Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Hoghead1]

Just a minute here, Justatruth. In point of fact, evolution has been created in the lab, more than once, with bacteria. If you wish, I can send you a reference to a major scientific paper on at least pne of these experiments. Also, the fact that something cannot be directly observed has absolutely no bearing on its scientific merit. Great if you can directly observe t directly, but also valid if you can't, but can build a strong case based on indirect observations. For example, astronomers have no direct evidence of gravity existing way out there in distant space. However, they are perfectly justified in assuming gravity is at work there, as a foundation of science is that you can discover general laws, laws that apply everywhere, by studying the lawful behavior of things close at hand. Indeed, many scientific concepts are of such nature that they probably never will or could be verified by direct observed. One example is the creation of the universe. The interesting thing here is that creation-science people are fondJust actually how much hands-on exierence with tehe evidence used n suppor tof evolution> of saying, though somewhat incorrectly, that evolution is somehow invalid, as nobody has ever directly observed it, and then turn around, as many conservative Christians do and assert it is a fact God created the universe in six days, which also is impossible to ever verify by direct sensory observation. What hypocrites!

On the other hand, a very good place to directly observe evolution, is in the development of the fetus, that very obvious way in which it recapitulates the characteristics of other, earlier organisms. How else would you explain what your are seeing? And, in answering, please don't pull the old Haeckel-faked-his-data routine. That is very popular in creation-science circles, but it not true, and is actually based on a rumor a prominent scientist admits he accidentally started. Also, please don't give the old Haeckel's- embryos-really -don't -resemble-a-human-fetus routine. Check for yourself. Go online and examine Haeckel's embryos in comparison to modern camera observations of the fetus. You'll see how really they come.
Next, I have noticed you use a lot of scientific jargon. However, as I said before, major attacks on science require big, big credentials. You asked about mine and I shared what I have. Now it is definitely your turn. Exactly what hands-on scientific experience have you had with the evidence used in support of evolution? And given that you have, what is your alternative explanation of the data here?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wrong again. "Emergence of New Species"

None of them are new species by their own scientific definitions of species. Only when they ignore their own science.

Those fruit flies are still fruit flies - capable of interbreeding with other fruit flies - when not damaged beyond reproductive capabilities - which would then be irrelevant since sterile flies produce no offspring and no new generations.

Those sparrows still mate with other sparrows.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species
"Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species
"An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same."

You can't tell those sparrows are the same????

Why are you refusing to accept your own scientific definitions???? We might as well throw out science if we are going to make up personal definitions on the spot (which is what evolutionists do).

Lets watch you conflict with your own definitions, let's watch the double-talk begin.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Hybridization
"(biology) The act or process of mating organisms of different varieties or species to create a hybrid."

Yet in species we are told: "are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

They can't even get their definitions to agree. None of you can - because you ignore the science and promote Fairie Dust.

Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theory.

Pseudo-science is all you are left with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms"

Hybridization (Fairie Dust) was simply invented to be able to claim speciation even if they are mating and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes and so can not be separate species. Don't ask me to ignore what a species is so you can promote your Fairie Dust beliefs.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just a minute here, Justatruth. In point of fact, evolution has been created in the lab, more than once, with bacteria. If you wish, I can send you a reference to a major scientific paper on at least pne of these experiments. Also, the fact that something cannot be directly observed has absolutely no bearing on its scientific merit. Great if you can directly observe t directly, but also valid if you can't, but can build a strong case based on indirect observations. For example, astronomers have no direct evidence of gravity existing way out there in distant space. However, they are perfectly justified in assuming gravity is at work there, as a foundation of science is that you can discover general laws, laws that apply everywhere, by studying the lawful behavior of things close at hand. Indeed, many scientific concepts are of such nature that they probably never will or could be verified by direct observed. One example is the creation of the universe. The interesting thing here is that creation-science people are fondJust actually how much hands-on exierence with tehe evidence used n suppor tof evolution> of saying, though somewhat incorrectly, that evolution is somehow invalid, as nobody has ever directly observed it, and then turn around, as many conservative Christians do and assert it is a fact God created the universe in six days, which also is impossible to ever verify by direct sensory observation. What hypocrites!

