Natural selection v Intelligent design

[bhsmte]

Now let's argue the case on its merits.

Stove says that natural selection, which wipes out those incapable of surviving for whatever reason (like weakness, disease etc etc) should, if it was genuinely working, wipe out the females and the young.

That is correct and entirely logical.

Therefore, natural selection is a nonsense, and so is evolution which depends on it.

Therefore, evolution cannot take place, since no species could last for more than one generation.

How about that?

As I already stated:

One philosopher, without any science training, reigns supreme and topples the work of all the Phd level biologists who vehemently disagree with him because: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Sure, that is very logical.

 

[bhsmte]

Unless you're a computer, and not actually comprehending what was written, a rational mind, such as the one you have is interpreting what it reads. Another thing, are you reading it in Ancient Hebrew? Why not post a few verses from the text attached with your thoughts of what the writer was trying to express?


Oops, I should have said, I'm unaware of how naturalism is proved via the fossil record. Please enlighten me as to how it is, if it actually is. I'll also admit, what I said was a belief, since it's quite hard to make a scientific* case for or against naturalism due to insufficient data.


What evidence shows that the Bible is not accurate?
Perhaps your interpretation is off.

Well, shifting the burden of proof never works all too well.

If one claims the bible is accurate, it would be up to them to demonstrate the historicity behind the same is reliable.

 

[Larniavc]

Unless you're a computer, and not actually comprehending what was written, a rational mind, such as the one you have is interpreting what it reads. Another thing, are you reading it in Ancient Hebrew? Why not post a few verses from the text attached with your thoughts of what the writer was trying to express?

Gen 1:1-3 describes the order the universe was formed. As I said this order is incorrect. If it is different in the Hebrew then it is a poor look out for non Hebrew speaking Christians everywhere because the bible they are reading is wrong (if Gen1:1-3 has a different meaning in Hebrew).

Oops, I should have said, I'm unaware of how naturalism is proved via the fossil record. Please enlighten me as to how it is, if it actually is.

Here's the thing: nothing can be proved (outside of maths). There is always the possibility that new information will over turn the way we understand things (a paradigm shift). However the fossil record does show nest hierarchies that are predicated by ToE Click. No no extraneous entity required.[/quote]

I'll also admit, what I said was a belief, since it's quite hard to make a scientific* case for or against naturalism due to insufficient data.

Click the link to start seeing how 'insufficient data' is (in this context) an erroneous term.

What evidence shows that the Bible is not accurate?
Perhaps your interpretation is off.

Genesis is not an accurate description of how the universe developed. Genesis says that the water and the earth were made before the light. Ca. 377,000 years after the Big Bang the universe stops being opaque to photons and there is light in the universe. Until 560 million years after the Big Bang there were no elements (other than hydrogen, helium and lithium) to make up earth or water as the Gen 3 stars had not formed and supernova'd till then (to produce the heavier elements to make up earth and water.

This means Gen 1-3 is wrong.

All the best.

 

[Larniavc]

No reason, just a mathematical-like premise based on a hypothetical model. "If" A occurred "then" B would result.


You are wrong. You put forth the argument, "Well, if Q happened then why didn't we observed XYZ..." and my hypothesis and hypothetical construct explains why we wouldn't observe XYZ. Unfortunately, since with current physics time travel is impossible and thus we can't perform experiments, we can however play in math space and answer various "what ifs".

What if every Thursday the entire universe rebooted? What would that look like? Well, it would look like it does now, the beings created on Thursday would have memories (perhaps false perhaps real) that stretch back in time prior to Thursday. Ever see this movie?

I have: it's a great film!

No I don't. I postulated a "what if" and that postulate makes use of Einstein's Theory of Relativity which we have a high degree of confidence that it is correct. What I stated "can" be true. "If" God was in a higher plane of existence or outside of this universe "then" it is conceivable that based on Relativity that frames of reference-- especially time, could be different. Unless you care to disprove Einstein's Theory of Relativity, I don't see what your problem with my statement was since I'm speaking in the hypothetical.

Please show how increased relativistic mass of a body that comes from the energy of motion of the body divided by the speed of light squared supports your 'what if'.

