evolution and the bible don't mix

[idscience]

And here is why:

Evolution is an undirected blind process. Undirected means God had no hand in it. The evolutionist will not accept any divine guidance
Bible states clearly every thing was made unto it's kind. Fish have always been fish, man has always been man.

You cannot co-mingle the two without betraying them both. IF you decide to just believe parts of the bible, or interpret what you want. How can you be sure you are not in error. Bible tells us sin came before death. Evolution theory has a lot of death before Adam and Eve sinned.

Also, evolution is not the all unifying concept accepted by all science. There are many problems with the hypothesis of common ancestry. Discoveries in genetics is proving to be problematic for the Neo-Darwinian model. There is a lot of information on my site. You can find it on my avatar. I don't have enough posts to list it here.

 

[Elendur]

You cannot co-mingle the two without betraying them both. IF you decide to just believe parts of the bible, or interpret what you want. How can you be sure you are not in error. Bible tells us sin came before death. Evolution theory has a lot of death before Adam and Eve sinned.

1. Assume induction is possible.

2. Assume data can be collected and treated equally from all information-nodes.

3. Assume data can be true or false.

4. Collect data

5. Categorize the data into groups of your choosing in order to find patterns.

6. Draw a conclusion based on a appropriate number of data, preferable as much data in as few groups as possible.

7. If data in certain groups are found to have a higher rate of not lining up with other given data, examine that data in order to try and determine whether it can be rejected or confirmed.

8. Reform the conclusion if the conclusion is falsified by confirmed data.

9. Repeat steps 4-9.
_____________________________________________________________

This is my model of information.

I treat the bible as an information-node. An information-node who happens to have a higher rate of non-aligning data. Some (if not much/all) of the data acquired from the bible is not possible to reject through direct testing since it covers a lot of immaterial claims along with allegories.
Equally, it is not possible to confirm the data.
Therefore I have decided to ignore that group of data since it fits poorly into the rest of the data. Until new data is added to that group I will not change my opinion.

"How can you be sure you are not in error."
We cannot, but you cannot be sure you are correct either.

"Bible tells us sin came before death. Evolution theory has a lot of death before Adam and Eve sinned."
A few data points to that the sin came before death, a lot of data points to there being death long before that.

 

[USincognito]

Also, evolution is not the all unifying concept accepted by all science. There are many problems with the hypothesis of common ancestry. Discoveries in genetics is proving to be problematic for the Neo-Darwinian model. There is a lot of information on my site. You can find it on my avatar. I don't have enough posts to list it here.

How about you give a few talking/bullet points before I generate any traffic on your page?

 

[Blayz]

And here is why:

Evolution is an undirected blind process. Undirected means God had no hand in it. The evolutionist will not accept any divine guidance

It's against forum rules to call Christians non Christians. Given that theistic evolutionists exist, I suggest you repent or expect your stay here to be short.

Also, evolution is not the all unifying concept accepted by all science.

Quite true. Theoretical physics and meteorology are two sciences I can think of for which evolution is not a unifying concept.

There are many problems with the hypothesis of common ancestry.

No there are not.

Discoveries in genetics is proving to be problematic for the Neo-Darwinian model.

No they are not.

There is a lot of information on my site. You can find it on my avatar. I don't have enough posts to list it here.

Chances are slim. Your website does not deserve my traffic if this post is anything to go by.

 

[Blayz]

1. Assume induction is possible.

Umm... OK

2. Assume

data can be collected and treated equally from all information-nodes.

What the heck is an information-node?

3. Assume data can be true or false.

And thus ignore both continuous and categorical data. Hmm. I think not.

4. Collect data

1/4 aint bad.

5. Categorize the data into groups of your choosing in order to find patterns.

Define categories before you collect your data as a part of the experimental design to avoid bias. Because if you categorize afterwards, I guarantee you'll get some patterns.

6. Draw a conclusion based on a appropriate number of data, preferable as much data in as few groups as possible.

Why as few groups as possible?

7. If data in certain groups are found to have a higher rate of not lining up with other given data, examine that data in order to try and determine whether it can be rejected or confirmed.

Interesting. Which statistical test do you favour for determining distribution fits of categorical data? I am eager to know your answer.

This is my model of information.

Your model needs alot of work.

 

[Elendur]

What the heck is an information-node?

What I define as an information-node is anything you can extract data from, by observing in any way.
I define data as information.
An example is by looking at a house (simple model, more data can be extracted in real life) I can extract the data:
The house has a door(s).
The house has four walls.
The house has a window.

And thus ignore both continuous and categorical data. Hmm. I think not.

Now that I think of it, I'm not entirely sure how to define the false data. I was planning on how to describe how someone can make a false claim.
Perhaps I should separate claims and data. (Writing it makes it sound obvious...)

1/4 aint bad.

Define categories before you collect your data as a part of the experimental design to avoid bias. Because if you categorize afterwards, I guarantee you'll get some patterns.

I didn't think of that, that needs to be changed as well...

Why as few groups as possible?