On the other hand, a very good place to directly observe evolution, is in the development of the fetus, that very obvious way in which it recapitulates the characteristics of other, earlier organisms. How else would you explain what your are seeing? And, in answering, please don't pull the old Haeckel-faked-his-data routine. That is very popular in creation-science circles, but it not true, and is actually based on a rumor a prominent scientist admits he accidentally started. Also, please don't give the old Haeckel's- embryos-really -don't -resemble-a-human-fetus routine. Check for yourself. Go online and examine Haeckel's embryos in comparison to modern camera observations of the fetus. You'll see how really they come.
Next, I have noticed you use a lot of scientific jargon. However, as I said before, major attacks on science require big, big credentials. You asked about mine and I shared what I have. Now it is definitely your turn. Exactly what hands-on scientific experience have you had with the evidence used in support of evolution? And given that you have, what is your alternative explanation of the data here?

Go ahead show me where a bacteria ever became a different bacteria that it already was?

E coli experiments? Those E coli after billions of generations and billions of mutations remained E coli.

You got nothing but Fairie Dust.

 

[Loudmouth]

Those fruit flies are still fruit flies - capable of interbreeding with other fruit flies -

Evidence please.

 

[Loudmouth]

Go ahead show me where a bacteria ever became a different bacteria that it already was?

The common ancestor of macaques and humans was a primate. Humans and macaques are still primates. Are you telling me that humans and macaques evolving from a common ancestor is not macroevolution? Are humans and macaques still the same species because you can call them primates?

 

[justlookinla]

Go ahead show me where a bacteria ever became a different bacteria that it already was?

E coli experiments? Those E coli after billions of generations and billions of mutations remained E coli.

You got nothing but Fairie Dust.

Yeppers.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

None of them are new species by their own scientific definitions of species. Only when they ignore their own science.

It will help your position if you learned what a biological species is. There is much more to learn than the little online definition you copied.

Well, actually, it would make you change your position which would make you seem less ignorant.

 

[-57]

Transparent evasion.

If God could build the creation any way he chose, common designer g isn't evidence of his creation.

To use your analogy, you can't just point at a painting and tell whether he made it or not. He had a wide variety of styles and themes over multiple periods, and there's nothing requiring him to make a painting in any such manner.

As I said earlier....Either you got the concept or you didn't.....sounds to me like you didn't.

 

[-57]

How does the artist cover up his mistakes?

I didn't know God made mistakes.

 

[-57]

Picasso paintings do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Life does. That is how we know that life shares a common ancestor and not a common designer. The nested hierarchy is the evidence.

Simple statements like that may sound good to some.....but for you to demonstrate you speak fact....well, that's another story.

 

[lasthero]

As I said earlier....Either you got the concept or you didn't.....sounds to me like you didn't.

And as I replied, you're evading.

It's a pretty common tactic in an argument. When someone makes a point you can't deal with, tell them they don't get it and act like that ends it.

If there was some flaw in my thinking, you could address it. But you won't, because you can't, so instead you're hand waving.

 

[-57]

And as I replied, you're evading.

It's a pretty common tactic in an argument. When someone makes a point you can't deal with, tell them they don't get it and act like that ends it.

If there was some flaw in my thinking, you could address it. But you won't, because you can't, so instead you're hand waving.

I'm just telling you how it is. I do understand you are allowed to disagree.

 

[lasthero]

I'm just telling you how it is.

You're not actually telling me anything. You're pretty much just saying 'you're wrong', but you're unwilling- or incapable - of explaining why.

 

[-57]

You're not actually telling me anything. You're pretty much just saying 'you're wrong', but you're unwilling- or incapable - of explaining why.

Picasso was only an analogy...to help you understand. I assumed you got that.

 

[lasthero]

Picasso was only an analogy...to help you understand. I assumed you got that.

It was a faulty analogy. You never even explained why I should accept that God creating things is like Picasso making paintings. You can't just compare anything to anything and expect it work as an analogy, you have to actually establish in what regard they're similar.

The point remains - by your own admission, common design ISN'T nescessarily a sign of a common designer. God could make life in any way he chose.

 

[-57]

It was a faulty analogy. You never even explained why I should accept that God creating things is like Picasso making paintings. You can't just compare anything to anything and expect it work as an analogy, you have to actually establish in what regard they're similar.

