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

[[z]]

Should probably be wary of all this relegion stuff. Wouldn't want it mucking up your faith.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Should probably be wary of all this relegion stuff. Wouldn't want it mucking up your faith.

To who are you replying here?
No idea what your point is.

 

[[z]]

Huh?

You don't like progress / learning?



If you like to think so....
Off course, it's not really true as the ways people see / believe their religious scriptures, also changes throughout time. Ironically, that change is oftenly motivated by actual progress in science.

Srry not what I meant at all. What I was saying is that I thought it was interesting to consider the action that is to learn. I wasn't being snarky mate.

 

[pitabread]

there are also many scientific papers that support creation rather then evolution. as you can find here:


http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=10141

do you believe in id now?

I've actually read a lot of those papers. They don't actually support creation.

What IDists generally do (that creationists also do) is treat 'creation' or 'design' as the null hypothesis for evolution. So what you'll find it that papers the Discovery Institute highlights are usually attempts to argue against biological evolution and then assume design as a default. But as we already discussed, intelligent design is not the null hypothesis of evolution.

What the ID crowd needs to do is come up with a mechanism by which design could be effected and create hypotheses around that, and then demonstrate the validity of those hypotheses. But they don't. And especially where creationists and IDists believe that design is a result of supernatural magic, they have left the realm of science and moved into theology anyway.

 

[pitabread]

Because science is constantly changing.

So? Everything is constantly changing, culture, society, the planet, technology, language. Even this magical internet thingee we're conversing on didn't exist 30 years ago. Change happens.

The reason science appears to be constantly "changing" is because the quest for knowledge is endless. We, as a human species, don't know everything. We're constantly learning as a result of scientific inquiry. So it's not so much that science is "changing". It's that our base of collective knowledge is growing. And that's hardly a bad thing given that scientific knowledge gives way to technological advancement that on the balance yields improvements in our day-to-day lives.

As I said earlier in this thread, what creationists seem to want is to be able to hit the "undo" button for the last couple hundred years of human civilization. Unfortunately there is no undo button on reality. And I suspect that most if not all wouldn't want to give up all the advancements we enjoy today and live like it was a few hundred years ago.

All creationism does, in terms of AIG, is offers an alternative explanation.

Except it doesn't because it doesn't explain anything.

 

[pitabread]

its not evolution. evolution its about a common descent between many different creatures.

Evolution a process by which gene pools change over time. Common descent is merely the output of that process.

I suggest taking the course I posted in this other thread, so that you can have a more informed viewpoint. Even if you still disagree with it, at least you'll have a better base of knowledge on the subject and won't continue to make the same errors: Want to learn about evolution? Take a free course

 

[pitabread]

Evolution and the Bible (which doesn't even teach Theistic Evolution) are diametrically opposed. They don't mix, and both suffer when people try to force them together. The serious student of both must come to a choice. I choose to believe God.

I've always found it curious those who choose to make their theistic beliefs dependent on science being wrong. Another creationist not too long ago said they'd rip up the Bible if evolution was true.

It just seems a tenuous, fragile stance to have on one's theology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Srry not what I meant at all. What I was saying is that I thought it was interesting to consider the action that is to learn. I wasn't being snarky mate.

Sorry, it's hard to tell on here sometimes

I'll assume the same goes for that other comment I replied to.

My bad.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

The problem with this is, most people who are creationists go to schools that teach evolution. We see both sides of it. It's really the atheists and evolutionists who have NEVER stopped and looked at something with an open mind. I have. I used to be an atheist until I had an experience that told me God is real. You could easily discount that experience as a hallucination, but I know it was real. From there, I went on a journey to discover who God is.

You know hallucinations and delusions are real to people that experience them? I'm not saying it IS a hallucination or delusion - Sorry for pointing that out as predicted, but if you were honest, you'd seek independent verification, especially if you care about yourself and the people around you.

there are also many scientific papers that support creation rather then evolution. as you can find here:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=10141

do you believe in id now?

lol! No. Omgoodness! Do you even check your sources??

Perhaps you should take a moment to properly look at what these "peer reviewed" articles are and where they're published too. You do know that there's a list of reputable peer review scientific publications? I couldn't help but notice this tidbit on page 2 of the Introduction:

"Despite ID’s publication record, we note parenthetically that recognition in peer-reviewed literature is not an absolute requirement to demonstrate an idea’s scientific merit. Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience -- his Origin of Species -- not in a peer-reviewed paper. Nonetheless, ID’s peer-reviewed publication record shows that it deserves -- and is receiving -- serious consideration by the scientific community."​

So, "We're peer reviewed, but maybe not by those stiffs in the scientific community.... because like Charles Darwin, we don't really have to be peer reviewed by them anyway." - kinda really sets the tone for what comes next.