One part of cosmology that is up in the air is Dark Matter and Dark energy .

Take a look at WIMPs and MACHOs

]The naive interpretation of the microlensing results is that between 20% and 80% of the dark matter in the Milky Way has been identified.

but I do know that aspects of cosmology are not aligning very well with other aspects of physics, especially particle physics.

Please show which aspects are not aligning.

All the best.

 

[Near]

Well, shifting the burden of proof never works all too well.
If one claims the bible is accurate, it would be up to them to demonstrate the historicity behind the same is reliable.

There are arguments which support the historicity of Christ, and crucifixion and the empty tomb. For example, I could say that the belief that Jesus did not rise from the dead held by early deniers of Christ's Resurrection confirms the fact that Jesus actually existed. Not that he actually rose from the dead, but that he existed. The belief in his Resurrection is largely a matter of faith.
Although I'm not an expert historian, I've read some works regarding the historicity of Christ which I believe suffice my requirements to say that belief in Jesus is rational.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/rediscovering-the-historical-jesus-the-evidence-for-jesus
Why do I mention the historicity of Christ, and not the Genesis account?
When it comes to the Genesis account, I've come to accept it based not on science, but because of my faith in Christ. However, that doesn't mean I feel that my views are inconsistent with the available data obtained by modern scientists.
I'm not really trying to shift the burden of proof (at least I think so); I already expressed that my belief that naturalism is false would be hard to prove from a scientific standpoint, but the burden of proof is equally on the person who says naturalism is proven. One thing I'd like from the naturalist who claims naturalism has been proven through science, is actual proof... but as some have wisely put it, science isn't concerned with proving or disproving naturalism. There are no serious endeavors in the scientific community that I'm aware of which are aimed at proving naturalism. The naturalist should admit, his belief is faith based, not from any advances in science, but because of other factors; social, psychological, genetic even.

 

[paulm50]

As far as men doing things for God... Who can say what God wants?

100,000s of people, all clutching a bible, of many types.

It could be that God gave us free will then put a series of challenges in front of us just to see how we'd do? Could be that there are other higher purposes. All this doesn't negate what I said. His intellect, like his power is infinitely greater than ours. So there is risk in us trying to second guess him like, "Well, if there was a God then why did this happen or that happen..."

If there was a god, why choose an insignificant tribe as the chosen people.

Why send a son to this insignificant bunch to save the world, why not send him to Rome where the people who mattered were. Why would this son die on a cross and let other more persuasive people spread and twist his message?

Why let men carry out so much of his work at the end of a sword or gun?

All covered by. "His intellect, like his power is infinitely greater than ours." Well is it, or are people just claiming to know what he wants as they carry out the work they want done? Because given all the horrible things men clutching a bible of any sort carry out day after day, that sounds far more plausible.

And before anyone replies, that's the other lot. They say the same about you. I address it to all of them.

 

[paulm50]

Again with all the evidence that can be googled in support of natural selection, I have not found anything that actually supports the belief that there are no causes which transcend the physical world. You continue to make assertions, yet your faith in naturalism remains to be on par with another religious man.
I'll repeat what you said: The established proof does point to evolution via natural selection.
However, it doesn't point to metaphysical naturalism. Nothing about fossil records show that naturalism is true.

They can't prove something they can't find any proof for.

If the Bible is accurate, the model described in Genesis would be true. However, there's ongoing debate as to which interpretation of the Genesis count is correct; what was the writer attempting to describe? That's the question some theologians are spending time on. I don't quite understand what you mean by tension, as there are multiple models in naturalism as to how life, and this planet arose. The fact that there are different interpretations doesn't mean we should throw out the book, the same goes for science.

What version of Genesis are you referring to? Because the original one is the only one that matters. No wriggle room in there. People rewriting it to fit science, makes it less believable.