The point remains - by your own admission, common design ISN'T nescessarily a sign of a common designer. God could make life in any way he chose.

The point of the argument was that a common designer can use and reuse parts that work in similar ways modifying then as required. It is similar to an artist using similar brush strokes when they paint. If you can't grasp this point...then what can I say?

Just the other day Lenny Lego came home from school and his Grandfather found Lenny sitting in a chair with a puzzled look on his face.
Grand Pa Lego wondering what was wrong with his Grandson came over and sat beside Lenny and asked... Why the perplexed look Lenny?
In which Lenny replied back with uncertainty, well in school today our science teacher told us that we evolved from a common block ancestor.
Lenny continued with, and that the pictures he showed of extinct Lego animals proved it. My teacher told us that the similarities of the Lego animals all but proved we're all related. My teacher said that because we have the same type of interconnecting blocks which when snapped together form similar feet, bodies and arms prove we are all descendants of an original Lego organism.
Lenny then sat back and after a few seconds looked at his Grand Pa and continued with, and it all seems to make sense to me. Besides the pictures my teacher had models of them all lined up in a row. Each Lego animal had the same type of feet. Each Lego animal had the same square blocky head, each lego block has the same plug and socket for joining the blocks together... just like us Grand Pa.
Grand Pa Lego then took a deep breath to explain to Lenny the truth behind the evolution of Lego people when Lenny blurted out to Grand Pa, where did we come from? Why do we have similar parts? Does this prove we evolved from a common Lego block?
In which Grand Pa Lego replied back with, Lenny, we know the history of the first Lego man. He was created fully formed and complete although Lenny, some will present the argument or a similar argument to us like your science teacher did. The reason why we have such similar body parts is because our Creator used the same style of building blocks. What works for us works for the Lego cow and the lego fish. No matter what is build from the Lego blocks, they will always be similar. The so-called evolution story is just an attempt to strip our creator of the glory of his work and the magnificent ability to put together his building blocks to serve a useful purpose. Remember Lego legs should be similar Lenny, whether the building blocks are used for a man, ape, cow, dinosaur, bird, or alligator. The only difference would be the need for a slightly different arrangement of the building blocks to better suite the Lego animal for their particular environment or lifestyle
Lenny then smiled as the realization of the truth settled into his block shaped brain. A common creator would use common building blocks in a common design when He created life.

 

[lasthero]

The point of the argument was that a common designer can use and reuse parts that work in similar ways modifying then as required. It is similar to an artist using similar brush strokes when they paint. If you can't grasp this point...then what can I say?

Firstly, I'd love for you or anyone to identify a Picasso painting simply based on his brush strokes. Please explain how that works.

And yes, a common designer can reuse parts as required. He can also start from scratch, especially when said designer is an omnipotent deity. Human beings reuse designed because it's convenient. God has no such need for convenience. If God is all-powerful, it doesn't make a difference how he creates life. Any method is just as easy, so there's no reason to do it one way over the other. He could've made all life different. It's not any harder for him than making it similar.

 

[-57]

Firstly, I'd love for you or anyone to identify a Picasso painting simply based on his brush strokes. Please explain how that works.

And yes, a common designer can reuse parts as required. He can also start from scratch, especially when said designer is an omnipotent deity. Human beings reuse designed because it's convenient. God has no such need for convenience. If God is all-powerful, it doesn't make a difference how he creates life. Any method is just as easy, so there's no reason to do it one way over the other. He could've made all life different. It's not any harder for him than making it similar.

As you said..."And yes, a common designer can reuse parts as required."...which knocks your nest out of the tree.

 

[lasthero]

As you said..."And yes, a common designer can reuse parts as required."...which knocks your nest out of the tree.

It would, if not for the rest of my post. He CAN, but he doesn't NEED to. He could start from scratch. On top of that, there's nothing stopping someone from using the same style. To go back to Picasso, any sufficiently talented artist could copy his work. Copycats are a real thing.

Same design does not mean same designer, and same designer does not mean same design. The argument fails.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I didn't know God made mistakes.

There are a lot of things you don't know... having established that, how does an artist cover up his mistakes?