If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They also miss the essential point that He chose to make the Earth have an Apparent Mature Age, when He Created the world less than 10,000 years ago.

So God lied then.

 

[HitchSlap]

As you well know, life on Earth is much more complex than a car. And natural processes cannot make a car. It is impossible.

Many do not see such blind spot in thinking life on Earth evolved by natural processes. How it is impossible.

It is fossils in the rock record sequenced immature to more complex life forms they lean up. By faith in such they stand. They know not that God would make scientific evidence lead one to error without Him. It is the rock record and science they have turned to and Exalt. They want others to do the same.

From speculation that the rock record shows evolution of life over time they stand. Yet the rock record only shows Kinds. The rock record - with billions of fossils found - shows zero transition fossils - as you pointed out earlier.

They have placed faith in something that they have no evidence to support. The way natural history would have happened before God over time is ignored by modern man. The Way He would have things deposited, particularly life forms He Created, over eons of time they set aside.

God shows in the rock record His Ways of Creating, which is Creating immature life forms first, and a sequence of Creating more complex life forms over time. There would be zero transition fossils in the rock record in His Way of Creating Earth. Many stumble at this very point - the Creator and His Ways of Creating.

They also miss the essential point that He chose to make the Earth have an Apparent Mature Age, when He Created the world less than 10,000 years ago. Many stumble at how the Earth looked like after Creation Week. Even how Genesis list Earth's Creation process.

You're arrogantly confident in your ignorance. I'll give you that.

 

[HitchSlap]

So God lied then.

This is the only reasonable conclusion.

 

[Heissonear]

So God lied then.

Is this what your intellect has concluded - or are you led into Truth by the Holy Spirit, and your conclusions through Him, even by Living Water from your innermost?

I think it is your intellect based conclusion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is this what your intellect has concluded - or are you led into Truth by the Holy Spirit, and your conclusions through Him, even by Living Water from your innermost?

View attachment 219972

View attachment 219973

I think it is your intellect based conclusion.

Yes, the intellect that God gave me led me to conclude that in your ignorance, you are casting God as a liar.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

you can say the same for a car motor. so you will conclude the same if you will see a car motor?

I'm not sure why you think the two cases have to be the same. Seems to me you're just continuing to find a way to leave evolution out of the explanation basket. Its not going to work. People know about evolution now and you can't remove that knowledge from the earth.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I think it is your intellect based conclusion.

If God did not intend I should think, why did he give me a thinker?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I do look at science in relation to evolution, age of the earth etc. and ... a lot of things.I also look at the creation side as well (scientifically).

What "scientifically creation side"?
There's no such thing. There's just the science (evolution) on the one hand, and fundamentalist religion (creation) on the other.

newsflash: if history has learned us anything, if science and fundamentalist religion go head to head... religion never wins.

Why would I waste my time doing that?

There are credible scientists, who through science bring forth "science" that supports creation.

Not a single scientific paper shows that to be the case.
And I love how you put quotes around "science". Ironic.

If one is a "believer" in science, why wouldn't one be interested in what they have to say as well?

Because they are really preaching a religion while misrepresenting science, instead of actually talking about science.

I do not believe there is a high percentage to support either way

Sorry to inform you (well, not really), but evolution is a wildely established theory. Perhaps the most established theory in all of science, supported by mountains of evidence from various different independent fields and contradicted by none.

but think it "prudent" and also interesting to look at both sides --- evolution verses creation .... so that is "why" it is not a "waste of time"

It is a waste of time to. You speak of "both" sides. In reality, if you are going to also include religious origin stories, then there aren't just 2 sides. Then there are hundreds, thousands of sides. Because you see... while you think your particular religion is special, it really isn't. If we are to include religious creation stories, then we need to include all of them.

So it's not "science vs creation". It's really "science vs christian creation vs islamic creation vs hindu creation vs scientology creation vs ........................"

But off course... there isn't a single reason why we should look to religious stories as alternatives for science. At all. And likely, you agree to that, as long as the religious stories come from other religions. Amirite?

Otherwise, by not looking at both ... one is putting themselves in "one box"

Yes. The box of reality and evidence based reasoning.
I kinda like that box. It results in accurate beliefs.

by means of preference of a already pre-formed bias one way or another.

