Evolution of whales

[rjw]

what has this got to do with whale evolution? please stop derailing the threads

Sorry JB.

It became a point of trying to show dad that while speculation is important in science, so is evidence and arguing from it, to turn speculation into theory - where as for dad, speculation appears to be the only thing of importance.


Regards, Roland

 

[dad]

Hello Dad,



Dad, this is not evidence. Darwin told us that evolution happens. Therefore evolution happens?
[You can not have physical evidence for anything but the physical. That is the old stacked deck of the box. For games outside of this, we have a different deck]




There was no great Flood. There is no evidence for it – despite what people may have believed over the centuries. It has only been in the last 200 years that we have had the tools to ask the question – “Did the great Flood occur?” - and the answer is a firm “No”.
[Wrong answer. This answer is just stating your personal belief that the physical only apllies to the unknown past or future, a belief with no support, or evidence.]

(Many people used to believe that the earth was flat and many used the Bible as evidence. Therefore the earth must be flat?)

No Flood -> No canopy.
[No flat earth in bible, and yes a flood and canopy]




This is my point exactly dad. Not only have they found this, but all over the world they find evidence for successive and varying climatic types. Thus from any geological column drilled deeply enough you will find evidence for something like hotter climates, then colder ones, then wetter ones, then volcanic ones, then hotter and drier, or hotter and wetter, then more volcanic, then windy, then oceanic, then desert ….. Get a geology book and open it up to a discussion on geologic columns!
[ There were successive and much varied climes, perhaps even in a single day? What we now think took a long time may have taken a short time then. Some layers may also be flood, or continental slide affected, stcking, and uplifting, etc, confusing the picture to one looking at it from a belief only in the physical]

What you have done is chosen just one or two data points and claimed that this represents the whole world at one particular time some 4500 years ago. Well these data points do not represent the whole world at one particular time some 4500 years ago. [Prove it]


Dad, you did not answer my question.

I am not arguing that we were there to see the BB or the origin of life. We have physical evidence for the Big Bang. [ No, sir, we do not. We have physical only speculation and extrapolation, and belief, noe evidence for the speck at all!] As for the origin of life, we assume it occurred naturalistically and attempt, using the scientific method, to understand how this could have happened – physically. [No kidding. I guess then this would be physical only. Just as I said. As for your assumptions, well, if I had a nickel for every evo one I'd heard, I'd hire someone to beat out these posts]

Ditto with the evolution of the whale. We have physical evidence that this did happen - from mesonychids or artiodoctyls to whales. The physical evidence we have are bones, molecules, and physiology. So we attempt to understand how this could have happened - physically. [And therein lies the problem, as noble sounding as it may be] This is how we behave in all science.

Who saw the resurrection?
[Many saw Jesus after He arose, shortly after]

So, because neither you nor I were there in the past, you say that your ideas are correct, because I was not there to see that they could not be correct? Is this the essence of your argument?
[No, not being there just means we base what happened on beliefs. Big bang or creation. Normal science we can test, but the rest is belief. Bible believers know there is a spiritual, and we can now see that many things required this then. So, physical only science we all agree is good as far as it goes, -the present. Beyond that it is belief, and we do not want to pay for children to be forced to learn your beliefs, when they are not ours.]



Regards, Roland

.

 

[rjw]

Hello Dad,

Dad, this is not evidence. Darwin told us that evolution happens. Therefore evolution happens?

You can not have physical evidence for anything but the physical. That is the old stacked deck of the box. For games outside of this, we have a different deck

1) So why, in answer to my earlier question did you merely reply “Because the Bible tells me so”?

2) I agree. One can only have physical evidence for the physical. And yes, it does stack the deck. That is why science is successful – even at explaining things that we cannot observe directly with our senses.

3) So in essence you are arguing that we have no physical evidence from physical animals which lived in the past? We have no physical evidence for when these animals lived? We have no physical molecular data which ties whales with artiodoctyls in a fairly unique manner? We have no physical physiological data which ties these animals together?

There was no great Flood. There is no evidence for it – despite what people may have believed over the centuries. It has only been in the last 200 years that we have had the tools to ask the question – “Did the great Flood occur?” - and the answer is a firm “No”.

