Now I am older, I have made my mind over and have decided to believe in God. This belief does not take away my intelligence. But does narrow what I will believe. I have decided not to believe evolution just like you may choose to not believe any religion.
False analogy. Evolution is accepted because it is supported by more evidence than any other theory in the history of science. What evidence can you provide for the claims of you religion?
Both will change the way one thinks and views the world. A logical person than will try to rationalize their reality despite opposition and come to a conclusion that will fit their point of view. So yes it does reinforce my belief in God. Some of the physical evidence is way out on a limb also. With just enough holes to make it real or not real. It than comes to an individual choice. My choice is I see the holes in evolution and look for them. You may look at religion the sameway.
Again, false analogy. Evolution is not a world view. It is a scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth. That's it. Not a religion, not an answer to life-the-universe-and-everything, not a moral code.
I see the scientific data. It is a very feasible theory . It really is. I get that. I try to look at it all in one bundle. Earth, weather, animals, plants, universe, and even the bible. Plus certain things that have happened in my life. It just makes me know there is a God.
Fine. Evolution does not say whether or not there are gods.
I don't believe in this ID theory either. I believe in a solitary individual God Jehovah.
That pretty much puts you in the ID camp. It isn't a theory, by the way, nor even a hypothesis. Those require that an idea be testable and provide predictive and explanatory power.
No I do. I have chosen not to believe them.
No, you don't, and I'll tell you why. You casually refer to evolution as "random chance", ignoring the decidedly nonrandom element of selection. In the examples you bring up, you pretend all the "parts" had to appear together and in their present form. Take the blackberry, for example. Anyone who understood how evolution worked would look at other plants and their seed propagation strategies to see how they evolved. When plants were all alone on land, adding food stores to them would make them hardier. When animals come along they start taking advantage of the "free meal"- and those plants whose seeds survive their digestive tract get the added benefit of transportation. At this point plants whose seeds survive or mature in animals' digestive tracts have an advantage, particularly if they can make their seed packages more attractive to animals. Scientific explanations like this provide real explanatory power that "Goddidit" simply can never match.
That is a good article. What remains though, is the scientific community has not decided yet if a virus is alive or not. Is fire alive? It moves, breaths, eats, makes waste, reproduces, dies and can be killed.
Fire involves no encapsulation and no identifiable individuals. Viruses do, but are often not considered alive because they lack their own metabolism.
I was aware of the other flies and their cycles. But the biggest one is the 17 year cycle. That is why I choose that one. Plus I may not have all the facts right. But you see my thoughts on the matter (God provides for his forests) you don't have to agree. I will always give the praise and glory to God.
It's not just that I disagree- the important thing is that I have very good
reasons for disagreeing. Most forests get by just fine without cicadas. If fertilization is required, 17 years is too long to go between cycles. Cicadas' sole food source is the trees they supposedly fertilize. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul. Net additional nutrition = zero.
I have seen the explanations and attempts at explaining how they evolved. I don't believe it. That simple. Just as you may not believe in religion. That simple.
False analogy again. I accept evolution because of the evidence; Religion doesn't have any. You have not
once offered a
reason for not accepting evolution other than personal incredulity. Sheer bullheadedness is not a logical argument.
As far as their nitrogen it is my understanding that they are really high in it. Higher levels than other creatures. Not sure on this one. I saw a National Geographic documentary on them and can't remember everything they said. But I know they were talking about the nitrogen in them.
Can you provide a citation for this? Besides, cicadas' only food source is the trees themselves. Even if they absorbed nitrogen from the soil, they're just stealing it from the same source the roots are trying to get it from. Net benefit to the trees is zero.
I have not fertilized my yard in 5 years. Green and thick as ever. over fertilized lawns are weak lawns. Shallow roots. They may look good. The plant will get addicted to it and keeps its roots close to the top to absorb it faster. If you have been using a company like True Green. Your lawn is a crack addict. Cut off the service and your lawn will die. They know that. People will stop their yard treatment and it starts to look bad. So they start it up again. If people would mow more and feed less the roots go deep and the lawn is super healthy. My father is a greens keeper on a golf course. They fertilized once a year. Not 7 times a year like True Green.
Once a year? Not once every 17, with massive quantities? I wonder why that would be!
No I never said you were wrong. I don't believe the theory. As you don't believe religion.
No, I don't believe in religion because it makes bundles of fantastical claims with zero evidence, then tells me only bad people doubt.
So far you have offered no reason not to accept evolution other than sheer denial.
The problem with that is, the universe did not come from nothing. There is a lot of people wondering where all the raw materials come from.
This has nothing to do with Evolution. You've segwayed into cosmology. Suffice it to say, if God can come from nothing, then so too can the universe. Simply cut out the middleman.
For instance. Where does gold come from.
Nuclear fusion inside stars. Now we're on to stellar mechanics and nuclear physics, are we?
Still not evolution.
The big bang does not explain where an element came into existence. It had to exist before the big bang. The big bang just made it all pull together. But doesn't explain spontaneous element creation.
Back to cosmology again. The big bang didn't pull anything together. It was the rapid expansion of space itself, together with all the matter and energy of the universe, from a very hot and dense state. Elements came later.
Gold came from somewhere. What made it.
Stars.
What made dirt? Where did dirt come from? The big bang does not explain this.
Dirt is mostly sand, clay and humus. Sand and clay come from the weathering of rock. Humus comes from the decay of biological material. This is basic pedology, which again is not evolution.
As for God. He never said he came from nothing. He does say before him there was no one.
Maybe some day he will explain it to us. Right now we accept what he says from the dawn of time he has always been.
Why not just cut out the middleman and say the universe has existed since the dawn of time?
Thank you. I know what I believe may sound silly to an evo person. But what evo people say sounds silly to me. If an evo dude was giving a speech in a church who would sound silly to who. It would sound pretty stupid to the people in the church. When I am around my own, it does not sound stupid nor feel that way. I am sure the same is for you. Really it just comes down to what you have made your mind up to.
Wrong. This is not a popularity contest. It is not a matter of personal preference. The evidence of the physical world has given us a clear picture of the mechanisms that brought about the observed diversity of life on earth. You can stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and deny it, but don't pretend that's as valid as the careful inquiry of scientists into the question.
