Purpose of Mosquitos and other pests

[Bradskii]

Actually, it explains everything, for the person who is only concerned with the pursuit of Christ.

Conversely, to say that Evolution gives the simplest answer is to say that nebulous ("there is no purpose —there is only cause and effect") axioms are the best.

Neither of these gives the particulars, but for the one interested only in the pursuit of Christ, the answer is more than satisfactory. For the Evolutionist, I should think, he would still be unsatisfied, if he is intellectually honest, since Evolution is only theory —not faith.

Personally speaking, I find it immensely satisfying. It explains how things came to be. It explains so much. It tells us who we are and how we came to be. Although I guess some people want a 'why?' in there as well.

We had family over for dinner on Sunday and I was explaining to my grandson about my grandmother (his great great grandmother). And I went upstairs to get the family bible. It was printed in 1778 so goes back a while. And on some of the first blank pages, names and dates of births (and way too many early deaths) have been written in some beautiful copperplate handwriting. And his great great grandmother's birth is noted. So it's a record of a small part of his family tree. It's fascinating to have that. To have a tangible record of part of the family.

And evolution is our family tree. And The Origin Of The Species is the key to understanding all the names in our family bible.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Personally speaking, I find it immensely satisfying. It explains how things came to be. It explains so much. It tells us who we are and how we came to be. Although I guess some people want a 'why?' in there as well.

I mean you no insult when I say, then, that what science calls a theory, to you has become accepted as truth, by faith, it seems to me.

We had family over for dinner on Sunday and I was explaining to my grandson about my grandmother (his great great grandmother). And I went upstairs to get the family bible. It was printed in 1778 so goes back a while. And on some of the first blank pages, names and dates of births (and way too many early deaths) have been written in some beautiful copperplate handwriting. And his great great grandmother's birth is noted. So it's a record of a small part of his family tree. It's fascinating to have that. To have a tangible record of part of the family.

That's beautiful. Some in my family have done similar things. I have no such old Bible, as even if my parents have one, someone else among my 8 siblings probably got it,

And evolution is our family tree. And The Origin Of The Species is the key to understanding all the names in our family bible.

 

[Bradskii]

I mean you no insult when I say, then, that what science calls a theory, to you has become accepted as truth, by faith, it seems to me.

There are two aspects to evolution. There is the evidence for it - the facts of the process. And there is the theory that explains those facts. From a scientific point of view it's the only one that does that. So yes, it's accepted as being true - by definition.

And it's difficult to stress how completely it does explain things. You'll see a quote by Dobzhansky at the bottom of this post: 'Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution'.

And nothing else would either. It's just not possible to remove large chunks of science out of the sum of human knowledge and expect the rest of the edifice to remain standing. It's all interlocked to the most amazing degree. It would all crumble.

 

[Astrid]

I mean you no insult when I say, then, that what science calls a theory, to you has become accepted as truth, by faith, it seems to me.



That's beautiful. Some in my family have done similar things. I have no such old Bible, as even if my parents have one, someone else among my 8 siblings probably got it,

What do you mean, "by faith"?
Please, be specific and explain a little?
This is an important point.

 

[Mark Quayle]

There are two aspects to evolution. There is the evidence for it - the facts of the process. And there is the theory that explains those facts. From a scientific point of view it's the only one that does that. So yes, it's accepted as being true - by definition.

And it's difficult to stress how completely it does explain things. You'll see a quote by Dobzhansky at the bottom of this post: 'Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution'.

And nothing else would either. It's just not possible to remove large chunks of science out of the sum of human knowledge and expect the rest of the edifice to remain standing. It's all interlocked to the most amazing degree. It would all crumble.

And nothing else would either. It's just not possible to remove large chunks of science out of the sum of human knowledge and expect the rest of the edifice to remain standing. It's all interlocked to the most amazing degree. It would all crumble.

And there's its problem, not its proof. Take one piece out, a supposition, perhaps, (not data but reasoning upon the data), and it crumbles, no?

 

[Mark Quayle]

What do you mean, "by faith"?
Please, be specific and explain a little?
This is an important point.

FWIW, this was meant as, "seems to me". If evolution is mere theory, yet accepted as verified FACT, it sounds like faith. There are still many holes in the 'proofs', as I understand the fabric constructed by the analysis of the data, and the conclusions speculated on. The articles I've read, even the ones referenced to here on this site by those who believe in evolution, too often use, "could be", "would lead one to think", "seems to support the idea that", "invokes" etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

FWIW, this was meant as, "seems to me". If evolution is mere theory, yet accepted as verified FACT, it sounds like faith. There are still many holes in the 'proofs', as I understand the fabric constructed by the analysis of the data, and the conclusions speculated on. The articles I've read, even the ones referenced to here on this site by those who believe in evolution, too often use, "could be", "would lead one to think", "seems to support the idea that", "invokes" etc.

But remember:

Evolution is the most rock-solid theory since recapitulation.

 

[Kylie]

Actually, it explains everything, for the person who is only concerned with the pursuit of Christ.

I disagree.

It assumes that there is a God/Jesus without showing it, it doesn't tell us what the purposes are, it doesn't allow us to make any comments about how mosquitos will behave in a particular condition, it offers no predictive capability, it presents no testable claims.

