Behold the Terrible Lizard!

[Shemjaza]

10 years ago I was working for an international development charity whilst at a conference I was sat at a table for Lunch, usual crap sat with strangers:

One person asked a priest, "So what do we do to keep our communities Christian"
Priests states "Don't educate them too much."

Problem for that priest is the only way to get those countries out of the cycle of poverty is to educate them. I know it, I'd guess you know it, that priest knew it and more importantly the people of those countries know it.

And we all know more education means more knowledge, more rational thinking and every country which has this has moved away from religion.

There's a certain superpower that demonstrates that exceptions can occur.

 

[Heissonear]

Who needs God when you have the wonders of Evolution,

I recall when I first learned about Evolution, 10 years old and a 1 hour class changed everything for me, not just explaining how we got here but the concept that you don't need a complex thing to make a complex thing. There is a system that removes the need for a designer, and if we can find one such system do more systems exist.

Below Archaeopteryx. Funny story about a guy who owned one the first Archaeopteryx fossil, Writing "If evolution is true then you'd see a link creature" I like to think that the Fossil was on his desk whilst he wrote this!

View attachment 219903

If you think the change from Dinosaurs to Birds is mind blowing then look looking at how Whales evolved from Dog like mammals.

Like it or not Evolution killed God, it may take 100s of years to finish but it was a deathblow never the less. Not because of evolution itself but because there exists a system were simple things can go on to create complex things. And the Theists hypothesis centres around, not proof, but a need for a God to exist, to create complex things - no more need, no more God.

No, in Modern Times some have made Science an idol. And have fallen by Speculation and Faith in Evolution.

It would have been best to let the Lord lead, bring things before Him to seek conclusions on.

Many now are fallen away from Him who works within, and guides into Truth.

 

[Shemjaza]

No, in Modern Times some have made Science an idol. And have fallen by Speculation and Faith in Evolution.

It would have been best to let the Lord lead, bring things before Him to seek conclusions on.

Many now are fallen away from Him who works within, and guides into Truth.

View attachment 219980

View attachment 219984

I don't fully agree with Rivga's points, but this is a completely unsatisfactory response.

You believe the Bible is true, the Bible says that it is true and that you can know this because your believe it.

I've read the Bible and I don't feel it is true. Now neither of us has any objective evidence to draw upon.

You need better revised then just "I feel".

 

[Rivga]

No, in Modern Times some have made Science an idol. And have fallen by Speculation and Faith in Evolution.

It would have been best to let the Lord lead, bring things before Him to seek conclusions on.

Many now are fallen away from Him who works within, and guides into Truth.

To be clear which definition of Faith are you talking about?
1) complete trust or confidence in someone or something
2) strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

And to be clear what definition are you assigning to Evolution.

Because evolution is a fact - we have witnessed it first hand in species with quick generational turnover. We have witnessed new species of E.coli evolve over time. Fossil records showing clear snap shots of evolution, so clear that I watched a class of 5 year olds get it.

Now the theory bit, the Theory of Evolution refers to Natural selection, the mechanism which drives evolution.
Again definitions are important here a Theory (as there are two definitions of the word theory - we refer to the Scientific theory):

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

A scientific theory is the highest point for a set of ideas it gets no higher than this no matter how much more proof is piled on.
It has essentially met its burden of proof, and lets go further here no theory in the history of the world has been attacked more or had more resources and money spent on disproving it. So far all attacks and resources have only strengthened Darwin's theory.

Speculation - you don't get to be a theory with speculation, the evidence is simply overwhelming.

Conversely theists have a hypothesis - God, and no Hypothesis in the history of the world has had the amount of resources, best and brightest of history researching it and money thrown at it. And I am being kind here, it remains as unproven and as unlikely as when it was first dreamed up.

 

[AV1611VET]

Worth bumping, in light of a conversation currently in progress:

Behold the terrible lizard!

 

[Shemjaza]

Worth bumping, in light of a conversation currently in progress:

It's really not much of a point. "Some birds are very small and cute and so it's hard to imagine them being related to dinosaurs."

Birds are structured in a similar way to theropod dinosaurs and they have atavistic genes for non bird traits like maws and teeth.

There are clear transitional species like Archaeopteryx which is additional evidence for the relationship with modern birds and extinct dinosaurs.

As an example from another branch of life... a chiwawa is effectively the same species as a timber wolf.

 

[JacksBratt]

It's really not much of a point. "Some birds are very small and cute and so it's hard to imagine them being related to dinosaurs."

