Ignoring The Evidence : Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

By Evolutionist, I gather you are using the term from a lay perspective. I mention that because when I see one referred to as an evolutionist I view them as a practicing professional studying and researching the biological and physical aspects pertaining to the theory of evolution. Thus, I do not consider myself an evolutionist from a professional point of view. However, I have obtained and reviewed quite a bit of the mainstream scientific literature pertaining to evolution and I find that I have no problem with the theory of evolution. In fact I support it. So, from a lay position, I guess I could be considered an evolutionist.

Sure. I mentioned that Richard Dawkins and others refer to themselves as such : evolutionists (read back) Isn't he also a Darwinist ?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

to wait for something good to happen in your life is not a good thing, especially when it has to be for a long time as the process of evolution takes not-so-short time, that is also why there's no evolution in the true Lord God

Blessings

That doesn't make sense.

 

[TLK Valentine]

to wait for something good to happen in your life is not a good thing, especially when it has to be for a long time as the process of evolution takes not-so-short time, that is also why there's no evolution in the true Lord God

Blessings

Our lives are limited; God has no such problem.

 

[RickG]

Sure. I mentioned that Richard Dawkins and others refer to themselves as such : evolutionists (read back) Isn't he also a Darwinist ?

Evolutionist...Darwinist...etc. ...what ever. As for myself I accept the theory of evolution as presented in the mainstream scientific literature. I've never considered myself an evolutionist by name, rather a scientist, or as I spent my professional career, a Chemist. What I'm getting at is if a person accepts certain scientific concepts are they automatically referred to by that profession? I understand and accept the concepts of sedimentology and geomorphology. Does that make me a sedimentologist or geomorphologist? I accept medical science, does that make me a doctor? See where I'm going.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Evolutionist...Darwinist...etc. ...what ever. As for myself I accept the theory of evolution as presented in the mainstream scientific literature. I've never considered myself an evolutionist by name, rather a scientist, or as I spent my professional career, a Chemist. What I'm getting at is if a person accepts certain scientific concepts are they automatically referred to by that profession? I understand and accept the concepts of sedimentology and geomorphology. Does that make me a sedimentologist or geomorphologist? I accept medical science, does that make me a doctor? See where I'm going.

I guess the real difference is that one is a hobbyist and the other is engaged in the actual leg work. i.e. the bloke who along with his team found the Tiktaalik rosae (excuse the emoticon -- and the other quote -- I'm not use to this forum anymore) http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Invisible things that are clearly seen? Is that like Wonder Woman's jet plane?

Invisible things that are clearly seen? Is that like Wonder Woman's jet plane?
(Davian)

Davian,
I was half replying to you and wanting to change what I wrote and then the whole thing got trapped in another post to someone else, so I deleted it.
So here are a few things I think about your view of Bible-speak.

In a way you are right.

Obviously Wonder Woman -- doesn't exist, but through the magic of the internet we can put up an image and it appears that she is there and the outline represents what folks cannot see. (like glass) In a way the Bible and books endeavoring to explain things which are not seen -- do so by providing outlines ( parables ) -- which when considering help one to see what is not there.

I think the best way to go about this is to remember that Paul's writings are quite a mix of ideas and to isolate one idea and try to make sense of what he's saying is sort of like holding the trunk of an elephant and saying -- the elephant is a long pipe -- the idea of how we see Bible-speak is that we see because we have a strong sense that there is something there -- which is hard to explain -- but I think if you recall C.S. Lewis in Suprised by Joy talks about how God just kept right on coming to him -- now that is something hard to tell another. Sort of like a young child saying, "I have a friend Alice who plays with me everyday" -- yet, Alice is imaginary.

To the mind which is not feeling or sensing those same things -- it's just not there. Much like the spaceship that Wonder Woman is flying -- I suspect it will be like that for those who were there the day that Jesus rose, or Lazarus rose, or a miracle happened -- some clearly did see -- but others did not and some saw but did not believe what they saw ( Brothers Karamazov ) -- and yet isn't it amazing that the Master (Jesus) does not applaud those who have this sight -- or vision, but those who humbly trust and love and hope and carry on spreading love, hope and trust to their fellow human beings.

If I tell an adult (not a child) that there is an elephant in the room breaking all the furniture -- they will look around and see that the furniture is intact (yet a wee one will see it and act out emotions etc.) -- So, when you bring a comic to subject such at this -- you know you are in trouble because you are now in the world of imagination. In that world, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE -- and in that sense you are probably more of a believer than I.

etc. etc. etc. blah, blah, blah, nothing to do with this subject.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Our lives are limited; God has no such problem.

If you're talking about the Bible-god, didn't God enter into the evolutionary dish washing cycle i.e. Jesus?

 

[Davian]

What are you talking about?

