Hieronymus
Well-Known Member
- Jan 12, 2016
- 8,428
- 3,005
- 53
- Country
- Netherlands
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yeah, because the dating methods are infallible...Not likely. The oldest human remains found to date are from Morocco and they're 300,000 years old. How do you reconcile that?
It's not unfair to demand evidence for claims of conspiracies. It's common practice. Sorry you feel ridiculed by standard inquiry.Off topic and just a cheap shot.
Ridiculing doesn't make the world a place without people in power conspiring things to secure and or improve their position or that of their descendents.
It doesn't change the fact that they tend to be religious and not Christian either.
What do you mean by "naturalistic beliefs?"Then why do they make such an effort to convince us of naturalistic beliefs?
Or hadn't you noticed that yet?
Dates are approximate, of course, but when multiple independent methods converge on the same range of dates, you can be fairly confident they're accurate.Yeah, because the dating methods are infallible...
If that were so, why doesn't it convince me at all?My point is that similar DNA, genes, traits, etc indicates similar ancestry. There are all kinds of evidence -- archaeological, biological, paleological, forensic, etc -- that all life on Earth comes from a single common ancestor.
No it proves common manufacturer.The fact that our genes are compatible with chicken genes (that you can just stick one in and watch it work) is actually proof that we share common ancestry.
So you did say it happened by chance then.I never said it happened by chance. Or that chickens had hands. The implication of what I was saying was that chickens' wings, and our hands, evolved from the same structure over time.
Yes, very cute.I believe in evidence. It's kind of important, you know.
It's a fairy tale.It's a book on comparative anatomy and the history of life on Earth, from the very first cell. Part of it involves the story of how life first came from the ocean, and then out onto land -- exploring new places that no life-forms had yet seen before. It's pretty cool stuff.
Well, they convinced you allright...All it did was talk about facts, though; I'm the one with the romantic imagery.
All I need to be convinced is evidence and logic. And that's what they've got.
You must be joking.Uh... Darwin was actually a pretty widely accepted scientist in his time. It hasn't been dismissed; in fact, the case for it has been hardened by quite a lot.
Yeah, that must be it. (yawn..)It's not unfair to demand evidence for claims of conspiracies. It's common practice. Sorry you feel ridiculed by standard inquiry.
naturalism:What do you mean by "naturalistic beliefs?"
Because you don't have evidence. Got it.Yeah, that must be it. (yawn..)
So you're prepared to defend the assertion that the majority of scientists are pushing philosophical naturalism? Let's hear it. I suspect you don't know the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.naturalism:
the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
Science is a discipline designed to eliminate all biases
-_- because people hate to be shown to be wrong, especially about something they have held on to for long periods of time.If that were so, why doesn't it convince me at all?
You forge evidence in science, and you get kicked out of the scientific community. To the point that if, say, a Nobel prize winning chemist forged results on the safety of a newly produced chemical, they'd be lucky to be able to teach high school level chemistry afterwards.People start out with a conclusion they try to either prove, or convince others of.
So they use evidence that supports their conclusion and sometimes even forge evidence.
No, there are plenty of people that make it their goal to challenge evolution without being garbage humans that work at Answers in Genesis and make money off of lying. Also, I wouldn't call creationism the "opposite" of evolution.Evidence indicating the opposite is usually ignored.
Nope, because designers can design things to be dissimilar if they want, or imitate others. And groups of designers can collaborate to produce multiple similar designs.No it proves common manufacturer.
I don't have it ready as a cut and paste block of text, no.Because you don't have evidence. Got it.
I once started a topic with quotes from respected scientists admitting just that.So you're prepared to defend the assertion that the majority of scientists are pushing philosophical naturalism? Let's hear it.
I don't even believe you really suspect that.I suspect you don't know the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
Science actually does have tools in it to eliminate bias, though -- primarily peer review and scientific consensus.You're making science something it's not again.
People are responsible for forming the opinions of the natural, (also science or in short, our opinion on what something means) as science does nothing. And all too often what a thing ("thing" as in "people", people are the doers, science does nothing) was "designed" (designated really) to do, or someone "says" it's designed to do, can go awry for many reasons, as in prejudice, agenda, human error, or flat out cooking the books.