Birds are structured in a similar way to theropod dinosaurs and they have atavistic genes for non bird traits like maws and teeth.

There are clear transitional species like Archaeopteryx which is additional evidence for the relationship with modern birds and extinct dinosaurs.

As an example from another branch of life... a chiwawa is effectively the same species as a timber wolf.

You know what... every single car.. has a steering wheel.. but.. are different manufacturers...

Seems like when something works well ... it gets used in many models and makes....

Just like the similarities in all of God's creation...


No proof of evolution.. just proof of a designer.

 

[Speedwell]

You know what... every single car.. has a steering wheel.. but.. are different manufacturers...

Seems like when something works well ... it gets used in many models and makes....

Just like the similarities in all of God's creation...


No proof of evolution.. just proof of a designer.

The patterns of similarities being referred to is an observation, not "proof." The theory of evolution provides us with an explanation of that observation. "Design" does not.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know what... every single car.. has a steering wheel.. but.. are different manufacturers...

Seems like when something works well ... it gets used in many models and makes....

Just like the similarities in all of God's creation...


No proof of evolution.. just proof of a designer.

The $64.00 term for this, JB, is: ontological reduction.

A term that is truly an evolutionist's nightmare.

And they WILL NOT discuss it.

Can't say as I blame them either.

 

[AV1611VET]

The theory of evolution provides us with an explanation of that observation.

Only on paper.

"Design" does not.

Actually it does.

Do you know what a template is?

 

[Speedwell]

The $64.00 term for this, JB, is: ontological reduction.

A term that is truly an evolutionist's nightmare.

And they WILL NOT discuss it.

Can't say as I blame them either.

Why is it a nightmare? In fact, methodological reductionism is at the heart of all of the sciences, not just the one's you don't like.

 

[Speedwell]

Actually it does.

Well, don't be coy. We've been asking for that explanation for years.

Do you know what a template is?

Yes. Can you show us one?

 

[JacksBratt]

The patterns of similarities being referred to is an observation, not "proof." The theory of evolution provides us with an explanation of that observation. "Design" does not.

Evolution is a theory......

 

[Speedwell]

Evolution is a theory......

Yes, the theory of evolution is a theory which is intended to explain the fact of evolution. How does "design" explain that fact?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. Can you show us one?

Sure.

With, of course, the exception of the synthetic elements, God created these atoms as "snap-on parts" to come together in different ways to do different things.

On a much larger level, He used combinations of atoms as "snap-on parts" for different reasons.

Take a dinosaur, snap on a coccyx, snap on a tail, and voila: T. rex.

Take a man, snap on a coccyx, and it serves some purpose that apparently myopic science can't find.

So they just connect-the-dots and call it evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, the theory of evolution is a theory which is intended to explain the fact of evolution.

Only on paper.

How does "design" explain that fact?

Ontological ... (not your "methodological") ... reduction.

 

[Speedwell]

Sure.

With, of course, the exception of the synthetic elements, God created these atoms as "snap-on parts" to come together in different ways to do different things.

On a much larger level, He used combinations of atoms as "snap-on parts" for different reasons.

Take a dinosaur, snap on a coccyx, snap on a tail, and voila: T. rex.

Take a man, snap on a coccyx, and it serves some purpose that apparently myopic science can't find.

So they just connect-the-dots and call it evolution.

A classic example of reductionism. But why should evolution be afraid of reductionism and not want to talk about it? The theory of evolution is reductionist as well, with the added advantage that it explains how God assembled His snap-on parts, something "design" has utterly failed to do.

 

[AV1611VET]

A classic example of reductionism. But why should evolution be afraid of reductionism and not want to talk about it?

Because, according to evolution, the snap-on parts were daisy-chained before Adam showed up.

But according to Genesis 1, the snap-on parts were not daisy-chained: they came into existence at a moment's notice at God's command.

 

[Speedwell]

Because, according to evolution, the snap-on parts were daisy-chained before Adam showed up.

But according to Genesis 1, the snap-on parts were not daisy-chained: they came into existence at a moment's notice at God's command.

Correct, "according to Genesis." Which explains completely what this discussion forum is about--not about the existence of God or His authorship of our being, but about how to read an ancient Hebrew religious text.

 

[AV1611VET]

Correct, "according to Genesis." Which explains completely what this discussion forum is about--not about the existence of God or His authorship of our being, but about how to read an ancient Hebrew religious text.

This thread is about your "terrible lizard."