 

[bhsmte]

There are arguments which support the historicity of Christ, and crucifixion and the empty tomb. For example, I could say that the belief that Jesus did not rise from the dead held by early deniers of Christ's Resurrection confirms the fact that Jesus actually existed. Not that he actually rose from the dead, but that he existed. The belief in his Resurrection is largely a matter of faith.
Although I'm not an expert historian, I've read some works regarding the historicity of Christ which I believe suffice my requirements to say that belief in Jesus is rational.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/rediscovering-the-historical-jesus-the-evidence-for-jesus
Why do I mention the historicity of Christ, and not the Genesis account?
When it comes to the Genesis account, I've come to accept it based not on science, but because of my faith in Christ. However, that doesn't mean I feel that my views are inconsistent with the available data obtained by modern scientists.
I'm not really trying to shift the burden of proof (at least I think so); I already expressed that my belief that naturalism is false would be hard to prove from a scientific standpoint, but the burden of proof is equally on the person who says naturalism is proven. One thing I'd like from the naturalist who claims naturalism has been proven through science, is actual proof... but as some have wisely put it, science isn't concerned with proving or disproving naturalism. There are no serious endeavors in the scientific community that I'm aware of which are aimed at proving naturalism. The naturalist should admit, his belief is faith based, not from any advances in science, but because of other factors; social, psychological, genetic even.

I have devoured the work of various NT scholars and historians and this investigation, is one of the reasons I eventually could not reconcile Christian theology with the well evidenced realities of the universe any longer. The more I learned, the more it became clear, historical credibility was seriously lacking.

I would agree, Jesus was likely a real historical figure and most NT historians subscribe to Jesus being a real figure. I will say this though, the arguments of a Richard Carrier, who believes Jesus was fabricated, are far more compelling than the arguments of the conservative historians who will claim everything in the NT is 100% accurate.

No historian, doing true historical work, will lend credibility to any of the miracles in the NT. A historian by profession, is supposed to determine, what is the most "likely" explanation of what happened in the past. Since miracles by their very nature, are the least likely explanation, miracles are not verified by historians and they can not be.

Overall, in my studies, the consensus of NT historians can agree on the following, as being historically credible;

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond the above, little consensus on what is deemed historically credible and many historians will state; the NT is more a work of theology, than it is a work of credible history.

Lastly, keep one thing in mind, the NT has been mostly scrutinized by scholars and historians who are mostly Christians themselves and many work for theological institutions. Not exactly the most objective means to go about scrutinizing the bible, but that has started to slowly change in the last few decades and to the dismay of many theologians.

 

[Near]

Gen 1:1-3 describes the order the universe was formed. As I said this order is incorrect. If it is different in the Hebrew then it is a poor look out for non Hebrew speaking Christians everywhere because the bible they are reading is wrong (if Gen1:1-3 has a different meaning in Hebrew).

Genesis is not an accurate description of how the universe developed. Genesis says that the water and the earth were made before the light. Ca. 377,000 years after the Big Bang the universe stops being opaque to photons and there is light in the universe. Until 560 million years after the Big Bang there were no elements (other than hydrogen, helium and lithium) to make up earth or water as the Gen 3 stars had not formed and supernova'd till then (to produce the heavier elements to make up earth and water.
This means Gen 1-3 is wrong.

Genesis 1:1 states that God made the heavens and the earth.
The following verses seem to narrow down to our local area (the Earth) in particular.
Read this:
http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2014/09/half-earths-water-formed-sun-was-born
"In fact, the team estimates that as much as 50% of the water now on Earth may have existed since before the birth of the sun 4.5 billion years ago"

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

The verses above seem to describe our local area, not the universe. So, water, then sunlight...

Here's the thing: nothing can be proved (outside of maths). There is always the possibility that new information will over turn the way we understand things (a paradigm shift). However the fossil record does show nest hierarchies that are predicated by ToE Click. No no extraneous entity required.

[/QUOTE]
I have no problem with the theories of evolution. There are just some theories of evolution I don't believe in. I asked for evidence of naturalism, not evolution.

Click the link to start seeing how 'insufficient data' is (in this context) an erroneous term.

I don't see how the case for naturalism is being made from the website you linked. From what I've read the approach used is that of methodological naturalism, and the models presented are limited by it.

 

[Near]

I would agree, Jesus was likely a real historical figure and most NT historians subscribe to Jesus being a real figure. I will say this though, the arguments of a Richard Carrier, who believes Jesus was fabricated, are far more compelling than the arguments of the conservative historians who will claim everything in the NT is 100% accurate.