Wrong answer. This answer is just stating your personal belief that the physical only apllies to the unknown past or future, a belief with no support, or evidence.

1) Well yes, everything everyone thinks is a “personal belief”. Hence your argument is vacuous. Despite everything we think being “personal belief” – many some things we think, we have more evidence for than other things we think. Thus we have more evidence for the idea that whales evolved than we do that they were created. We have more evidence for the idea that the sun shines via fusion reactions than we have that God makes it shine by his direct radiance.

2) This is obviously a belief you accept as long as it does not cut across your faith. For an example of this, see later.

3) Once more you are arguing that we have no knowledge about the past. Have you ever heard of a science called “geology” and another one called “palaeontology”?

4) Where is your evidence for the Flood?

5) Where is your evidence that the spiritual acted in the past to cause the Flood?

6) This argument of yours is getting to be a red-herring. Even if the spirit was involved, then you still have the physical evidence you must answer to. So far you have not – other than by just adding more speculation.

(Many people used to believe that the earth was flat and many used the Bible as evidence. Therefore the earth must be flat?)

No Flood -> No canopy

.
No flat earth in bible, …

1) Tell that to people who think otherwise.

2) And dad, this is only “your belief without support or evidence.”

… and yes a flood…

1) Who denies this? But where is your evidence, other than some author in the Bible saying “Flood”?

2) Lots of books say lots of things. But we need evidence. If you think otherwise then Darwin wrote down that evolution happens – therefore evolution happens?

… and canopy

Where in the Bible is this written about? I am curious!

This is my point exactly dad. Not only have they found this, but all over the world they find evidence for successive and varying climatic types. Thus from any geological column drilled deeply enough you will find evidence for something like hotter climates, then colder ones, then wetter ones, then volcanic ones, then hotter and drier, or hotter and wetter, then more volcanic, then windy, then oceanic, then desert ….. Get a geology book and open it up to a discussion on geologic columns!

There were successive and much varied climes, perhaps even in a single day? What we now think took a long time may have taken a short time then. Some layers may also be flood, or continental slide affected, stcking, and uplifting, etc, confusing the picture to one looking at it from a belief only in the physical.

Dad this is all made up by you.

1) You obviously accept that some of this physical evidence does exist. Look at what you just wrote. Then when a part of it gets inconvenient for you, you just add speculation - so that you can dismiss the remainder of the physical evidence. Again, look at what you wrote.

2) So, here you are dad, for all your talk about my belief – you adopt my belief yourself – providing it does not cut across your faith. Then when your faith is challenged, you abandon my belief about the physical only – and introduce your untrammeled speculations about all this happening in one day; about the spiritual being involved; about some layers being from the flood etc.

What you have done is chosen just one or two data points and claimed that this represents the whole world at one particular time some 4500 years ago. Well these data points do not represent the whole world at one particular time some 4500 years ago.

Prove it

From dad:- They found an old cold blooded champsosaurus (crocodile) with a toad in it's belly to boot, up near the north pole, we know it was like the everglades. Now as far as the wetter bit, I don't know about that? It was lush, and abounding with life, and there was the mist, so things got watered, yes …
Well, how did cold blooded creatures get near the pole if it was ice before the flood?!

There you are. Two data points. A crocodile and toad found at the north pole to demonstrate that the whole world was more temperate and wetter back then when the actual physical evidence (from many data points) tells us everythig but that.

And here you are again accepting physical evidence only? Given what you have written before, as a counter to me, why do you now argue as I do – namely accept physical evidence?

(Why do you accept the physical only here? Why not speculate again. The crocodile swallowed the toad in Florida, USA, then got lost and wandered down to the North Pole? This can all be explained by spirit, Bible, etc. etc. Why is one speculation not as good as any other dad?)

I am not arguing that we were there to see the BB or the origin of life. We have physical evidence for the Big Bang.

No, sir, we do not. We have physical only speculation and extrapolation,…

So you are arguing that the 3 degree cosmic microwave background, galactic redshift, wrinkles seen on the 3 degree microwave background are not actual observations?

