchies".
After 15 pages, no-one on the evolutionist side of the argument has proved that such a thing as a 'nested hierarchy' actually exists in the created world (or world of nature to speak more neutrally).
I think what 'ThouShaltNotPoe' and 'Loudmouth' are trying to say is that something like this is a nested hierarchy:
Common ancestor of apes & man > australopitchecines > ape-men > homo erectus > homo habilis > home neanderthalensis > homo sapiens.
Or something like that (these cladograms change from time to time anyway).
The theory that this, or something like it, is a 'nested hierarchy', assumes that the allegedly gradual transition from a common ancestor of apes and man to today's homo sapiens has actually happened. That simply cannot be demonstrated.
Indeed, all the evidence goes the other way.
The total absence of genuine 'missing links' is powerful evidence against evolution.
The facts of biology are also against the theory of evolution; no new DNA information can be transmitted to the next generation, except for mutations, which, as must be admitted by the evolutionists here, are corrupted data and not a mechanism for improvement.
The argument of 'ThouShaltNotPoe' and 'Loudmouth' boils down to:
"LOOK! Here is a nested hierarchy. Evolution explains it; creationism doesn't".
There is a simple problem with this argument.
There is no actual evidence of a nested hierarchy. It is merely a hypothesis, and one that should be rejected because the evidence doesn't support it.
One fascinating thing about this thread is that no actual examples of a 'nested hierarchy' have been given, except the very vague 'apes to humans'.
And yet, if evolution were true, EVERY SINGLE animal, plant, bird, insect, mammal, reptile, amphibian, fish or other creature would - axiomatically - be part of a nested hierarchy.
So where are all these 'nested hierarchies'?
Let's look to give just one example at the caterpillar > butterfly > caterpillar miracle.
What so-called 'nested hierarchy' does this magnificent creature fall into?
It doesn't, of course. It is gloriously unique, and with the most wonderful design features, if only your blindness didn't prevent you seeing this wonder of design.
It is so sad to see these attempts to back up a theory - evolution - with all the facts stacked against it.
It is because of sin.
Some of us have had the great good fortune to have been allowed to understand the truth about our existence, namely that the world and the universe and everything in it was created by God - a world in which, however, we have brought death and ruin by our rebellion against Him.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to earth, died and rose again to bring forgiveness of sins.
So long as we reject Him, we will keep clinging on to desperate theories like evolution as a rationalisation for avoiding Him.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?