No historian, doing true historical work, will lend credibility to any of the miracles in the NT. A historian by profession, is supposed to determine, what is the most "likely" explanation of what happened in the past. Since miracles by their very nature, are the least likely explanation, miracles are not verified by historians and they can not be.

Of course historians would seek naturalistic explanations. That's the way people in the profession, I think, would go about it.
As for miracles, they must be believed on, through faith. I don't expect atheists to say that the Resurrection was an actual historical event. Men's world-views precede and tend to permeate the rest of one's explanations on the subject of miracles.
I'll have to do some reading on the arguments of Richard Carrier in order to make a more informed response towards his claims. For now, I'll be on a hiatus from this specific thread.

 

[stevevw]

What aspect of Darwin's observations was unreliable and in what way?

Well the main one would be his finches. His observations of their beaks changing to become bigger is not proof of macro evolution. Just because their beaks changed didn't mean that animals change into completely different ones. It wasn't evidence that those birds came from dinos. The same birds were observed changing back to their natural state when the environmental conditions change back. So evolution is limited to changes within a species and over time things revert back to the natural wild type not into new types.

And he was right: the gaps were filled with new discoveries.

No they havnt. After 150 years there are still gaps. As he said he thought there should be a blending of life. That there should have been many transitional stages linking animals. What we actually see is well defined creatures that suddenly appear in the fossil record and show no trace of where they came from. Any transitions that evolution cites are interpretations they like to make out are transitional. Observational evidence is very subjective and can be the view of the person looking for the evidence. So an evolutionists who has already decided that the theory is true will see everything as possible evidence.

Thats why we have many cases of fossils that have been claimed as transitionals being shown to be variations of the same animals. The skulls at Georgia are a good example.
A haul of fossils found in Georgia suggests that half a dozen species of early human ancestor were actually all Homo erectus
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

Even juvenile dinos have been made into transitions for their parents because some dinos have unusual features that the adults don't have. This then causes evolutionists to think the juvenile is a new species. If they discover a fossil that looks almost identical to another but is out of place in the fossil record they will make it a new species and transitional.
This is best explained taxonomists will either be lumpers or splitters with fossils discoveries. Some will make every different variation a new species and others will make the differences just the variation with the same species.

"Varieties have the same general characters as species, for they cannot be distinguished from species,--except, firstly, by the discovery of intermediate linking forms ...; and except, secondly, by a certain amount of difference, for two forms, if differing very little, are generally ranked as varieties, notwithstanding that intermediate linking forms have not been discovered."Species can be delimited broadly and inclusively, or narrowly, and there has been a long-running conflict between groups of taxonomists known as "lumpers" or "splitters."
http://www.osti.gov/eprints/topicpages/documents/record/032/1536450.html

Take a look at the many creatures from millions of years ago that havnt changed. They only things that maybe different is the size. Even some dinos were just bigger versions of the same species we have today. But there are many things like giant rams, crabs, mosquitoes, wombats, kangaroos, tigers, pigs, lobsters, ect that are exactly the same shapes and millions of years old. But evolution will name them new species and transitions. But as for their shapes morphing to show that transition they havnt changed at all.

Then you have the new discoveries constantly re-dating fossils and changing the times when they evolved. It pushes some creatures back so they become out of place and dont have nay time to evolve. It makes others evolve before they said they did and they end up coming before another who they said evolved from them. There have been many fossil discoveries that are out of place with the tree of life that has been made. In fact ideas like ghost lineages have been made to preserve the hypotheses of common descent.

Ghost lineages tell scientists where the fossils should be in the column. But the actual fossil record doesn't reflect this. Its a mess and thats because they are making it up as they go. So the theory is built from assumption. Thats why there are so many new species being named all the time. But they are all just variations of the same species.

"ghost lineages" allows evolutionary theorists to accommodate anomalous stratigraphic (fossil) distributions. In short, when fossils occur out of order -- as either too early or too late -- ghost lineages mend the damage by invisibly extending the temporal ranges of groups, well beyond the actual fossil data, to achieve congruence with expectations.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/seeing_ghosts_in_the_bushes_pa031061.html
I will get back to the rest later.
Thanks Steve

 

[dgiharris]

100,000s of people, all clutching a bible, of many types.
If there was a god, why choose an insignificant tribe as the chosen people.