Conversely, to say that Evolution gives the simplest answer is to say that nebulous ("there is no purpose —there is only cause and effect") axioms are the best.

It offers the simplest answer that explains all the data. It's called Occam's razor.

Neither of these gives the particulars, but for the one interested only in the pursuit of Christ, the answer is more than satisfactory.

However, this is nothing more than deciding what you want the answer to talk about and then going out to find an answer that does what you want it to.

I prefer the pursuit of the truth, whatever it may be, and I let the evidence guide me to whatever that truth is.

For the Evolutionist, I should think, he would still be unsatisfied, if he is intellectually honest, since Evolution is only theory —not faith.

I see this all the time from believers. It shows that you don't understand what a theory is in a scientific sense. Gravity is also ONLY a theory, and yet I don't see people rejecting it and jumping off buildings determined to fly away up into the air.

 

[Astrid]

FWIW, this was meant as, "seems to me". If evolution is mere theory, yet accepted as verified FACT, it sounds like faith. There are still many holes in the 'proofs', as I understand the fabric constructed by the analysis of the data, and the conclusions speculated on. The articles I've read, even the ones referenced to here on this site by those who believe in evolution, too often use, "could be", "would lead one to think", "seems to support the idea that", "invokes" etc.

IF someone is such an idiot they think a theory is a fact,
then it SEEMS to you to be faith? Maybe that's faith.
I like to think better of faith than that.

Regardless of whether that foolishness is faith
it says nothing about science.

There is no proof in science. Talk of proof of theory
there is just ignorance

Holes? No. There aren't any. If you "understand" that there are,
it's your understanding that's full of holes.


Now, if there FACTS that are contrary to ToE, that would mean something.
But you don't have any, just talk of " holes" quoted from some creationist site.
Facts contrary would disprove ToE

Whether anyone speculates about how, say.
some dinosaurs had mating rituals like birds doesnt
change the validity of ToE.

ToE is NOT about maybe this and maybe that,
and theres nothing speculative about it.

It is the only known explanation that comes
remotely near to making order of a the relevant data.
And it ( merely) does that in a complete, elegant,
testable , and easily comprehensible way.

You might as well be arguing against calculus, claiming it isn't math and doesn't work when you have not learned how to find the square root of 16.

 

[Bradskii]

And there's its problem, not its proof. Take one piece out, a supposition, perhaps, (not data but reasoning upon the data), and it crumbles, no?

One piece? No. Rarely a problem. I said 'large chunks'. And that's the strength of the theory of evolution. There is such a monstrous amount of evidence that points towards it being the answer to how life developed. It's like having a million piece jigsaw puzzle and it's all put together and you can see the picture it forms but then someone says 'hang on...this one piece in the corner doesn't seem to fit exactly'.

It's still a picture of the Taj Mahal. It doesn't become one of the Eiffel Tower because of that one piece.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It assumes that there is a God/Jesus without showing it, it doesn't tell us what the purposes are, it doesn't allow us to make any comments about how mosquitos will behave in a particular condition, it offers no predictive capability, it presents no testable claims.

It is not a science journal. Simple.

It offers the simplest answer that explains all the data. It's called Occam's razor.

Complicated data, compared to the simple fact of causation. Get this: even if Darwinian evolution is true, it is itself evidence of first cause.

However, this is nothing more than deciding what you want the answer to talk about and then going out to find an answer that does what you want it to.

I prefer the pursuit of the truth, whatever it may be, and I let the evidence guide me to whatever that truth is.

The evidence of creation is simple. Right in front of our eyes. We trust cause-and-effect. We see the effect. Therefore there was a cause. Simple.

I see this all the time from believers. It shows that you don't understand what a theory is in a scientific sense. Gravity is also ONLY a theory, and yet I don't see people rejecting it and jumping off buildings determined to fly away up into the air.

To the contrary, gravity is not a theory. But, that there is a theory of gravity is not the same thing as to say that there is a theory of evolution (referring to Darwinian Evolution, here, just to be clear). That things evolve, I don't think anyone would disagree —things change, but the Theory of Evolution is about how and why and how much they change, and even IF the change is according to the narrative that Darwin began —THAT is theory.) The theory of gravity is theory about what it is, by what means it works, why it works, how it fits into the rest of fact, etc. It is not a theory about IF it is, or whether it works.

Gravity makes what goes up come down. The Theory of Gravity doesn't do that. Gravity is not "only a theory".

 

[Mark Quayle]

It offers the simplest answer that explains all the data. It's called Occam's razor.

Occam's razor also applies the simple idea of first cause, which (causation) explains all the data. Even more simply than evolution does!

 

[Mark Quayle]

One piece? No. Rarely a problem. I said 'large chunks'. And that's the strength of the theory of evolution. There is such a monstrous amount of evidence that points towards it being the answer to how life developed. It's like having a million piece jigsaw puzzle and it's all put together and you can see the picture it forms but then someone says 'hang on...this one piece in the corner doesn't seem to fit exactly'.

It's still a picture of the Taj Mahal. It doesn't become one of the Eiffel Tower because of that one piece.