I am not sure. Perhaps I was responding to someone's rambling earlier in this thread?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I am not sure. Perhaps I was responding to someone's rambling earlier in this thread?

Or you were just being a nitpicking Brontosaurus.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If you're talking about the Bible-god, didn't God enter into the evolutionary dish washing cycle i.e. Jesus?

No. Jesus has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Davian]

Invisible things that are clearly seen? Is that like Wonder Woman's jet plane?
(Davian)

Davian,
I was half replying to you and wanting to change what I wrote and then the whole thing got trapped in another post to someone else, so I deleted it.
So here are a few things I think about your view of Bible-speak.

In a way you are right.

or several ways...

Obviously Wonder Woman

Or Superwoman...(I saw that edit)

-- doesn't exist, but through the magic of the internet we can put up an image and it appears that she is there and the outline represents what folks cannot see. (like glass)

I do not see the analogy. Glass is only transparent. It is, by many methods, independently and objectively detectable and testable. How does that compare in any way to gods?

In a way the Bible and books endeavoring to explain things which are not seen -- do so by providing outlines ( parables ) -- which when considering help one to see what is not there.

I understand that. If it were there, why would it need such "help"?

I think the best way to go about this is to remember that Paul's writings are quite a mix of ideas and to isolate one idea and try to make sense of what he's saying is sort of like holding the trunk of an elephant and saying -- the elephant is a long pipe -- the idea of how we see Bible-speak is that we see because we have a strong sense that there is something there -- which is hard to explain -- but I think if you recall C.S. Lewis in Suprised by Joy talks about how God just kept right on coming to him -- now that is something hard to tell another. Sort of like a young child saying, "I have a friend Alice who plays with me everyday" -- yet, Alice is imaginary.

Indeed, very much like the imaginary.

To the mind which is not feeling or sensing those same things -- it's just not there.

And to the mind that is only imagining it to be there, it is not there.

Much like the spaceship

...invisible jet...

that Wonder Woman is flying -- I suspect it will be like that for those who were there the day that Jesus

...allegedly...

rose, or Lazarus rose, or a miracle happened

...or a story was fabricated to say that...

-- some clearly did see -- but others did not and some saw but did not believe what they saw ( Brothers Karamazov ) -- and yet isn't it amazing that the Master (Jesus) does not applaud those who have this sight -- or vision,

..or imagined...

but those who humbly trust and love and hope and carry on spreading love, hope and trust to their fellow human beings.

...and tell them that the majority of them will burn forever for reasons beyond their control (disbelief in a particular deity). The "good news", apparently.

If I tell an adult (not a child) that there is an elephant in the room breaking all the furniture -- they will look around and see that the furniture is intact (yet a wee one will see it and act out emotions etc.) -- So, when you bring a comic to subject such at this -- you know you are in trouble because you are now in the world of imagination. In that world, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE

like talking donkeys, walking on water, global floods and unbuildable boats, dinosaurs living with humans, an Earth populated from a single family and some pairs of animals.

The world of the imagination indeed.

-- and in that sense you are probably more of a believer than I.

A believer in what, exactly?

etc. etc. etc. blah, blah, blah, nothing to do with this subject.

As you have already derailed your own thread, I will offer you a there-must-be-a-window-because-all-of-this-window-dressing analogy:

From:
Emperor Has No Clothes Award
An award celebrating “plain speaking” on the shortcomings of religion by public figures was inaugurated by the Freedom From Religion Foundation in 1999.

"Now, when I try to read the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” in still another way, in the context of religion rather than of human power —that is, if I try to see the Emperor as God—a really weird thing happens.

It’s like I’m standing in the crowd watching the Emperor’s parade, and I don’t yell it, but I say it: “Where is the Emperor? There is no Emperor! There’s just clothes!”

What I see is a marvelous costume, very ancient and beautiful—a halo, a triple crown, robes of white and gold—floating along the street, but nothing, nothing inside them. Empty clothes.

Now, I honestly do not think all the tailors who have made those clothes, that God-costume, so busily, for all these centuries, did it or do it deliberately and knowingly as a con game, to deceive us. Maybe in part, but mostly I think the people who sew the garments of God are busy deceiving themselves. Priests, of course, can make a good living out of it and also gain secular power. But lay believers weave those garments day and night, all over the world, and to some of them it is the most important thing they do, and they love doing it. That’s fine with me, so long as they don’t try to make me do it with them."

https://ffrf.org/outreach/awards/emperor-has-no-clothes-award/item/11980-ursula-k-le-guin

 

[katerinah1947]

I started a perfectly good thread entitled: Why Are You An Evolutionist? and by page 7 it had been hijacked by something I see in everyday life. People who ignore the evidence. (refer post 123)

In legal proceedings the object is to present evidence and in the case of Evolution the evidence in favor of it is already piled to the ceiling.