As for the origin of life, we assume it occurred naturalistically and attempt, using the scientific method, to understand how this could have happened – physically.

No kidding. I guess then this would be physical only.

As an atheist, I say “yes”.

However, many theists also accept this naturalistic origin of life. So they would say “no” to it just being physical, even though they accept the naturalistic origin of life.

Ditto with the evolution of the whale. We have physical evidence that this did happen - from mesonychids or artiodoctyls to whales. The physical evidence we have are bones, molecules, and physiology. So we attempt to understand how this could have happened - physically.

And therein lies the problem, as noble sounding as it may be

This is how we behave in all science.

So dad, why did you not place your rebuff after the last line in the above quotes? Logically why is it not a problem in all science “as noble sounding as it may be”?

Who saw the resurrection?

Many saw Jesus after He arose, shortly after

This is not what you stated nor is it what I asked.

Certainly many people claimed to have seen Jesus after his death. However, I gather that seeing people after their deaths was not unique to some people with respect to Jesus. Do you accept therefore that other people across the world through all times also rose from the dead?

So, because neither you nor I were there in the past, you say that your ideas are correct, because I was not there to see that they could not be correct? Is this the essence of your argument?

No, not being there just means we base what happened on beliefs.

1) Everything you or I think to be real is based on belief dad, or it is belief.

2) Do you think that we do not collect massive amounts of data from the past upon which to base our beliefs?

3) Do you not see that there is a big difference between wild guesses and unsubstantiated speculation and argument which is based on data and observation? (We get geologic columns from all over the world which tell us of varying climates in varying places throughout time. You take one data point (a crocodile) and from it claim evidence for one climate across the world at one time.)

Normal science we can test, but the rest is belief.

Testing is just collecting data. That data has to be interpreted. That interpretation is belief. Some beliefs are factual. Others, one would have to be a mug not to accept. Others are equivocal. Some are delusional. Others are wild guesses. Some are educated guesses.

If you are really serious in the point I think you are attempting to make here dad then I am surprised that you really do leave meteorology up to the scientists. So much of what they talk about is unobserved and unobservable. It is "just belief". Yet you accept it, based on the physical evidence they collect from which to argue their case.

Tch dad!

Again, if your theory about spirit and matter is correct and you apply it to the “evolution” of whales, then why not apply it to all this unobserved meteorological belief?

Bible believers know there is a spiritual, and we can now see that many things required this then.

And many accept evolution, natural origin of life, meteorology, ancient earth, no flood, no real Adam and Eve etc.

So, physical only science we all agree is good as far as it goes, -the present.

We can only do physical science in the present dad. That is we can only collect data and interpret it in the present.

Thus, a meteorologist collects data in the present to explain why the past weather pattern did not occur as predicted. Likewise the molecular biologist and the palaeontologist collect data in the present to explain how present day whales got to be.

Beyond that it is belief, and we do not want to pay for children to be forced to learn your beliefs, when they are not ours.

I agree. This is a real problem.

Are you happy to pay for your children to be forced to learn meteorology, mathematics, astronomy etc?

Would you give the same latitude to astrologers? I am aware that some/many Christians also accept astrology. Should astrology also be taught in Christian schools during astronomy classes?




Regards, Roland

 

[dad]

1) So why, in answer to my earlier question did you merely reply Because the Bible tells me so?

2) I agree. One can only have physical evidence for the physical. And yes, it does stack the deck. That is why science is successful even at explaining things that we cannot observe directly with our senses.

3) So in essence you are arguing that we have no physical evidence from physical animals which lived in the past? We have no physical evidence for when these animals lived? We have no physical molecular data which ties whales with artiodoctyls in a fairly unique manner? We have no physical physiological data which ties these animals together?

1) ?
2) Yes, that is why we like science.
3) Of course we have some evidence, because some got fossilized, and a few things like that. As far as when these things lived, that is the 64 dollar question, no, you have no evidence of when, save that based on a belief that only physical processes were at work. This is the so called science bit. As far as 'physiological data', can you demonstrate that it means anything more than 'they look like other creations quite a bit'? Now as far as the molecular, that too is subject to opinion and interpretation.

