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

[Red Sky at Morning]

But if you want any of us to believe what you're saying, then you have to give us evidence. Everything you are saying is nothing but "And I say so" posts. Why should I take your word for it if you're trying to convince those who don't believe that God is real that He is real?

You misunderstand me - I only wanted to ignite in you the idea that regardless of your personal experiences, others have had genuine events they can only interpret as miraculous. You are free to doubt my accounts and I can offer nothing other than these things happened to friends, family or right in front of me as "evidence".

I will leave you to it on the materialism as it only reflects a subset of reality.

At the end of the Last Battle by C.S Lewis there is an encounter with some very "shrewd" dwarves by the children. After failing to make any headway with them, Aslan tells them sadly "Their prison is only in their minds and they are so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out."

I pray that one day something breaks through the paper walls of materialism for you and you see the sunshine outside.

God bless.

 

[pitabread]

Perhaps that might if God were a physical force rather than a person?

I could say something inflammatory to you, but as you are a person, I would be unable to predict your response ;-)

So by your own admission, the supernatural is not capable of being scientifically tested.

Are you still wondering then why supernatural explanations aren't found in the pages of scientific journals?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You misunderstand me - I only wanted to ignite in you the idea that regardless of your personal experiences, others have had genuine events they can only interpret as miraculous. You are free to doubt my accounts and I can offer nothing other than these things happened to friends, family or right in front of me as "evidence".

I will leave you to it on the materialism as it only reflects a subset of reality.

At the end of the Last Battle by C.S Lewis there is an encounter with some very "shrewd" dwarves by the children. After failing to make any headway with them, Aslan tells them sadly "Their prison is only in their minds and they are so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out."

I pray that one day something breaks through the paper walls of materialism for you and you see the sunshine outside.

God bless.

But on this portion of the forum, people will actually ask for evidence for claims. If you don't provide evidence for these claims, then anything you say is practically worthless.

 

[pitabread]

You misunderstand me - I only wanted to ignite in you the idea that regardless of your personal experiences, others have had genuine events they can only interpret as miraculous.

I realize that this wasn't directed at me, but I wanted to respond to this because I actually agree with it. I've also experienced phenomena which I've noticed others have as well and have ascribe to supernatural causation. The difference is I don't ascribe such experience to external supernatural causes, but rather internal, psychological ones.

So I do believe that yes, a lot people do have legitimate experiences that they interpret as supernatural. The question is whether there is really anything supernatural happening, however. And based on my own personal experience and observation, the answer is no.

That doesn't necessarily invalidate the experience. Just the attribution of the experience.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

But on this portion of the forum, people will actually ask for evidence for claims. If you don't provide evidence for these claims, then anything you say is practically worthless.

Perhaps I might speak to you another time on a different forum topic then...

I could hang about and pay creation/evolution evidence ping pong where you play a pandas thumb and I bounce a Bombardier beetle back but I'm too busy for that. If you want to find out where the balance of evidence lies, you will, if you don't, nothing I say will make a shred of difference to you...

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I realize that this wasn't directed at me, but I wanted to respond to this because I actually agree with it. I've also experienced phenomena which I've noticed others have as well and have ascribe to supernatural causation. The difference is I don't ascribe such experience to external supernatural causes, but rather internal, psychological ones.

So I do believe that yes, a lot people do have legitimate experiences that they interpret as supernatural. The question is whether there is really anything supernatural happening, however. And based on my own personal experience and observation, the answer is no.

That doesn't necessarily invalidate the experience. Just the attribution of the experience.

My wife is a trained Psychologist - I understand the idea but the things I have seen have never quite fell into the "internal" category. Anyway, catch you all around the forum some time?

 

[pitabread]

I understand the idea but the things I have seen have never quite fell into the "internal" category.

I kind of addressed this in my prior response re: the problems with faith healing examples.

I mean have you ever seen anyone miraculously healed from a catastrophic head wound, amputation or other blatantly obvious physical injury?

Anyway, catch you all around the forum some time?

I'm generally around these parts. Mainly for the arguments. Anytime you want to argue about something, I'll be here.

 

[USincognito]

What does faith healing and answered prayers have to do the evidence for evolution? Let's try getting back on topic.

 

[Astrophile]

Ok - I'm glad you asked... I did my first degree in evolutionary Biology and Biochemistry, from Darwin to Dawkins. What you find when you study the subject is that there is the data and the interpretation.

Do you mind if I ask which university you attended, and how much research in biology have you done since completing your first degree?

What you get with your journals like Nature, National Geographic, New Scientist and Scientific American is the unspoken rule that only materialist explanations are allowed.

In addition, funding of science follows the same pattern. Have you ever wished to apply for a study grant based on creationist interpretations?

Regardless, I live the idea of going to the third umpire of the facts (not just our favourite ones). Being open to these facts has, over the years made me more convinced as a creationist as time has gone by.