I am not a biologist but I do love the good old fashioned who-dun-nit.

So let's try this in reverse: Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

(please let's not start with an argument about whether the word 'evolutionist' is relevant, as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould (rip) and others have used the name to describe themselves)

Hi,

Well I am an evolutionist until it can be proven that it was not done that way. Now, a 100 to maybe 200 years ago, there was not the huge amount of evidence there is today, then I would have listened and waited.

Even with accepting the evidence, and seeing if that negates anything that I have researched, and proven, I still allow, just like Einstein did, that work to be shown to be in error, if any of the data points are shown to be in error.

So far, that is a heavily established theory, and if it is ever overthrown, it will be interesting to see what does it. Presently, as it is the established science, and religion and science are not allowed to mix still, (Against all my wishes. I want Philosohy to have science in it also, etc. and vice versa.), there is and can be no conflict with God and Evolution.

LOVE,

 

[Loudmouth]

It seems the evidence is disagreeing with what you say.

It isn't. You are citing science you don't understand. For example, HGT between bacteria and complex eukaryotes is so rare that it can be ignored. The overwhelming phylogenetic signal comes from vertical inheritance.

But the fact it is also taken out in these more distant creatures shows that it is not just limited to apes and humans. The evidence also shows that the human gene is more similar to the gorilla which are more distant to humans than chimps.

Only 30% of human genes are more similar to gorillas than chimps. This is an expected outcome of incomplete lineage sorting. Overall, the chimp genome has more in common with the human genome than the gorilla genome.

Then there are many examples such as the vast incongruence in the tree of life.

They are overwhelmed by the congruencies 1,000:1.

This links distantly related creatures together through large chunks of the same genes.

Since they share a common ancestor we would expect them to share genes.

Kangaroo DNA unexpectedly contains huge chunks of the human genome
Cows, Snakes, and... Dolphins? "The cow genome contains a piece of snake DNA..." according to that New Scientist Darwin was Wrong about the Tree of Life
Elephants and Moles: The elephant shrew is genetically closer to an actual elephant than it is to other shrews, as reported by Roger Lewin in New Scientist.
Mouse DNA is the same as 80% of the human genome.
Gorilla DNA is closer to humans than chimps in 15% of the genome
Humans are more closely related to flies and worms than previously thought, genome studes suggest
http://www.genome.gov/27558082
Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from... bats
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22891620

Pick one and I will discuss it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hi,

Well I am an evolutionist until it can be proven that it was not done that way. Now, a 100 to maybe 200 years ago, there was not the huge amount of evidence there is today, then I would have listened and waited.

Even with accepting the evidence, and seeing if that negates anything that I have researched, and proven, I still allow, just like Einstein did, that work to be shown to be in error, if any of the data points are shown to be in error.

So far, that is a heavily established theory, and if it is ever overthrown, it will be interesting to see what does it. Presently, as it is the established science, and religion and science are not allowed to mix still, (Against all my wishes. I want Philosohy to have science in it also, etc. and vice versa.), there is and can be no conflict with God and Evolution.

LOVE,

It's already been falsified - look around you.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...an-evolutionist.7916357/page-15#post-68891501

And I am still waiting btw for a fit to the observational evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's already been falsified - look around you.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...an-evolutionist.7916357/page-15#post-68891501

And I am still waiting btw for a fit to the observational evidence.

Do we also observe that humans and chimps share hundreds of thousands of endogenous retroviruses?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Name one that did not go extinct that displays evolution? Sharks? They just got smaller, still sharks. Crocodiles - same.

I know you like to believe they evolved - but then you are the one preaching missing links - not me. I don't need to claim missing links - need not rely on Fairie Dust and imagination - just accept observational evidence. Asian remains Asian and African remains African - yet when they mate a new infraspecific taxa comes into the record - suddenly - with no links missing at all.





Before which not a single speck of life of any kind can be found - it just appears suddenly - fully formed.

Just as the claimed oldest life appeared suddenly and has remained the same for billions of years and never evolved at all - despite changing conditions all over the globe.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html

But it's just "missing" right??????

But wait, no it's not those that are the oldest but these.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Tree_of_Life/Stromatolites.htm

No wait, it's these,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-oldest-ever-complete-example-of-8940031.html

No, no it's these and the planet was just like it was today, not dry and hot as required by planetary formation theories.

http://www.techinsider.io/oldest-fossils-ever-discovered-2015-10

You misunderstand evolution in regards to crocodiles and sharks. Change over time is not standard in evolution; some populations change faster than others, and the larger the population, the longer their reproduction cycle, the lower their mutation rate, and the more stable the environment, the less change across generations that you will see. Additionally, creatures such as sharks already have some of the best traits both for specific and changing environments, making them especially less likely to change over time as significantly as certain other creatures that experience stronger selection pressures.