Anyway, started looking into these "peer reviewed articles" only to find (as I suspected) this is all male bovine faecal matter.

I started on the first one, it was (and get this), from 1866 - 151 years ago! Fair enough, it's odd that ID was a thing back then, because it wasn't. What's more, this is so far out of date as to literally be useless now & I'm surprised the desperation to justify this "emerging new and (allegedly) vibrant field of research" has to clutch for straws so far back in history of scientific research... i.e, prior to reputable journals of peer review.

Moved onto number 2 "peer reviewed article" in this list - this is a surprise, reads well to start with, it's recent, published in a peer-reviewed journal on the list of scientific journals - found the article and started reading - it's not science! This Journal gave him some space to write his grievances to the scientific community on why he wasn't peer reviewed and allowed to publish his article in a peer reviewed journal! Ironically, by squawking loud enough at the publishers over not being published, he can now call himself a published, peer reviewed scientist...

Onto number 3! This one is published in Bio-Complexity - which is essentially a self-publishing front for creationist organisations - see BIO-Complexity - RationalWiki for a better breakdown of who they are. Who they aren't, is mainstream science.

Number 4 is by the same "research scientists" and the same "peer review journal" as above. more faecal matter of the male bovine kind.

Number 5 is not a peer reviewed scientific research paper, but a "short paper" on Artificial Intelligence, presented at a conference by a computer scientist. It shouldn't have to be pointed out normally, but here sadly, I know it's necessary - George D. Montañez is NOT an expert in Biology, Physics, Genomics, and pretty much every field related to the Theory of Evolution imaginable.

Then number 6 is *Another* Bio-Complexity publication - which of course isn't a peer-reviewed scientific journal recognised by actual scientists - just to reiterate their bias for ID, this pulled straight from their open access publication website at Editorial Policies :

Purpose
BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life.​

If you start with a specific objective to further a particular view of a "scientific" proposal, you aren't really doing science. That, and of course, it's funded by Biologic Institute About which if you read down the bottom of this page, you will read of course that it is funded by the Discovery Institute! Not biased right there at all, are we...? </sarcasm>

Number 7 is a legitimate research article (i.e. is written by scientific researchers researching in their field of expertise, and is published in a legitimate peer reviewed science journal) but it has no information on ID at all. Instead, this is a research article on the development path of aerobic digestion of citrate in Lenski's long term ecoli evolution experiment - which neither evolution is discounted, nor ID promoted - it appears the reason it's included is because it challenges the citrate digestion trait in this experiment, suggesting it NOT to be a speciation event, but a re-establishment of existing, but disabled genes for this citrate digestion.

It goes on.... I'm not going through all of it to find something legitimate if I haven't found it already. Reading ahead, most of these articles are self-published in Bio-Complexity which might as well just be posted here on this forum for all the value it has in the scientific community, and legitimate research articles either years (or decades.... or centuries even) out of date, or are small pockets of doubt inducing research that suggests more research into a particular area (such as the citrate digestion in ecoli) but does nothing to discount the Theory of Evolution nor support ID in its place, or finally, were published articles complaining about ID articles that weren't published!

This document is a Ruse! I'd ask you to pick a couple of papers out of it to discuss but you historically point to legitimate research articles that support Evolution anyway and claim they support your argument in quite the opposite manner to what it actually supports... so I know that's a lost cause.

In short, it's outright dishonest propaganda.

 

[xianghua]

I've actually read a lot of those papers. They don't actually support creation.

What IDists generally do (that creationists also do) is treat 'creation' or 'design' as the null hypothesis for evolution. So what you'll find it that papers the Discovery Institute highlights are usually attempts to argue against biological evolution and then assume design as a default. But as we already discussed, intelligent design is not the null hypothesis of evolution.

3 things:

1) first: you showed no evidence for a third possibility.
2) they also bring up evidence for design.
3) even if 1+2 were wrong those papers are scientific papers against evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Evolution a process by which gene pools change over time. Common descent is merely the output of that process.

I suggest taking the course I posted in this other thread, so that you can have a more informed viewpoint. Even if you still disagree with it, at least you'll have a better base of knowledge on the subject and won't continue to make the same errors: Want to learn about evolution? Take a free course

actually this is incorrect. if evolution just means variation over time then even if human will stay as human for a billion years you will call it evolution. but he still will be a human.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Say, what do you make of the gospel? I'd like to understand some of what your saying that I am missing but it makes me curious about this. At your leisure of course.