Since you have academic qualifications, can you tell me how you explain the observed facts of biology (e.g. genetics, comparative anatomy, embryology, biogeography, and palaeontology) without evolution? I should be really interested to know. Also, most Christians accept the scientific evidence for evolution; can you tell me why you do not?

One of my favourite pastimes is reading an article like " DNA found in Dinosaur Bones" and observing the way the writer finds some remarkable unknown mechanism whereby said DNA might be preserved for 100 million years contrary to all other observed physical laws - priceless!

One of the observed physical laws is that the half-lives, or rates of decay, of radioactive nuclides, are constant, or at least that they are not perturbed by the physical conditions of temperature and pressure that exist in the Earth's crust and upper mantle. Do you accept this physical law, and if not, why not?

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

What does faith healing and answered prayers have to do the evidence for evolution? Let's try getting back on topic.

Good question - it comes down to the old question "What is truth?"

If God is real then truth > naturalism, even if the basic framework / experimental assumption of this kind of debate is that truth = naturalism.

My mention of my own experiences is to whet the scientific minds here with the possibility that my experiential knowledge may include events that, while true in all meaningful senses, are beyond the realm of naturalism.

When considering origins, with an eye to truth, theistic interpretations of events are not automatically less "true" than materialistic ones. That was perhaps the understanding I wanted to convey.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Do you mind if I ask which university you attended, and how much research in biology have you done since completing your first degree?



Since you have academic qualifications, can you tell me how you explain the observed facts of biology (e.g. genetics, comparative anatomy, embryology, biogeography, and palaeontology) without evolution? I should be really interested to know. Also, most Christians accept the scientific evidence for evolution; can you tell me why you do not?



One of the observed physical laws is that the half-lives, or rates of decay, of radioactive nuclides, are constant, or at least that they are not perturbed by the physical conditions of temperature and pressure that exist in the Earth's crust and upper mantle. Do you accept this physical law, and if not, why not?

I invite you to dig about and see if you can find the creationist answers to some of your evolutionary claims. If I spend any more time on the forum this week I will be a single guy ;-)

Creation answers (frequently asked questions) - CMI Mobile

P.s. when I get more time I will dig around for articles on each of your points. I got the top mark of my year for the Evolution module, qualified as an 11-18 science teacher then got sick of the evolutionary straight jacket and did an MSc in Computing. At least with my new discipline, they (usually) acknowledge the original designer!!!

 

[pitabread]

When considering origins, with an eye to truth, theistic interpretations of events are not automatically less "true" than materialistic ones. That was perhaps the understanding I wanted to convey.

How does one distinguish between different competing theistic interpretations? How does one determine the "truth" of a particular theistic idea?

With science, you have the scientific method and an objective backdrop (the universe itself) with which to test ideas. What is the theistic equivalent?

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

How does one distinguish between different competing theistic interpretations? How does one determine the "truth" of a particular theistic idea?

With science, you have the scientific method and an objective backdrop (the universe itself) with which to test ideas. What is the theistic equivalent?

You might be a short guy with a beard, a bodybuilder with a buzz cut or maybe even a pitabread. One thing - you probably aren't all three!

You wont find out who God is in a boiling tube, but you know that anyway...

 

[USincognito]

Good question - it comes down to the old question "What is truth?"

If God is real then truth > naturalism, even if the basic framework / experimental assumption of this kind of debate is that truth = naturalism.

My mention of my own experiences is to whet the scientific minds here with the possibility that my experiential knowledge may include events that, while true in all meaningful senses, are beyond the realm of naturalism.

When considering origins, with an eye to truth, theistic interpretations of events are not automatically less "true" than materialistic ones. That was perhaps the understanding I wanted to convey.

The actual answer is they have nothing to do with the evidence for evolution and are off topic. So is this post. You seem to think you've walked into a philosophy/apologetics forum, but that stuff is off topic in the Creation and Evolution subforum.

 

[Aman777]

Belief is not a choice. I can't force myself to believe in your God anymore than I could force a believe that Gravity doesn't affect me when I step off the top of a skyscraper.

I know and that is WHY I posted this sentence:

On your own, you don't believe that men rise from the dead, so you should ask the Father for the Gift of Faith to believe that Gospel. Eph 2:8

IOW, You don't believe that God will give you the Gift of Faith. You are without excuse, so please hold down the gnashing of your teeth when you find the Truth.

Any God worth the title would know that. I have to chalk this up to humans claiming to speak for your God and wanting your tythe - after all, the all-omnipotent creator of the Universe needs your money to help spread the word.

Religion need the money. The tythe is for the ancient Jews. God doesn't FORCE you to believe in Him but the consequences of your decision, are terrible.

 

[xianghua]

1 million years; by that point, DNA degrades so much as to be useless. Even DNA samples a few thousand years old are partially degraded, which is why Neanderthal DNA was sequenced by using more than a dozen individual fossils that were preserved in an unusual way thanks to the marrow being consumed before they fossilized.

so if fossils indeed so old we can predict that we should not find a fossil with DNA remains that is date for more then 1 my?

