Some things I just don't think most of you understand...

[Loudmouth]

No, I do not believe that every raindrop (it's all one word, btw) is guided by an intelligent being.

Why not?

Are you telling me that you accept scientific explanations for raindrops (yes, the plural is correct) based on empiricism?

 

[Loudmouth]

Genesis chaper one says:

"God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament:"

If God can create a firmament then yes, every drop of water is controlled by the natural laws that He created.

Control means that an intelligent being is not allowing natural processes to act all on their own.

Also, you have never demonstrated that God did anything. Preaching is not evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

All of creation is evidence. All the evidence for evolution is evidence for creationism. I can not give you any more then what you already have.

How is it evidence?

For example, how does the process of random mutagenesis evidence creationism?

 

[loveofourlord]

Plants do not evolve only the animals that eat those plants?

I didn't say plants don't evolve FOOD as in, you implied that food itself was evolving to be nutritious wich makes no sense.

Zebra don't evolve to be eaten by lions, lions evolve to eat zebra because they provide the sustinence they need.

Closest you might have to food evolving to be eaten is fruits and seeds that take advantage of being eaten by the animals so as to carry them away but thats again more a matter of takin advantage of something rather then conciously becoming nutritious.

 

[Zosimus]

Not so.

Your implication was that they had not been observed. I showed this to be wrong. If you now claim this is not relevant your initial point would then become a non sequitur.

I'm sure the people in the cheap seats can see the flaw in your reply: I can; and I barely got past graduate school.

Your post is irrelevant. The original claim was that science does not believe in invisible things.

Invisible: unable to be seen; not visible to the eye.

Do you claim that gravity can be seen? You seem to think that since it can be detected that that makes it visible. Plenty of invisible things can be detected. For your argument to succeed, you would need to prove that detection and seeing are the same thing.

 

[Zosimus]

Why not?

Are you telling me that you accept scientific explanations for raindrops (yes, the plural is correct) based on empiricism?

No, I do not accept scientific explanations for raindrops. I remain agnostic on the subject.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I didn't say plants don't evolve FOOD as in, you implied that food itself was evolving to be nutritious which makes no sense.

Maybe you need to study up on nutrition if it makes no sense to you. Clearly some foods are more nutritious then other foods. There are lots of charts for this on the internet. Here is one for the green leaf veg. Why does spinach have more nutrition then iceberg? They both convert light from the Sun yet one seems to be better at it than the other. Animals are more easy to understand. Pigs for example have a more primitive stomach and they are a scavenger so they eat a lot of toxins. The toxins get stored in the fat because the pig has no way to cleanse those toxins out of it's system. Also just fat in general is not good for you. So with animals you can just eat the most lean meat and there is an advantage to that. Yet with Plants it is a little bit more difficult to understand why one plant is more efficient at being nutritious compared to other plants.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I do not accept scientific explanations for raindrops. I remain agnostic on the subject.

Then explain how raindrops form without using scientific explanations.

 

[joshua 1 9]

How is it evidence?

For example, how does the process of random mutagenesis evidence creationism?

However you get there the end result is variation and without variation you would have no natural selection. The Bible tells us that God created and natural selection helps us to understand HOW God created. Or at least how the various species adapt to their individual invironment.

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe you need to study up on nutrition if it makes no sense to you. Clearly some foods are more nutritious then other foods.

The same food can offer different nutrition to different species. For example, alfalfa offers little in the way of nutrition to humans, but it offers a lot of nutrition to ruminates.

Animals evolve to extract more nutrition out of the plants.

 

[Loudmouth]

However you get there the end result is variation and without variation you would have no natural selection.

How does it evidence creationism?

The Bible tells us that God created and natural selection helps us to understand HOW God created. Or at least how the various species adapt to their individual invironment.

Where is the evidence that God has anything to do with natural selection?

 

[joshua 1 9]

How does it evidence creationism?

This is evidence for theistic evolution which is a form of creationism.

Where is the evidence that God has anything to do with natural selection?

He created evolution. Even if your a Deist and do not believe he plays an active part in maintaining His creation. Deist are very much like evolutionists. They both believe God got it right from the beginning and does not have to be involved with His creation. Christians are the ones that believe creation is in a fallen state and in need of redemption and repair.

 

[Zosimus]

Then explain how raindrops form without using scientific explanations.

I think you need a good dictionary.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is evidence for theistic evolution which is a form of creationism.

cre·a·tion·ism

"the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=creationism+definition

"the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationism

"a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis "
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism

"The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/creationism

I can find more if you want. Evolution is not a form of creationism.

He created evolution.

Based on what evidence?

Even if your a Deist and do not believe he plays an active part in maintaining His creation.