I was simply trying to reduce the variables. (I am mostly interested in math, maybe that's why I'm trying to make it as basic as possible)

Interesting. Which statistical test do you favour for determining distribution fits of categorical data? I am eager to know your answer.

I was using this point to weed out the false data (which I should have defined as false claims) that could occur.
I was thinking if I wrote a note that said:
"The sky is always green."
"Grass is always blue."
"I am 63 feet tall."
"I am a human."
"2 world was was 1942."
Given the high frequency of false claims (my previous false data) one could disregard that note (that note being a group of data).

But as I have to redefine data this point needs a lot of work, if not scrapping it entirely.

Your model needs alot of work.

It looked so good before you poked a hole in it, a sincere thanks! This is what I love about discussing, being wrong (although it may sound weird).

 

[KhaosTheory]

Bible states clearly every thing was made unto it's kind. Fish have always been fish, man has always been man.

Define "kind" please. Actually... I'll keep it simple: Draw me a line on this chart showing where the line between "kinds" are please.

I think the underlying problem is that creationists think the evolutionary tree of life is abruptly punctuated with animals suddenly mutating into another type of animal: this is why they reject evolution...

However, this is NOT evolution at all... Evolution is fluid. There is no fine line between any organism and it's predecessors or decedents...

In fact, the whole category system we've imposed on life: phyla, genus, species, etc... is essentially MEANINGLESS! It's just there to make it more simple for us to understand... It's really nothing much than an arbitrary classification system, but creationists somehow think it's a system of clear, definite boundaries... which is clearly isn't and never was intended to be.

 

[Blayz]

What I define as an information-node is anything you can extract data from, by observing in any way.

So. The universe then. Not...especially useful, really.

I define data as information.

That's not really helping either.

I was simply trying to reduce the variables. (I am mostly interested in math, maybe that's why I'm trying to make it as basic as possible)

Perhaps you should try principal component analysis, reduce the dimensionality of your data into orthogonal variables which explain most of the variance. K-means or complete linkage/euclidean distance hierarchical clustering might also help.

It looked so good before you poked a hole in it, a sincere thanks! This is what I love about discussing, being wrong (although it may sound weird).

To be honest, most of what you have written is incoherent, a jumble of circular reasoning and meaningless boolean logic.

 

[Jazer]

And here is why:

Evolution is an undirected blind process. Undirected means God had no hand in it.

You maybe an atheist but science is not atheistic. Science is agnostic. They can not say if there is or is not a God. They can not say if God does or does not direct evolution. There are lots of people that accept science and religion and no not see any conflict at all. Sometimes they even work together. For example science will make weapons for religious people to fight wars with each other. But usually different countries supply the weapons, IE Russia, China & USA are major weapon provides.

Getting back to the topic. Any scientiest should have a bible for reference. So the Bible and Evolution does mix. There are universal truths in the Bible and that can help the scientiest when he is seeking for the laws of the universe and how those laws work.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

And here is why:

Evolution is an undirected blind process. Undirected means God had no hand in it. The evolutionist will not accept any divine guidance
Bible states clearly every thing was made unto it's kind. Fish have always been fish, man has always been man.

You cannot co-mingle the two without betraying them both. IF you decide to just believe parts of the bible, or interpret what you want. How can you be sure you are not in error. Bible tells us sin came before death. Evolution theory has a lot of death before Adam and Eve sinned.

Also, evolution is not the all unifying concept accepted by all science. There are many problems with the hypothesis of common ancestry. Discoveries in genetics is proving to be problematic for the Neo-Darwinian model. There is a lot of information on my site. You can find it on my avatar. I don't have enough posts to list it here.

Well, I think you're wrong, and here's why.

Everything you listed is false.

 

[pgp_protector]

evolution and the bible don't mix

Might be better as
"my understanding of evolution and my interpretation of the bible don't mix"

 

[KhaosTheory]

Might be better as
"my understanding of evolution and my interpretation of the bible don't mix"

Well said...

I'd like to invite all creationist to watch this:
Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism - YouTube

 

[Elendur]

So. The universe then. Not...especially useful, really.

I don't really know about that, the universe and it's subsets. You could say the whole universe but it would ease if you would narrow it down to a subset. The definition is there to not exclude anything, since excluding anything would make it more flawed than it is.

That's not really helping either.

Ok. Data = Facts.

1.Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2. a.Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.
b.A real occurrence; an event.

Perhaps you should try principal component analysis, reduce the dimensionality of your data into orthogonal variables which explain most of the variance. K-means or complete linkage/euclidean distance hierarchical clustering might also help.

I read a bit of that now and I haven't studied anything near as practical as that. Make no mistake, I aim to and I like what I'm reading.
It would most definetly help in many cases but I'm not entirely sure how to use it on something less mathematical.

To be honest, most of what you have written is incoherent, a jumble of circular reasoning and meaningless boolean logic.

I was just trying out a generic (universal) model (that I hoped would be less inaccurate) in order to make a point of not weighting (saying some data weigh more heavily than others) data (that I had wrongly defined as both facts and claims).

If I have applied circular reasoning please let me know where, but note that I have agreed to my original model being wrong on many points (making it an object for major rewrite).