Why send a son to this insignificant bunch to save the world, why not send him to Rome where the people who mattered were. Why would this son die on a cross and let other more persuasive people spread and twist his message?

Why let men carry out so much of his work at the end of a sword or gun?

All covered by. "His intellect, like his power is infinitely greater than ours." Well is it, or are people just claiming to know what he wants as they carry out the work they want done? Because given all the horrible things men clutching a bible of any sort carry out day after day, that sounds far more plausible.

And before anyone replies, that's the other lot. They say the same about you. I address it to all of them.

I really am not sure how to answer this. Basically, you are challenging me to explain why God does what he does when I have already admitted that his will and intellect are far beyond us mere mortals.

Things that seem a big deal to us (like sacrificing his son) may in fact be viewed on a different scale from his perspective, for instance, if he is a multidimensional omniscient being who exists outside of time and space as far as we are concerned, perhaps there are infinite versions of various universes and him sending us one son out of Trillions isn't a big deal.

I'm just speculating as I have absolutely no idea whatsoever for why God does what he does...

I know, not much of a reply as I can't answer your questions beyond what I've already offered above...

 

[dgiharris]

....Please show how increased relativistic mass of a body that comes from the energy of motion of the body divided by the speed of light squared supports your 'what if'..

You seriously have got to be kidding with this post demanding that I mathematically prove that Einstein's theory or Relativity and Special Relativity would/could apply between different universes.

You realize that what you are arguing is that a separate universe from ours would be linked in relative time to ours. That makes absolutely no sense especially since parts of our universe are moving at different rates of acceleration.

I don't like this sort of back and forth, it is disingenuous and is one of those argumentative tricks used to win internet forum arguments by wearing your opponent out via a battle of attrition. You keep demanding that extraordinary burdens of proof be met.

Seriously, are you arguing that the time differential between our universe and specifically our region of space that contains Earth is exactly the same as a different universe outside of our space and time? Because that is what you are arguing when you demand that I submit mathematical proof to the contrary.

I love debate, I love kicking ideas back and forth. But only if the other party is sincere and your request is not sincere. You are just placing unreasonable burden on me when it is pretty obvious that my statements hold given our understanding of how time works in this universe...

.Take a look at WIMPs and MACHOs.

Doing some quick skimming there is a lot of wording like, "Best candidate" and "Hypothetical". So yeah, not the smoking gun for dark matter and dark energy.

Please show which aspects are not aligning.

How about you show me proof of dark matter and dark energy. Not candidates, not hypothetical mathematical constructs, but laboratory verified dark matter and dark energy. As you will see, they do not as yet exist.

Which is okay as far as I'm concerned. I am more than willing to give hypothetical, abstract, and theoretical physics some leeway in this area.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24491-dark-matter-no-show-puts-wimps-in-a-bind/

I'm not trying to play argumentative games here. My google fu shows that there is a lot "up in the air" on the subject of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. If you like I can shove a dozen links your way or you can just acknowledge that I'm right. Incidentally, you throwing the burden of proof on me and asking me to mathematically disprove the theory of Dark Matter doesn't constitute you winning the argument.

My statements are simply that there is alot to be desired on this subject as far as proof is concerned. If I am wrong, I would greatly appreciate your links to concrete proof of Dark Matter and Dark Energy...

I have been looking and all I can see are articles on "hypothetical" and "best candidate" and things of that sort. I skimmed through the MACHOS and WIMPS link you provided and again, no proof there...

Thus, I rest my case

 

[paulm50]

I have devoured the work of various NT scholars and historians and this investigation, is one of the reasons I eventually could not reconcile Christian theology with the well evidenced realities of the universe any longer. The more I learned, the more it became clear, historical credibility was seriously lacking.

I would agree, Jesus was likely a real historical figure and most NT historians subscribe to Jesus being a real figure. I will say this though, the arguments of a Richard Carrier, who believes Jesus was fabricated, are far more compelling than the arguments of the conservative historians who will claim everything in the NT is 100% accurate.