Are you a deist? If not, do you believe that God does not allow evolution to take its course and has to step in to make things go in a different direction contrary to natural processes?

 

[joshua 1 9]

The same food can offer different nutrition to different species. For example, alfalfa offers little in the way of nutrition to humans, but it offers a lot of nutrition to ruminates.

Animals evolve to extract more nutrition out of the plants.

You say that species evolve, yet coevoluion talks about how different species evolve together. For example the bee and the flower. So how is it that the alfalfa evolved to become more nutritious for the ruminates. Or are you just going to say the ruminates evolved in way that humans did not so we are not able to take advantage of the increased nutrition of the alfalfa?

 

[joshua 1 9]

cre·a·tion·ism

"the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=creationism+definition

"the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationism

"a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis "
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism

"The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/creationism

I can find more if you want. Evolution is not a form of creationism.



Based on what evidence?



Are you a deist? If not, do you believe that God does not allow evolution to take its course and has to step in to make things go in a different direction contrary to natural processes?

"Theistic evolution is one of three major origin-of-life worldviews, the other two being atheistic evolution (also commonly known as Darwinian evolution and naturalistic evolution) and special creation." http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html

God has to step in to clean up the mess that Satan made out of His creation. Yet He assures us that He will cause good to come out of all of this. So life gets divided into two groups, the one that gets saved and the one that perishes or is destroyed. Sense you support annihilation then I assume you believe we are all going to be destroyed in the end. Christians believe that some will be saved and restored. They do not believe all will perish or be destroyed. So you have atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists and then the agnostics that just want to sit on the fence. That sounds nice to be neutral but some people believe that there is no fence sitting allowed. So that those who are not for God are against God.

 

[Larniavc]

Your post is irrelevant. The original claim was that science does not believe in invisible things.

Invisible: unable to be seen; not visible to the eye.

Do you claim that gravity can be seen? You seem to think that since it can be detected that that makes it visible. Plenty of invisible things can be detected. For your argument to succeed, you would need to prove that detection and seeing are the same thing.

I was replying to to your post. Not the original point. Your were supporting the original point with a secondary refutable point: which I refuted.

Why is seeing and detection a problem? As long as we can detect something with instruments we do not need to rely on sight.

Does a radio telescope rely on sight? Of course not.

Can a pilot land a plane on instruments? Of course.

Baffling obsession with vision vs detection is baffling.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Theistic evolution is one of three major origin-of-life worldviews, the other two being atheistic evolution (also commonly known as Darwinian evolution and naturalistic evolution) and special creation." http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html

Yet another definition that separates theistic evolution from creationism.

God has to step in to clean up the mess that Satan made out of His creation. Yet He assures us that He will cause good to come out of all of this. So life gets divided into two groups, the one that gets saved and the one that perishes or is destroyed. Sense you support annihilation then I assume you believe we are all going to be destroyed in the end. Christians believe that some will be saved and restored. They do not believe all will perish or be destroyed.

After you get done preaching, perhaps you can address what I actually wrote?

 

[bhsmte]

"Theistic evolution is one of three major origin-of-life worldviews, the other two being atheistic evolution (also commonly known as Darwinian evolution and naturalistic evolution) and special creation." http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html

God has to step in to clean up the mess that Satan made out of His creation. Yet He assures us that He will cause good to come out of all of this. So life gets divided into two groups, the one that gets saved and the one that perishes or is destroyed. Sense you support annihilation then I assume you believe we are all going to be destroyed in the end. Christians believe that some will be saved and restored. They do not believe all will perish or be destroyed.

Do theistic evolutionists agree with evolution? Yes or no?

Does this Christian theist agree with evolution and agree that Darwin's theory has been so strongly supported over time, that one can not do biology, without evolution?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.


Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

http://biologos.org/blog/francis-collins-and-karl-giberson-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-2

 

[Loudmouth]

You say that species evolve, yet coevoluion talks about how different species evolve together.

How did alfalfa evolve to become more nutritious for ruminates?

So how is it that the alfalfa evolved to become more nutritious for the ruminates.

Where did you show that this ever happened?

Does the elk evolve to become more nutritious for the wolf?

Or are you just going to say the ruminates evolved in way that humans did not so we are not able to take advantage of the increased nutrition of the alfalfa?

Do you understand why ruminants (used "ruminates" earlier like a bonehead) are able to extract nutrition from plants that humans are not?

"Ruminants are mammals that are able to acquire nutrients from plant-based food by fermenting it in a specialized stomach prior to digestion, principally through bacterial actions."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruminant

They aren't true stomachs, they are actually part of the esophagus. But that aside, ruminants have evolved to extract extra nutrition from plants. Our small little appendix is a leftover from a more developed caecum that was better at extracting nutrition from plants. Humans get less nutrition from plants than some of our ancestors.