Says the theist who argues for to include his religious creation story, simply because he already happens to believe that by being part of a religion denomination which actually likely demands believing that on faith (regardless of the evidence).

If one only looks at one thing .... that's all you see.

I DO look at only one thing and I will acknowledge that proudly.
That one thing I look at is......-drumroll-.......... the evidence.

And I'll go wherever that evidence leads me.
See, *I* am not the one who decides before hand where I want my beliefs to end up....
That would be you.

Like I said .... I look at both .... knowing this mystery will never be solved by mankind.

So you just decided before hand that it will never be solved....
But *I* am the one with the "pre-formed bias", ey?

Uhu.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Things change as (scientific) knowlege increases. No one can ... or should put a "period" on scientific discoveries. Pursuing science is important, many discoveries are made .... but science is not the end all answer to all things. Yes, scientifically things are "proven", until they are disproven as knowledge increases through technology. You can't put a period on science. Like I said, science is progressive and things change over time. Nobody has all the answers .... but we do pursue "answers" and learn many things in the process and will continue to do so.

Sure.

But ideas that have been discarded / disproven / falsified.... there's no reason to continue to entertain them.

Your creation nonsense is such an idea.

In fact, geology as a field can be said to have been kickstarted by christians who set out to find evidence of Noah's Flood. Their conclusion was that no such flood every occured.
This was at the dawn of the field of geology as we know it today. That's how long it's been known that this story can not be literally true.

Yet here we are.... still having people trying to claim otherwise.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

why its not a motor? please explain...

basically even scientists consider it to be a motor:

The bacterial flagellar motor: structure and function of a complex molecular machine. - PubMed - NCBI

The bacterial flagella motor. - PubMed - NCBI

A Rotary Motor Drives Bacterial Motion - Biochemistry - NCBI Bookshelf

so why we should not?

I suppose I should have said it differently, a flagellum is not a man-made motor. It is similar to a man-made motor.

 

[DogmaHunter]

ok ... who are the creation scientists you consider not credible?

There are no "creation scientists", because there is no such thing as "creation science".
There is just "science".

Creationists calling themselves scientists, doesn't make them scientists.
Doing science, makes you a scientist.

And "doing science", means doing research and publishing your findings in appropriate journals.

Not a single creationist does that on the topic of creation.
And no, organizing their own journals where they can all agree with eachother and completely circumvent that actual scientific channels and the harsh scientific scrutiny that all other actual scientists must face, does not count.

 

[DogmaHunter]

thanks. so the blind spot is not an issue. and the claim about bad design is a bad claim.

It's clear that you are not an engineer or similar.
Acknowledging that it isn't necessarily a problem IS NOT THE SAME as saying that it is a good design!

Let me give you an example... I'm a software engineer.
There are criteria that make a certain software design "good" or "bad".

I can write you 2 identical looking programs with the exact same user interface and the exact same performance.

As in, install those 2 applications on 2 computers and have 1 user use them both and this useage will leave them completely convinced that it is the exact same code.

However... it is not.
The one program will be a spaghetti mess of code, dead code, duplicate code, unecessary background processes,...
While the other's build up will be very clean, very elegant, nicely compartamentalized, nicely refactored, no dead code, no unecessary background processes, etc etc.

The second program will use an objectively better design.
The first would be objectively bad.

If the assignment would be graded as a school project, the author of the first app might even fail the class!

But, user wise, would it be a problem? Nope....

However, there are consequences. The first program will consume more energy, due to unecessary background processes. The same goes for our eyes. Our brains need to consume extra energy to rectify the image due to the blind spots.

And even if we ignore those ineficiencies, there still is the notion that one can have 2 products with identical output/performance/etc, while one is better designed then the other.

Software wise, take dead code for example. This has no consequences, other then taking up more disk space. Neglectable. A couple KB on a disk of 500 GB won't be making any difference, nore will it consume more energy.

But software without dead code is objectively better then software with dead code.

since you already admit that the blind spot doesnt make any problem this claim is incorrect.

I just explained how that claim most definatly IS correct.

you cant realy know if there is no connection between having a blind spot and colorblindness.

Then you can't use it as an argument either.

they can also claim that a car evolved by a natural process. so what?