I hope I didn't make myself look like a fool in the attempt.

 

[idscience]

It's against forum rules to call Christians non Christians. Given that theistic evolutionists exist, I suggest you repent or expect your stay here to be short.

Quite true. Theoretical physics and meteorology are two sciences I can think of for which evolution is not a unifying concept.

No there are not.

No they are not.

Chances are slim. Your website does not deserve my traffic if this post is anything to go by.

If opinion is not welcome here I guess my stay will be short. I am more than willing to engage in disscussion on theistic evolution. I don't hold that it is supported by biblical text.

As far as you not visiting my site. I am ok with that.

 

[CabVet]

If opinion is not welcome here I guess my stay will be short. I am more than willing to engage in disscussion on theistic evolution. I don't hold that it is supported by biblical text.

As far as you not visiting my site. I am ok with that.

How about we start the discussion with your user name then. My opinion is that it is wrong, since intelligent design is not science, much like creationism is not science.

 

[idscience]

Define "kind" please. Actually... I'll keep it simple: Draw me a line on this chart showing where the line between "kinds" are please.

I think the underlying problem is that creationists think the evolutionary tree of life is abruptly punctuated with animals suddenly mutating into another type of animal: this is why they reject evolution...

However, this is NOT evolution at all... Evolution is fluid. There is no fine line between any organism and it's predecessors or decedents...

In fact, the whole category system we've imposed on life: phyla, genus, species, etc... is essentially MEANINGLESS! It's just there to make it more simple for us to understand... It's really nothing much than an arbitrary classification system, but creationists somehow think it's a system of clear, definite boundaries... which is clearly isn't and never was intended to be.

If you would like to go into detail regarding evidence for intelligence and for common ancestry I would be happy to engage in that with you. I will start another thread called Common Design, or Common descent. We can go over as many points as you wish. I was using "kind" in a biblical quote, Science doesn't use that word anymore.

There certainly are not a smooth record of organisms, in fact the phyolenetic tree is falling apart in addition to missing fossils. Identifying relationship by fossil comparative studies is also subjective and routinely wrong. what was thought to be successive branch of descendants in the fossil record is not what the genome trees are producing. Many of the data are in conflict. Not only that but trees dirived from DNA conflict with trees from RNA. It is going all over the place.

That being said. I am happy to discuss is a friendly mannor the strengths and weaknesses of both intelligent design and common descent/common ancestry.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

If you would like to go into detail regarding evidence for intelligence and for common ancestry I would be happy to engage in that with you. I will start another thread called Common Design, or Common descent. We can go over as many points as you wish. I was using "kind" in a biblical quote, Science doesn't use that word anymore.

There certainly are not a smooth record of organisms, in fact the phyolenetic tree is falling apart in addition to missing fossils. Identifying relationship by fossil comparative studies is also subjective and routinely wrong. what was thought to be successive branch of descendants in the fossil record is not what the genome trees are producing. Many of the data are in conflict. Not only that but trees dirived from DNA conflict with trees from RNA. It is going all over the place.

That being said. I am happy to discuss is a friendly mannor the strengths and weaknesses of both intelligent design and common descent/common ancestry.

Unless you're willing to source these ridiculous assertions, you'll understand if I don't accept them.

As for ID and cdesignproponentsists, nothing more than "creationism in a cheap tuxedo."

 

[idscience]

Well said...

I'd like to invite all creationist to watch this:

Some of that vid is pretty funny.
The assumptions abound though. As for genes for teeth and legs in whales and chickens, he is wrong in assuming it makes no sense for design. Genome research is showing the same genes code for different structures in different animals. It makes perfect sense that a designer would use similar instruction code for all life. Similar to computer programs. Light version are simply the same program with features turned off.

The fossil record show sudden apprearnce of body plans in the Cambrian explostion. Almost all forms of life are present all at the same time. Evolution cannot explain this even though they have been trying since Darwin.

His tree was awful simple. That is not the state of the phyotgenetic tree today. In fact many have called for it to be discarded all together. It is full of confliction between fossil and genetic information.

Until I can post links I am unable to cite sources.

There are many more examples.

​

Researchers say although for much of the past 150 years biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree it is now obsolete and needs to be discarded.
Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, said: "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality."

 

[idscience]

Unless you're willing to source these ridiculous assertions, you'll understand if I don't accept them.

As for ID and cdesignproponentsists, nothing more than "creationism in a cheap tuxedo."

That is a common critique of ID science. Not an accurate one based on knowledge of the science and dissemination of the evidence but based on a philosophical position.

And I believe I did state all assertions will be cited with source material.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

That is a common critique of ID science. Not an accurate one based on knowledge of the science and dissemination of the evidence but based on a philosophical position.

And I believe I did state all assertions will be cited with source material.

It's a valid critique of ID/cdesignproponensists.

Can you define intelligent design? Who designed the "designer?"

ID is the exact opposite of science. ID makes a claim, then looks for "evidence" to support it. Science gathers evidence, then claims what is most likely to be true.