 

[katerinah1947]

It's already been falsified - look around you.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...an-evolutionist.7916357/page-15#post-68891501

And I am still waiting btw for a fit to the observational evidence.

Hi,

I do not understand your reference. I am a Scientist of sorts. The information that has been presented by following the Bible mandate of "Subdue the earth in Genesis 1:28, plus the incorporation of that information into law and mandated by God that we listen to in Romans 13:1-5, is what has to be falsified.

Above is two mandates by God. It is Genesis 1:28, which required science to be done, by yes, your God.

The second mandate is in Romans 13:1-5, and we are to follow that. In order for me to understand you, you have to show with an experiment or a discovery that indeed they made a mistake in all that they have done.

Phlogiston was proven to be wrong. It took a proof though. The stationary earth was shown to be wrong. It took a proof though. Evolution may be wrong. You will have to show a proof equal to the task.

I forget how Phlogiston was shown to be wrong, by an experiment.
The earth not being stationary was shown to be wrong by a telescope.

Adam, the first man, being created just 7000 years ago, was shown to be wrong by fossil records and societal advancements.

Noah's Ark in 2700 BC, was shown to be wrong by Society not changing in gradual advancemets, meaning that no one in 2700 BC knew they were dead. They didn't notice.

Yes, In The Spirt types exist. Yes, God has made His presence known to them and to others. No, not everyone is an In The Spirit type.

Does Adam have to be made only 7000 years ago or so, for you to be Christian?
Does The Flood have to happen only 4700 years ago?
Does a day, in Genesis have to be a day?

What has to be literally true for you? Does beget always have to mean father/son with no time intervals in between, such that the Biblical Jesus, is the actual birth son of David?

What has to be literally true, for you?

Is it not possible, for science, as Commanded by God to Do, is it not possible for both Evolution and God to exist?????

And, if you are no scientist, as I am no geneticist, is it not possible for you to leave that to those who are, or to go to school, Pass, and learn it? Only, knowing and understanding, lets a person know what is truly correct or not.

LOVE,

 

[lesliedellow]

I forget how Phlogiston was shown to be wrong, by an experiment.

Lavoisier burnt some steel wool, and noticed that it's weight increased, which didn't quite square with phlogiston being lost.

 

[katerinah1947]

Lavoisier burnt some steel wool, and noticed that it's weight increased, which didn't quite square with phlogiston being lost.

Hi,

I liked the fact that Phlogiston stood as the explanation, for combustion for so long. Chemistry, though is still a stretch for me, thus for me to even remember that phlogiston thing, from associated work, means I am quite capable of error there, without reviewing the work again.
.


One experiment, is worth a thosand expert opinions.

Sometimes though, as you know like with Einstein's stuff and of all things unexpected with the massive earthquake statements off the Oregon Coast, experiments support rather than disprove the present understandings.

Being more of an experimenter, when Michelson and Moreley did their experiments, trying to prove, not disprove the theory of Ether, if they had just put down their results as the results, saying that the speed of light is constant, in all three of their experiments, they would have felt better.

In a similar way, but later doing it correctly, The man who was upset, over some guy claiming that massive earthquakes resulting in 90 foot Tsunamis were happening off the coast from Canada to almost California, in a massive ""Oh yeah? I'll show him event"", did some work experimentally to prove that person wrong. Only, his work proved the originator was correct.

So, this chief detractor, did not do more and more work, to try and prove his original idea was correct. Instead, he accepted the other man's work as correct and continued working.

All his subsequent work, his follow on work, gave the world a huge amount if information, on Subuction Zone earthquakes, not only here but off the coast of Indonesia also. He did what all scientists are supposed to do. He let the results determine the truth. He also, added to the known results, after he found out he was wrong, by experimentation.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

I'm starting to look up the change.

Iron(III) oxide

• Molecular FormulaFe2O3
• Average mass159.688 Da
• Monoisotopic mass159.854630 Da
• ChemSpider ID14147

1. 
   Iron
   Chemical Element
   Iron is a chemical element with symbol Fe and atomic number 26. It is a metal in the first transition series. It is by mass the most common element on Earth, forming much of Earth's outer and inner core. Wikipedia
   
   Symbol: Fe
   Electron configuration: [Ar] 3d64s2
   Atomic number: 26
   Melting point: 2,800°F (1,538°C)
   Electrons per shell: 2, 8, 14, 2
   Boiling point: 5,184°F (2,862°C)
   Atomic mass: 55.845 ± 0.002 u

So, it would be ~~160/112 times heavier.

Nice.

LOVE,