Thus we have more evidence for the idea that whales evolved than we do that they were created. We have more evidence for the idea that the sun shines via fusion reactions than we have that God makes it shine by his direct radiance.

Our physical universe sun, yes, we have a handle, I think on how it works. This says nothing of how it will or did work in a merged universe, however! As far as evidence for whales turning into, or coming from other creations, there is no evidence at all. You can't just say 'well it looks like a rat, so it evolved from one', or something like that. That is belief. Who cares what extinct creations they may resemble more than others? Only woth a presumption of evolution would it even begin to make some twisted sense.

Have you ever heard of a science called geology and another one called palaeontology?

Two ringleaders in the so called sciences. There is a lot of good in those studies, but it is so riddled with so called science belief, that they are virtually worthless as they now stand! Kind of like the average american tv station, so many commercials, and garbage, it is better to rent a dvd, and get to something of some value, without the package deal. They are very weedy areas in the garden of knowledge, and need a lot of culling, and work, and seperating the wheat from the chaff, the good from the bad.

Where is your evidence that the spiritual acted in the past to cause the Flood?

I think it is impossible in a physical only world. How could there be a canopy in a PO world? How could a great wind blow on the water, probably clear out of the atmosphere, to make the waters receed, in a PO world? How could continents seperate quickly in a PO world? I don't think they could have. Same as how could a garden grow quickly, to feed man and animals in a few days? How could Adam have lived forever, or even a thousand years almost? It was not a physical only world, or universe back then, thats how.

. Even if the spirit was involved, then you still have the physical evidence you must answer to. So far you have not other than by just adding more speculation

Not really. I have no problem with any physical evidence! It is the speculation from the evo side, that there was no past merged world, that is in question, and being exposed here!

2) Lots of books say lots of things. But we need evidence. If you think otherwise then Darwin wrote down that evolution happens therefore evolution happens?

Yes, and where is your evidence that the world was not spiritual and physical? Just because darwin or sagan or someone says so in a book! You have no evidence, and I don't need any, because I admit that mine is a belief, now you must do the same, concerning orgins, and the ancient world, in leui of proof!

Where in the Bible is this written about? I am curious!

It isn't. We don't really know for sure. But there was water up there, and the windows of heaven were opened, and it came down, if you have a better idea, do tell.

so that you can dismiss the remainder of the physical evidence.

Explain it, not dismiss it, it's there. It's elementary, really. When we look at the known conditions of the bible at that time, and lose the physical only speculations, we see possibilities for fast layering, no problem.

you abandon my belief about the physical only and introduce your untrammeled speculations about all this happening in one day; about the spiritual being involved; about some layers being from the flood etc.

I certainly do abandon your belief that all there was was the physical only, and the ludicrous fables that that logic ends up with! I opt instead for the proven, evidenced, alive, working, well known, tried and tested wisdom of God Himself, in the bible! Get used to it, a lot more people are going to abandon your belief as well. We need to stick to real science, and have your 'science, falsely so called' beliefs put in religion class at a private school!

. A crocodile and toad found at the north pole to demonstrate that the whole world was more temperate and wetter back then when the actual physical evidence (from many data points) tells us everythig but that.

Well, we could drag in the south pole, and many parts of the world as well, but that would be a thread in itself. Why dance around the fire here? If you want to say you have info that the world was not warmer pre flood, and split, then out with it man!

And here you are again accepting physical evidence only? Given what you have written before, as a counter to me, why do you now argue as I do namely accept physical evidence?

Where do you get the bee in your bonnet that I have some problem with physical evidence? Science ia mine. So called science is yours.

Why do you accept the physical only here? Why not speculate again. The crocodile swallowed the toad in Florida, USA, then got lost and wandered down to the North Pole? This can all be explained by spirit, Bible, etc. etc. Why is one speculation not as good as any other dad

That is evo type speculation! 'Oh, the islands danced around the globe, and decided to end up on the other side for some reason'! Why would I waft in crocodiles to the pole for no reason?

So you are arguing that the 3 degree cosmic microwave background, galactic redshift, wrinkles seen on the 3 degree microwave background are not actual observations?