Being ignorant of many of the particulars, I suppose I shouldn't argue the point further, but from what little I do know, it seems to be a lot of one thing built upon another. In computer terms, serial, not parallel. Speculation upon speculation. But, yes, I could be wrong.

 

[Mark Quayle]

IF someone is such an idiot they think a theory is a fact,
then it SEEMS to you to be faith? Maybe that's faith.
I like to think better of faith than that.

I like that. Well put.

Regardless of whether that foolishness is faith
it says nothing about science.

True. But it says a lot about those who equate the scientific community with science.

There is no proof in science. Talk of proof of theory
there is just ignorance

Agreed.

Holes? No. There aren't any. If you "understand" that there are,
it's your understanding that's full of holes.

Whoa! So you've got the whole list of missing links discovered now? News to me!

Now, if there FACTS that are contrary to ToE, that would mean something.
But you don't have any, just talk of " holes" quoted from some creationist site.
Facts contrary would disprove ToE

No, I didn't get that from some creationist site.

ToE is NOT about maybe this and maybe that,
and theres nothing speculative about it.

Uh.... Ok, if you say so...

It is the only known explanation that comes
remotely near to making order of a the relevant data.
And it ( merely) does that in a complete, elegant,
testable , and easily comprehensible way.

It only comes remotely near, though, as far as I know. But, again, I could be wrong.

You might as well be arguing against calculus, claiming it isn't math and doesn't work when you have not learned how to find the square root of 16.

Excuse me? You are equating the validity of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution with math, for reliability?

 

[Kylie]

It is not a science journal. Simple.

You'd think if creationism had any merit in the real world there would be some evidence we could get for it from a systematic investigation of reality...

Complicated data, compared to the simple fact of causation. Get this: even if Darwinian evolution is true, it is itself evidence of first cause.

The first cause argument has been debunked.

The evidence of creation is simple. Right in front of our eyes. We trust cause-and-effect. We see the effect. Therefore there was a cause. Simple.

I went to the movies the other day and had some popcorn. I noticed I had the nice big fluffy bits at the top, but when I got to the bottom of the box, all that were left were the little crumbs and the other icky bits. And it wasn't a one off - it happens EVERY time I have popcorn, whether at the cinema or at home.

This is a clearly highly ordered situation, so there must be some intelligence at work. After all, we can see the effect (the popcorn being clearly sorted), so there must be a cause. I suspect that there are popcorn fairies who are responsible.

To the contrary, gravity is not a theory.

Please support this claim.

But, that there is a theory of gravity is not the same thing as to say that there is a theory of evolution (referring to Darwinian Evolution, here, just to be clear). That things evolve, I don't think anyone would disagree —things change, but the Theory of Evolution is about how and why and how much they change, and even IF the change is according to the narrative that Darwin began —THAT is theory.) The theory of gravity is theory about what it is, by what means it works, why it works, how it fits into the rest of fact, etc. It is not a theory about IF it is, or whether it works.

Gravity makes what goes up come down. The Theory of Gravity doesn't do that. Gravity is not "only a theory".

You don't seem to understand what "theory" means when used in a scientific sense. Please refer to the following website. Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

 

[Kylie]

Occam's razor also applies the simple idea of first cause, which (causation) explains all the data. Even more simply than evolution does!

Let's not forget that this "first cause" argument violates itself by claiming that everything needs a cause, and then makes an exception for itself. The mental gymnastics required to bypass that makes it a lot more complicated.

And let's also not forget that the first cause idea offers absolutely no predictive power whatsoever, unlike evolution. The First Cause argument can never be tested systematically, evolution can. And it has passed every such test.

 

[AV1611VET]

And it has passed every such test.

After how many tries, reprograms, and reworks?

 

[Kylie]

After how many tries, reprograms, and reworks?

You do realise that getting a minor detail wrong doesn't mean the whole thing itself is wrong, yes?

 

[AV1611VET]

You do realise that getting a minor detail wrong doesn't mean the whole thing itself is wrong, yes?

Just wondering out loud.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Let's not forget that this "first cause" argument violates itself by claiming that everything needs a cause, and then makes an exception for itself. The mental gymnastics required to bypass that makes it a lot more complicated.

And let's also not forget that the first cause idea offers absolutely no predictive power whatsoever, unlike evolution. The First Cause argument can never be tested systematically, evolution can. And it has passed every such test.

What is it that @Clare73 says? —au contraire? No, the "first cause" argument does not claim that everything needs a cause. It only claims that all effects need a cause (do you want a link to the Law of Causation? First Cause is by definition not an effect.

Ha! I could almost make a joke about predictive power! (from the pov of first cause)

Yet every bit of science depends on cause-and-effect. Logic. I don't know how true it is, but I've even heard that some are even using cause-and-effect, and math, to attempt to show that cause-and-effect is not pervasive, and that math doesn't work on the quantum level. Logic (reasoning) is always used to predict and conclude, nevermind to produce an experiment for testing a hypothesis. Logic is also very simple, and I have found no way around it, that everything that is not first cause, descends logically from first cause. Everything, except first cause, is an effect.