They can't and they didn't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As you well know, life on Earth is much more complex than a car. And natural processes cannot make a car. It is impossible.

Cars aren't living things that reproduce with modification and are in competition for limited resources.

Many do not see such blind spot in thinking life on Earth evolved by natural processes. How it is impossible.

Things that reproduce with modification and compete with peers for limited resources, inevitably evolve or go extinct.

It is fossils in the rock record sequenced immature to more complex life forms they lean up.

You can remove all fossils from existance and evolution would still be as solid as ever thanks to the genetic record.

It is the rock record and science they have turned to and Exalt. They want others to do the same.

Science leads to accurate answers. Whenever science and religion go head to head, religion never wins.

They have placed faith in something that they have no evidence to support.

Only if you ignore
- the fossil record
- the genetic record
- observed speciation (wild and lab)
- phylogenies
- comparative anatomy
- geographic distribution of species, cross referenced with geology
- ...

The way natural history would have happened before God over time is ignored by modern man. The Way He would have things deposited, particularly life forms He Created, over eons of time they set aside.

Science doesn't really care about "just so" religious stories and claims.
And rightfully so.

They also miss the essential point that He chose to make the Earth have an Apparent Mature Age, when He Created the world less than 10,000 years ago.

And an apparant history. A track record of events that apparatnly never actually took place.
Essentially the equivalent of Last Thursdayism.

Many stumble at how the Earth looked like after Creation Week. Even how Genesis list Earth's Creation process.

Just like you overlook how the hindu scriptures claim the earth began.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I suppose I should have said it differently, a flagellum is not a man-made motor. It is similar to a man-made motor.

I disagree. Here's what a man-made motor looks like:

It's full of plastics, copper wires, rubbers, metals,... It likely also has engravings, brand/manufacturer stamps, ... They are mechanical devices.

The only thing this really has in common with a flagellum, is the function of "spinning".

Which is what a scientist refers to when calling a flagellum a "motor": it spins.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Just like you overlook how the hindu scriptures claim the earth began.

Actually you could argue that Hinduism more closely matches modern thought since it claims multiple universes each with its own creation myth.

 

[Aman777]

How dare you insult the Dear Leader.

Treason!

False. That's another example of a Trump alternative fact. Like Evols, Trump changes the meanings of words so they will agree with his twisted views. A theory suddenly becomes "better than Fact" and Apes magically change into Humans (descendants of Adam). Do you suppose Trump is the father of lies? Jhn 8:44 When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

False. That's another example of a Trump alternative fact. Like Evols, Trump changes the meanings of words so they will agree with his twisted views. A theory suddenly becomes "better than Fact" and Apes magically change into Humans (descendants of Adam). Do you suppose Trump is the father of lies? Jhn 8:44 When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Nah, Trump doesn't have the charisma for something like that, honestly. Lying garbage person he may be, but he's no antichrist or anything. To suggest such is to give him more credit than he's due ;p

Btw, told some Mormon missionaries your Genesis interpretation yesterday. That was an interesting conversation, and I got a book of Mormon to add to my collection of religious texts handed out on the college campus.

 

[Aman777]

God is a right-wing fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant? I think in that case I would believe Hitchslap.

God's first written words proclaim that He is a Creationist;

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created

YEC are Creationists by Faith in God's Holy Word. I'm the youngest since I show that the first Day was less than 7 Days ago. Young Earthers have told this world the Truth for thousands of years now. God's Truth is that in 6 of His Days/Ages, He will make a perfect Heaven and fill it with His perfect children, and then He will rest/cease creating forever on the 7th Day since it is Eternity. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

Btw, told some Mormon missionaries your Genesis interpretation yesterday. That was an interesting conversation, and I got a book of Mormon to add to my collection of religious texts handed out on the college campus.

Found a Book under a rock which tells the whole Mormon story, huh? I've heard they have some weird ideas which sound a little like mine. What do you think?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Found a Book under a rock which tells the whole Mormon story, huh? I've heard they have some weird ideas which sound a little like mine. What do you think?

Oh, they viewed your interpretation as entirely alien to their beliefs, and it is. Similar in some aspects, maybe, but different to the point that they don't actually match up anywhere.