Science cannot be "designed" to do anything, but people can be designated to, either on their own or by order, that's all. We/they (foul-able people) look at the natural, study it and draw conclusion on what it means, right or wrong, and calling is "science" doesn't make it right.
Actually, the comment "science is designed" "science does" "science proves" pretty much means nothing. So please people, stop holding science up there as if it's an end all that cannot be argued with.
Disclaimer: I know most of you don't realize what you are doing there or if you necessarily intend that, and you are far from the only ones doing it. I believe the poster I am replying to does intend "science" as I am saying it is not.
So no comment on the actual evidence, just the usual creationist cop outs...
What good is your Genesis account if you have to adjust your interpretation every time new scientific discoveries come out? Why not just go with the science?
If you think that's reasonable, I'd hate to see what you think is unreasonable.
Again, the fact that the scientific theory of evolution doesn't require one to renounce their faith
You all can say that till the cows come home but it doesn't make it so. It makes the bible a lie and if you make the bible a lie, you make God a lie.
Then comes all the double talk about perception of scripture, but just not buying it.
No, all it does is make Genesis 1-11 something other than 100% accurate literal history--which I don't believe god intended it to be anyway.OK
You all can say that till the cows come home but it doesn't make it so. It makes the bible a lie and if you make the bible a lie, you make God a lie.
Then comes all the double talk about perception of scripture, but just not buying it.
I'll use the scientific definition - because that's what we're discussion. Science.
You complain about use of the term 'species', and then raise fictitious terms like "neomorphing" and "xenomorphing"? Please provide definitions of both terms, with examples of both occurring in reality.
If you really want to challenge the observation of speciation in the Galapagos finches - take it up with the Grants. Here are some references for you - enjoy the reading.
I'll use the scientific definition - because that's what we're discussing. Science. Not English literature.
You complain about use of the term 'species', and then raise fictitious terms like "neomorphing" and "xenomorphing"? Please provide definitions of both terms, with examples of both occurring in reality.
Cool. As I've done none of the above, then you'll presumable keep interacting with me.
Cool. As I've done none of the above, then you'll presumable keep interacting with me.
Some speciation events are rapid, some speciation events are gradual. Hence, why there was a very long, very intense debate within the scientific community about punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism.
Nature is highly complex with multiple mechaisms operating at different speeds and scales.
There are at least five observed types of speciation that I'm aware of that have been observed, either in the wild, in the lab or via the result of human intervention.
I'm sure there are more - as my knowledge on the topic is that of an interested lay-level enthusiast with a year of tertiary level biology.
Speciation, the origin of novel species, is a complex and multilayered process that has remained hard to understand for empiricists and theoreticians alike. Researchers have dedicated much effort to pinpointing the factors and conditions that are responsible for some taxa diversifying rapidly while others linger in a speciation stasis. Only now are we realizing that it is the coupling of different intrinsic (e.g. natural history, genetics) and extrinsic (e.g. climate, habitat, behavioral interference) factors that produces the speciation momentum of adaptive radiations
Of course conspiracies happen. That’s not license to label everything you don’t like a conspiracy. If you’re not prepared to provide evidence of any conspiracy in particular on demand, then at the very least you need to substantiate your claim that evolution is a conspiracy. You can’t use a conspiracy claim to dismiss evidence of evolution then refuse to defend your conspiracy theory. That’s just not reasonable.I don't have it ready as a cut and paste block of text, no.
And you knew this already before you pretended to ask for it, so please, just be reasonable.
Or do you really need this kind of 'defence' to convince yourself that there are no conspiracies?
Come on...
Its perfectly sensible. For you to call in incoherent means you don't understand it, it does call for a little abstract reasoning. It is my opinion that much of the opposition to evolution comes from people for whom the basic concepts are simply over their head. Can't help that.
I'll quote the introduction paper on cichlids I referenced earlier:
Speciation, the origin of novel species, is a complex and multilayered process that has remained hard to understand for empiricists and theoreticians alike.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?