No. I don't know where you dig up this kind of stuff. If you want to pick a favorite of yours, and put it on the table here, we can play, 'let's interpret it properly'!

No kidding. I guess then this would be physical only.









As an atheist, I say yes.

God have mercy. We got a live one, folks!

Do you accept therefore that other people across the world through all times also rose from the dead?

I don't know. I doubt it, but...?

) Do you think that we do not collect massive amounts of data from the past upon which to base our beliefs?

Physical data, but that is neither here nor there if it is all subject then, to so called science belief.

(We get geologic columns from all over the world which tell us of varying climates in varying places throughout time

If you get specific, and look at any one aspect, I don't think it will not better be explained in a merged light.

Testing is just collecting data. That data has to be interpreted. That interpretation is belief. Some beliefs are factual. Others, one would have to be a mug not to accept. Others are equivocal. Some are delusional. Others are wild guesses. Some are educated guesses.

This is why I clearly defined so called science.

So much of what they talk about is unobserved and unobservable. It is "just belief". Yet you accept it, based on the physical evidence they collect from which to argue their case.

Well, I take their forecasts with a grain of salt, but generally, we do live in a physical only universe, and their studies do not usually extend to so called science.

We can only do physical science in the present dad. That is we can only collect data and interpret it in the present.

Yes, for the present, it is pretty good. Watch out for those so called sciencers though, who try to sneak this interpretation, by virtue of their belief, into God's yesterday, and tommorow!

. Likewise the molecular biologist and the palaeontologist collect data in the present to explain how present day whales got to be

In luei of a rejected God, they try to come up with the best they can for some explanation. One beased only on the belief that there was no creation, and that there always was just the physical only. So called science at it's finest!

Are you happy to pay for your children to be forced to learn meteorology, mathematics, astronomy etc?

Thats another real big topic. But astrnomy is one of those diseased diciplines, riddled with the cancer of so called science. It needs to be castrated of this old age, physical only based belief, if it is to be fir for general consumption!

Would you give the same latitude to astrologers? I am aware that some/many Christians also accept astrology. Should astrology also be taught in Christian schools during astronomy classes?

I don't see a need to bring in these beliefs to a forced education system? If I were to decide personally, I wouild say this. Teach creation, and hw God mafe the stars, and how much we know about them, and how the new heavens will appear, and how God made the universe for us, and how the stars are for signs, etc.

 

[rjw]

Gidday dad,



I am going to keep this very short, jump into your shoes for a bit, then jump out.

Of course we have some evidence, because some got fossilized, and a few things like that.

Dad, you do not know this. You were not there. I believe that some people accept that these “fossils” were the work of the devil to test our faith. This is just as logical as your belief that “some got fossilized”.

So, just how do you know that some got fossilized?

As far as when these things lived, that is the 64 dollar question, no, you have no evidence of when, save that based on a belief that only physical processes were at work.

Above you claim validity based purely on physical data. Here you reject physical data.

What do you mean we have no physical evidence? You have heard of absolute dating and relative dating, haven’t you?

What is to stop the physical evidence (plus the spiritual if you wish) from giving dates of 60,0000,0000 to 45,000,000 years? Many who accept both the physical and the spiritual also accept these dates.

Teach creation, and hw God mafe the stars …

Ok dad, since you claim to have a better idea, tell me “how God made the stars”? And I want physical evidence please.



Regards, Roland

 

[dad]

Gidday dad,



I am going to keep this very short, jump into your shoes for a bit, then jump out.




Dad, you do not know this. You were not there. I believe that some people accept that these “fossils” were the work of the devil to test our faith. This is just as logical as your belief that “some got fossilized”.

So, just how do you know that some got fossilized?




Above you claim validity based purely on physical data. Here you reject physical data.

What do you mean we have no physical evidence? You have heard of absolute dating and relative dating, haven’t you?

What is to stop the physical evidence (plus the spiritual if you wish) from giving dates of 60,0000,0000 to 45,000,000 years? Many who accept both the physical and the spiritual also accept these dates.



Ok dad, since you claim to have a better idea, tell me “how God made the stars”? And I want physical evidence please.



Regards, Roland

.