The gospel question is rather vague. The gospel is in two parts. Gospel means good news, but first there is bad news. God is perfect and righteous and demands that of those that will live with Him forever. When man (Adam) sinned, man was no longer righteous, and he passed that unrighteousness down to all his children. Man was no longer acceptable to God. Sin had to be paid for and the penalty was death. That's the bad news in a nutshell. The good news is God has provided one way for man to have hope and to be reconciled with God and to be totally accepted. The Second Person of the Trinity of God would also become man, sinless man, the man-God, Emmanuel (God with us), Jesus Christ. He would die on the cross as God's substitutionary atonement for all man's sins. Those individual people that would acknowledge God's provision for their sin and receive it (Jesus Christ) as their Savior and Lord, would receive total forgiveness and eternal security of their salvation. Before people even heard of Jesus (from Adam - till Jesus died on the cross) animal sacrifices were given by God for them to do. In God's eyes this was a symbol of the Lord Jesus' death on the cross to come. Innocent animals representing the innocent Jesus dying in the place of the guilty. The good news is that animal sacrifices are no longer required and that one simply pray to Jesus, acknowledging His death on their behalf, and turning their life over to Him as Savior and Lord forever. John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; Romans 10:9-13; John 1:12-13; 1 John 5:11-14.

 

[Greg Merrill]

God might be unchanging (although I'm not convinced when comparing the wrathful God of the OT with the forgiving God of the NT, and the dropping of the unpalatable laws of the OT) but religion certainly is not unchanging - It constantly changes to reflect the current social or moral standards of the day.

Man-made religions change. They are not of God.
The original scriptures no longer exist that we know of on earth, but they are recorded in heaven, Psalms 119:89.
There are so many good copies (not to mention bad copies) of the original scriptures that we can compare them and know what the originals said.
If the originals were still extant, people would undoubtably, and wrongfully fall into the sin of worshipping them, and God didn't want that, so allowed them to disappear from earth most likely.
God's way of dealing with men/nations has changed through history, but the Bible tells us this was all planned from the beginning and for reason. God wasn't "flying by the seat of His pants" winging it as He went. (Check out the theological study of Dispensationalism.)
I understand the evolutionists here better when they sight "The Vatican" and the church (Catholic Church) and don't want to follow them. I wouldn't follow their erroneous ways either. I wasn't raised in that institution so I wasn't faced with throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Greg Merrill]

First of all, it is not shown to be that age, it is claimed to be that age. To show and to claim are 2 very different things.

Secondly, you don't have a god saying that.... you have a book claiming that. A book, written by humans claiming to be speaking for a god.



First of all, it's billions not millions.

Secondly, it's not "men" saying that... It's evidence demonstrating that.
It's objective measurements demonstrating that.

And old earth in an even older universe, is established by the facts of reality.
Your claims, are established by claims in a bronze age book.


I'll stick to the facts of reality.

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.

 

[Aman777]

... then what have they been publishing in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology all these years?

It was called descent with modification within His and Their kinds until some Godless people changed the name to Godless "evolution".

 

[xianghua]

Then number 6 is *Another* Bio-Complexity publication - which of course isn't a peer-reviewed scientific journal recognised by actual scientists

are you saying that if they dont believe in evolution they arent scientists? by this logic any scientists who believe in evolution isnt a scientist too.

Number 7 is a legitimate research article (i.e. is written by scientific researchers researching in their field of expertise, and is published in a legitimate peer reviewed science journal) but it has no information on ID at all.

and what about those papers?:

Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

P. Nelson and J. Wells, “Homology in Biology: Problem for Naturalistic Science and Prospect for Intelligent Design,” pp. 303

Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution,” pp. 352-370

M. J. Behe, “Design in the Details: The Origin of Biomolecular Machines,” pp. 287

Douglas D. Axe and Ann K. Gauger, “Explaining Metabolic Innovation: Neo Darwinism versus Design,” pp. 489-507

 

[Kenny'sID]

Not sure if serious...

I'm not sure if the OP was serious, people lie all the time...that really perplexes you?

Makes me wonder what they think scientists actually do.

Try and catch the wind?

 

[Speedwell]

Makes me wonder what they think scientists actually do.

I imagine that running the global atheistic socialist conspiracy takes up a good deal of their time.

 

[pitabread]

I'm not sure if the OP was serious, people lie all the time...that really perplexes you?

There is a difference between a little white lie and a vast global conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists. Do you believe scientists are involved in the latter?

 

[pitabread]

and what about those papers?:

Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

That paper is garbage. I've read it multiple times and posted about it here before; it's basically an incomplete review of evolutionary literature on bird evolution, which the author criticizes and never actually provides any evidence for design.

Considering how poor an example of scholarship it represents, I'm surprised the DI even has it on their site. It demonstrates how barren the landscape of ID literature though if this is what they choose to highlight.