No historian, doing true historical work, will lend credibility to any of the miracles in the NT. A historian by profession, is supposed to determine, what is the most "likely" explanation of what happened in the past. Since miracles by their very nature, are the least likely explanation, miracles are not verified by historians and they can not be.

Overall, in my studies, the consensus of NT historians can agree on the following, as being historically credible;

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond the above, little consensus on what is deemed historically credible and many historians will state; the NT is more a work of theology, than it is a work of credible history.

Lastly, keep one thing in mind, the NT has been mostly scrutinized by scholars and historians who are mostly Christians themselves and many work for theological institutions. Not exactly the most objective means to go about scrutinizing the bible, but that has started to slowly change in the last few decades and to the dismay of many theologians.

We maus always look at these writings with a logical mind, because the writers were biased to a point that one has to question their truthfulness. And remember, Winners Write Our History.

Jesus lived, no doubt about it.

Was he the Son of God, was he here to start a new religion or correct the course of Judaism, was the Jewish Faith meant as a World religion or just reserved for a few, was he hijacked by others?

As a son of god, he failed. Not to say others who followed him didn't do a better job. As a mortal he did incredibly well, as a son of god he could of done far more.

He was a Jew and we will never know if he was here to preach a new religion or bring the old one back on track. He did however say when kicking out the moneylenders, it was the house of god. Or similar. It was a Jewish Temple. He also wanted the old laws kept.

If god wanted a new religion started and was prepared to send his son. Sending him to an insignificant outpost in the Roman Empire is a bad move. Rome and the Senate is the Power base, and the power base of Christianity for 1600 years afterwards. And still powerful today. Israel would be a mess if not supported by the US and West.

Was the Judaism meant to be a world religion? Well one can see the answer to that.

Ignore the History, written by the winners and use logic to guide you.

 

[paulm50]

Genesis 1:1 states that God made the heavens and the earth.
The following verses seem to narrow down to our local area (the Earth) in particular.
Read this:
http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2014/09/half-earths-water-formed-sun-was-born
"In fact, the team estimates that as much as 50% of the water now on Earth may have existed since before the birth of the sun 4.5 billion years ago"

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

According to the bible. The Earth didn't exist 4.5 billions years ago.
According to the bible, Humans are only 6,000 years old.
According to the bible, god caused Cain to kill Abel.
According to the bible, a man lived after being swallowed by a fish.

Of course historians would seek naturalistic explanations. That's the way people in the profession, I think, would go about it.

It's not the way professional clergy go about it.

As for miracles, they must be believed on, through faith. I don't expect atheists to say that the Resurrection was an actual historical event. Men's world-views precede and tend to permeate the rest of one's explanations on the subject of miracles.

Would that include miracles in other religions bibles?

 

[paulm50]

Well the main one would be his finches. His observations of their beaks changing to become bigger is not proof of macro evolution. Just because their beaks changed didn't mean that animals change into completely different ones. It wasn't evidence that those birds came from dinos. The same birds were observed changing back to their natural state when the environmental conditions change back. So evolution is limited to changes within a species and over time things revert back to the natural wild type not into new types.

You acknowledge change, and dispute it at the same time. Where is the evidence that all dinosaur evolving with feathers, then long arms, then wings changed back?

No they havnt. After 150 years there are still gaps. As he said he thought there should be a blending of life. That there should have been many transitional stages linking animals. What we actually see is well defined creatures which have no transitions. They suddenly appear in the fossil record and show no trace of where they came from. Any transitions that evolution cites are interpretations they like to make out are transitional. Observational evidence is very subjective and can be the interpretation of the person looking for the evidence. So a evolutionists who have already decided that the theory is true will see everything as possible evidence.

Missing pieces in a jigsaw doesn't make the jigsaw disappear.

Thats why we have many cases of fossils that have been claimed as transitional being shown to be actually variations of the same animals. The skulls at Georgia are a good example. Even juvenile dinos have been made into transitions for their parents because some dinos have unusual features that the adults dont have. If they discover a fossil that looks almost identical to another but is out of place they will make it a transitional.

Variations at different dates are transitions.

Rather than say its the same species but with a variation they assume and name it a new species which then gives them another transitional link. This is best explained taxonomists will either be lumpers or splitters with fossils discoveries. Some will make every different variation a new species and others will make the differences just the variation with the same species.

