Statements About Evolution

[Kylie]

From what little I know, yes.

Okay, so you've agreed that there are variations among the animals in a population. You've also agree that these variations have a genetic basis. You've also agree that these variations can be passed from parent to offspring.

Statement 4: Some of these variations will help the individual animal that has them survive. For example, if it has hearing that's a bit better than average, it could hear an approaching predator earlier, giving it a few more seconds to escape. And some of these variations could be detrimental. For example, it could have a weakened immune system, leaving it more likely to get sick. Or it could have bones that are more brittle.

Do you agree with this?

 

[Kylie]

At least I thought of it.

I rest my case.

If you don't believe in common design, and you live in a universe that's at least 94 billion light years wide, made of just over a hundred different elements, then ... well ... you're entitled to your opinion.

By that logic, I could say that the English language must have more than just 26 letters in it. I mean, if you believe that the vast sum of human literature, works of such poetic beauty they can move us to tears of joy, and works of horror that fill our hearts with cold dread, volumes that show us places we've never been, tomes that make us laugh uproariously, books that make us weep with utmost sorrow, if you believe all of that can come from just 26 different letters, then ... well ... you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[AV1611VET]

By that logic, I could say that the English language must have more than just 26 letters in it.

Nope.

Did I even hint that there must be more than 118 elements in the periodic table?

In fact, God didn't even use all of the 118, since 24 of them are considered "man made."

What you should have said is:

"By that logic, I could say that the English language SHOULD have more than just 26 letters in it."

 

[chilehed]

By that logic...

Don't allow yourself to get distracted by the peanut gallery. I like how the conversation with Mark is developing.

 

[Frank Robert]

And you are still regurgitating SCIENTIFIC misunderstanding of divine design.

Divine design theory is not scientific, it is mainly an evangelical belief.

I have nothing against what anyone believes. Two of my good friends are Catholic priests and another good friend is a pastor of an evangelical church. My partner is a devout Catholic who spends many hours a week helping with his church's SVdP food ministry which we both support.

God made Adam & Eve from the dust of the ground in an instant.

They didn't come from daisy-chaining DNA from the ocean over millions of years.

Dr. Joshua Swamidass, MD, PhD at Peaceful Science wrote a book, The Genealogical Adam and Eve which has been endorsed by theologians, apologists and atheists. Dr. Swamidass is an evangelical and his book is about the de novo creation of Adam & Eve.

 

[Frank Robert]

By the way, Frank, if the universe is only 14.7 billion years old, how is it it is 94 billion light years wide?

How Did The Universe Expand To 46 Billion Light-Years In Just 13.8 Billion Years?

If the Universe is 13.8 billion years old, and the speed of light is truly our cosmic speed limit, how far away should we be able to see? The answer seems obvious: 13.8 billion light-years, since a light-year is the distance light can travel in a year, and nothing can go faster than that.

Unfortunately, like a great many answers that seem obvious when you apply your logical common sense to them, that's not how things actually work. In reality, if you were to look at the most distant thing of all you can possibly see, and ask "how far away is it," the answer is much farther than that: 46 billion light-years. That might sound impossible, but it's not. You just have to expand your way of thinking.

You will need to read the article to expand your way of thinking.
​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Okay, so you've agreed that there are variations among the animals in a population. You've also agree that these variations have a genetic basis. You've also agree that these variations can be passed from parent to offspring.

Statement 4: Some of these variations will help the individual animal that has them survive. For example, if it has hearing that's a bit better than average, it could hear an approaching predator earlier, giving it a few more seconds to escape. And some of these variations could be detrimental. For example, it could have a weakened immune system, leaving it more likely to get sick. Or it could have bones that are more brittle.

Do you agree with this?

Yes, I agree with even whole species being unable to survive their environment.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dr. Joshua Swamidass, MD, PhD at Peaceful Science wrote a book, The Genealogical Adam and Eve which has been endorsed by theologians, apologists and atheists. Dr. Swamidass is an evangelical and his book is about the de novo creation of Adam & Eve.

QV please: Belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible at all-time low among Americans, Gallup reports

 

[AV1611VET]

You will need to read the article to expand your way of thinking.

Timothy Leary had another suggestion.

One that appealed to many on campus.

 

[driewerf]

How many natural elements in the periodic table?

92.
So what?

 

[driewerf]

And you are still regurgitating SCIENTIFIC misunderstanding of divine design.

God made Adam & Eve from the dust of the ground in an instant.

They didn't come from daisy-chaining DNA from the ocean over millions of years.

You make statements about the physical world hence, you enter the realm of science. You'll have to play by science's rules.
"And you are still regurgitating SCIENTIFIC misunderstanding of divine design"
Please provide evidence of any design
Please provide evidence of the divine character of this designer.
Please provide arguments for the use of the singular instead of the plural.
Please provide a pathway from the design table to the manufacturing process.

"God made Adam & Eve from the dust of the ground in an instant."
Please provide evidence for God.
Please provide evidence for 1) Adam and 2) Eve.
Please provide evidence that these have been created.
Please provide evidence that this has been done by 'God'.
Please provide evidence for the instantaneous character of this process.

Until these requirements are fulfilled I will take your statements with a grain of salt.
And remember, you made statements about the physical world. Science's rules apply.

 

[AV1611VET]

And remember, you made statements about the physical world. Science's rules apply.

Science can take a hike.

 

[Frank Robert]

Timothy Leary had another suggestion.

One that appealed to many on campus.

An excellent display of contempt of science.

 

[Frank Robert]

QV please: Belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible at all-time low among Americans, Gallup reports

You missed the point. The endorsements of the book from theologians, apologists as well as atheists are evidence that religion and science need not be enemies.

 

[driewerf]

Science can take a hike.

Thank you for that eloquent response. You have nothing to offer. You can just produce unsuptantiated nonsense.

Actually, I haven't seen many creationists object to your "Science can take a hike". Their silence is deafening. It illustrates that creationism is fundamentally anti science, and actually anti knowledge, anti intelligence.

 

[driewerf]

An excellent display of contempt of science.

A contempt of science, knowledge and intelligence at large.

 

[AV1611VET]

You missed the point. The endorsements of the book from theologians, apologists as well as atheists are evidence that religion and science need not be enemies.

But I have the feeling it is SCIENCE that has to extend the hand first, if they want to shake hands.

The reason I think this is because these standards get ridiculed:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

And it's probably because science has to set the terms -- not the Bible.

So you're right: religion and science need not be enemies.

As long as science calls the shots.

 

[AV1611VET]

An excellent display of contempt of science.

If he was being contemptible to science, then why were college students all over the country taking his advice to TUNE IN, TURN ON, AND DROP OUT?

Were college students in the '60s getting tired of science and education as well?

 

[driewerf]

But I have the feeling it is SCIENCE that has to extend the hand first, if they want to shake hands.

The reason I think this is because these standards get ridiculed:

2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x

How many legs does a grasshopper have?

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank you for that eloquent response.

You're most welcome.

You have nothing to offer.

That is correct.

It is called creatio ex nihilo.

But science isn't buying it on principle, else they'd have to admit there's more to this universe that they're willing to put on paper.

You can just produce unsuptantiated nonsense.

Depends on who's doing the substantiating.

Actually, I haven't seen many creationists object to your "Science can take a hike".

Maybe you need to hang around more often then?

Their silence is deafening.

-- Okay then.

Like not going to the park on the Fourth of July, then complaining they didn't set off any fireworks because you didn't hear anything.

It illustrates that creationism is fundamentally anti science, and actually anti knowledge, anti intelligence.

Either that, or it puts science in its place, where it belongs.