 

[PsychoSarah]

so if fossils indeed so old we can predict that we should not find a fossil with DNA remains that is date for more then 1 my?

The oldest confirmed DNA extraction from a fossil is from one 800,000 years old. There are certainly people over the years that have claimed to have extracted older DNA, but none confirmed. The super old ones from bacteria were complicated by the potential for said bacteria to actually have been in a prolonged state of stasis rather than dead for the entire time frame they were buried, but it is possible that the circular DNA conformation associated with them is more stable. That being said, dinosaurs don't have linear DNA.

However, even if we did find a dinosaur fossil that had DNA present and we could confirm that it wasn't contamination from any organism that came into contact with it, that wouldn't inherently mean that the fossil was less than 1 million years old. After all, we could simply be incorrect about how long DNA can last. The best way to make the determination of which was the case would be to replicate the conditions the fossil experienced to the best of our ability, as well as radioactive dating methods (our understanding of radioactive decay exceeds our understanding of DNA decay, making it a more reliable dating method).

But, we'll see what happens if we ever find dinosaur DNA. The closest thing to finding such DNA that we have found is dinosaur proteins, which is certainly neat. One can derive a sequence (sans introns) that would produce such a protein if it is complete. Which is neat.

 

[DreadCthulhu]

The oldest confirmed DNA extraction from a fossil is from one 800,000 years old. There are certainly people over the years that have claimed to have extracted older DNA, but none confirmed. The super old ones from bacteria were complicated by the potential for said bacteria to actually have been in a prolonged state of stasis rather than dead for the entire time frame they were buried, but it is possible that the circular DNA conformation associated with them is more stable. That being said, dinosaurs don't have linear DNA.

However, even if we did find a dinosaur fossil that had DNA present and we could confirm that it wasn't contamination from any organism that came into contact with it, that wouldn't inherently mean that the fossil was less than 1 million years old. After all, we could simply be incorrect about how long DNA can last. The best way to make the determination of which was the case would be to replicate the conditions the fossil experienced to the best of our ability, as well as radioactive dating methods (our understanding of radioactive decay exceeds our understanding of DNA decay, making it a more reliable dating method).

But, we'll see what happens if we ever find dinosaur DNA. The closest thing to finding such DNA that we have found is dinosaur proteins, which is certainly neat. One can derive a sequence (sans introns) that would produce such a protein if it is complete. Which is neat.

that would be pretty neat

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I know and that is WHY I posted this sentence:

On your own, you don't believe that men rise from the dead, so you should ask the Father for the Gift of Faith to believe that Gospel. Eph 2:8

IOW, You don't believe that God will give you the Gift of Faith. You are without excuse, so please hold down the gnashing of your teeth when you find the Truth.

Religion need the money. The tythe is for the ancient Jews. God doesn't FORCE you to believe in Him but the consequences of your decision, are terrible.

I'm sorry Aman, you post so much incoherent and inconsistent nonsense that I've long stopped taking you seriously - in fact, I can only hold a conversation with you knowing you're just a Po, because the stuff you parrot just couldn't be proposed seriously by anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of reality.

Anyway, I'll believe when I have sufficient reason to... same with Zeuss, Shiva, Odin, Ra, Mithra, Allah, Thor, Bramah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Loch Ness Monster, and even that silly teapot orbiting Mars.

and Please don't forget to hold down the gnashing of your teeth when you find the Truth of Sathya Sai Baba...

 

[DogmaHunter]

What you get with your journals like Nature, National Geographic, New Scientist and Scientific American is the unspoken rule that only materialist explanations are allowed.

No. Instead, only evidence based explanations are allowed. Religious claims have no business in science.

In addition, funding of science follows the same pattern. Have you ever wished to apply for a study grant based on creationist interpretations?

I assume you'll get the same response as applying for a study grant based on flat earth interpretations, geocentric interpretations, astrology, etc.

And rightfully so.

Regardless, I live the idea of going to the third umpire of the facts (not just our favourite ones). Being open to these facts has, over the years made me more convinced as a creationist as time has gone by.

Ow please. The only reason you are a creationist, is because of what you believe religiously. It has nothing to do with facts and everything with your religion.

Which is exactly why we don't see any atheist creationists.
If the facts would actually support creationist nonsense, then there would be atheists assuming that non-supernatural entities (like aliens) came to this planet to engineer life on it. Or even engineered the entire solar system and everything it contains.

But the fact is that we don't see such. Because the facts don't point to creationistic nonsense at all.

One of my favourite pastimes is reading an article like " DNA found in Dinosaur Bones" and observing the way the writer finds some remarkable unknown mechanism whereby said DNA might be preserved for 100 million years contrary to all other observed physical laws - priceless!

Was that article written by a creationist by any chance?