Because it is a new layer in that species, when the change becomes distinct, then it's a new species.

Take a look at the many creatures from millions of years ago that havnt changed. They only things that maybe different is the size. Even some dinos were just bigger versions of the same species we have today. But there are many things like giant rams, crabs, mosquitoes, wombats, kangaroos, tigers, pigs, lobsters, ect that are exactly the same shapes and millions of years old. But evolution will name them new species and transitions. But as for their shapes morphing to show that transition they havnt changed at all.

Because in their environment there was little need to change.

Then you have the new discoveries constantly re-dating fossils and changing the times when they evolved. It pushes some creatures back so they become out of place and dont have nay time to evolve. It makes others evolve before they said they did and they end up coming before another who they said evolved from them. There have been many fossil discoveries that are out of place with the tree of life that has been made. In fact ideas like ghost lineages have been made to preserve the hypotheses of common descent.

Yes they keep learning, unlike the blind faithfull.

Ghost lineages tell scientists where the fossils should be in the column. But the actual fossil record doesn't reflect this. Its a mess and thats because they are making it up as they go. So the theory is built from assumption. Thats why there are so many new species being named all the time. But they are all just variations of the same species.

Who says they're making it up?

 

[paulm50]

I really am not sure how to answer this. Basically, you are challenging me to explain why God does what he does when I have already admitted that his will and intellect are far beyond us mere mortals.

Prove it, because a lot of his work has no logic to it, and failed.

Things that seem a big deal to us (like sacrificing his son) may in fact be viewed on a different scale from his perspective, for instance, if he is a multidimensional omniscient being who exists outside of time and space as far as we are concerned, perhaps there are infinite versions of various universes and him sending us one son out of Trillions isn't a big deal.

Sending his son to Israel was a big mistake if he wanted to get a new religion going. Jesus being crucified was a bigger mistake and caused billions to die in the continual wars we've had since then. Choosing an insignificant tribe like the Jews, as the chosen people. Was the biggest mistake. Even I can see this, someone with an intellect are far beyond us mere mortals. Makes it an even bigger mistake.

I'm just speculating as I have absolutely no idea whatsoever for why God does what he does...

I would agree with that because a lot of what he's claimed to have done seems to have no purpose, a waste of life, pointless and a failure. Given the high goals you set him.

 

[plummyy]

You need to understand the difference between what constitutes a scientific theory with an everyday theory. A scientific theory is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. An everyday theory is an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.

(your response was spot-on btw)
People who do this usually entertain the "anecdotal fallacy" by using a life experience as though it compares to scientific findings. The "theory" of evolution is called such because it is the truth, but we are always learning. It's above a guess, but below law. To award anything a law, no matter how true, is against everything. It would be like throwing in the towel and stopping exploration simply because we think we understand but it's not that easy, and we're not that simple--neither is the cause! I don't get it, i really don't, why someone would think "theory" in the scientific community actually means, "the rock fell so maybe there's something, lets call it 'gravity', and that's the truth, i have never tested this idea but i'm probably right because I guess it makes some sense, if I squint hard enough ---with my specialuniqueintellingentlydesigned eyes that a creationist is about to talk about in the next debate because he thinks his book explains it, just as my untested ideas support mine".

 

[paulm50]

World's oldest sperm is discovered in Antarctica – 50 million years after its preservation.

Another small step for man and a giant step for science, yes another one. More discoveries before the bible claims the Earth existed.

 

[Dave RP]

World's oldest sperm is discovered in Antarctica – 50 million years after its preservation.

Another small step for man and a giant step for science, yes another one. More discoveries before the bible claims the Earth existed.

I'm not sure why you bother to put post upon post upon post on this Christian forum trying to "prove" that the principles of the faiths held by other respondents is false. They believe in an all powerful God, you don't and neither do i but I have to say some of your posts appear to be on the verge of insulting, as you continually try to "prove" that people of faith are wrong and somehow misguided (at best), or even stupid.

From my point of view, if people want to believe in God's ability to anything, then that's their right, you and I will never "get it" but that doesn't make us superior in any way, I think we should just live and let live.