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.
Lol, ardent evolutionists go all the way back to a common ancestor, so the scale is ALL of life.Can't really argue against this assertion until you tell us what scale you think the theory works at. So, what scale do you assert it works at?
Lol, ardent evolutionists go all the way back to a common ancestor, so the scale is ALL of life.
So you would rather stick with things that make sense to you like pregnant cars?so a watch that can do any of these thing (living traits) isnt a watch but a living thing. but it make no sense.
What you wroteYou are quick off the mark.
That was a lie because that extrapolation to common ancestry is supported by evidence of common ancestry! Thus:To extrapolate from limited evolutionary change to a wholesale thesis of common ancestry is an extrapolation of just breath-taking proportions for which we really don't have any evidence.
He saw it was longer than a tweet.You didn't read it, did you?
Read my post SLOWLY. there is no evidence for macroevolution at the scale the theory of evolution assumes to extrapolate to. period.!
You missed that he moved the goal posts. The original post was just about evidence for common descent. He changed that to a rather incoherent statement about a "scale" of macroevolution and ignorance about this this scale of macroevolution being "assumed" in the theory of evolution.I read it.
And then I read it slowly.
And then I read it slooooowly.
It is still wrong.
See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.
You might want to go back to the drawing board, Mauddib.I absolutely agree with the scientific case for horse evolution.
Speciation needn't be something that creationists deny. There's no reason to think that fixity of the species is true, that there can't be descent with modification between species. The doctrine of common ancestry involves an enormous extrapolation, from observed limited cases of evolutionary adaptation to the whole of life, and very often in science these kinds of extrapolations fail.
To extrapolate from limited evolutionary change to a wholesale thesis of common ancestry is an extrapolation of just breath-taking proportions for which we really don't have any evidence. Even if you could show, for example, that birds and reptiles are evolved from a common ancestor, do you realize all of that still takes place within the Chordata, that is to say within the vertebrates, which is just a tiny segment of the diversity of life. Even having evolutionary change of that sort is almost a triviality compared to saying that a bird and sponge evolved from a common ancestor, not to mention bacteria and the Archaea and other sorts of primitive life forms.
Exactly, I've asked for evidence of flagellar intermediaries and got NONE!
Case closed.
ID doesn't come with an agenda as you claim, nowhere is the definition of Intelligent or Design in ID hinged on any particular doctrine.
Correct. A tree that is not growing and no longer responding to stimuli would likely be a dead tree. And dead is the opposite of alive.
ID postulates agency, something observable that exists on our planet, something that you refuse to postulate which detracts from your doing objective science.
Do not confuse mythological gods with the biblical God. Adults don’t come to believe in Zeus when they get older, nor the tooth fairy, they come to believe in the biblical God.
None of the above should be a show stopper when it comes to postulating agency at all though?
Information has not been demonstrably shown anywhere to come from the bottom up, only top down(the mind).
Consider that in the context of the origin of biological information.
You even have atheists moving away from Darwinism because of its contrivances. Take THOMAS Nagel and his book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False.
What now?
You can’t just blithely assert its false, demonstrate it.
(just think about the Kalam cosmological argument)
We also see God working in the lives of others.
when adults come to believe in God and we see the transformation in their lives then that counts as observation too.
Hi Merle,You might want to go back to the drawing board, Mauddib.
It appears you think life and possibly thunder needs an agent, but you haven't committed either way on thunder.
You say the agent needs to be external to the universe, but it is not clear how you ruled out panspermia.
Try approach this from reading the new testament and exploring the compelling evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.You say this external agent must be the God of the old testament, but when I read the old testament, it looks more like the boasts of one tribe about their god, not a revelation of a universal God.
I can't tell you exactly when evolution started, except ito the biblical account, which is the 7th day.You say evolution only did some recent changes, but you can't tell us when evolution started or how far back animals are related.
But thanks for trying. Please think about some of the questions we asked.
Which came first, an Agent or Life?Of course life needs an agent.
Nope, you're just making unsupported claims of a designer when there is literally no reason to do so.the difference between you and I is that I can infer design and u refuse to, when in fact you do so everyday.
Nope! and that's because we have many, many examples of people writing books, and printing books, and reading books, etc. and No examples of them coming about naturally.You don't pick up a book and infer a blind, mindless, unguided process do you?
Not at all. Zeus is a Creator God, so is Odin, Shiva, Brahma, Ra, etc. and pretty much all of them were worshipped well before monotheism was even a thing, let alone your particular God was heard of.This 'Thunder' thing, pertaining of course to greek mythology and those created gods, is an impediment to your understanding the Christian God.
That's obviously done where you live, right? Have you tried that in India? how about most of the Middle East? Africa? Asia? Any number of these places would give you any number of other Gods beside your Christian God.Let me try to explain it a little more simply.
You stand in front of a crowd, and ask, who came to believe in Zeus or Thor as an adult?
No hands go up. What about Santa Claus?
No hands go up.
OK, you say, who came to believe in the God of the bible as an adult?
Hundreds of hands go up.
You bet I can - there is no more evidence for your God than there is for any other God ever worshipped. Do you accept Allah and his final Prophet Mohammed? Do you accept Shiva and Brahma and the Hindu Gods to be the balance in this Universe? How about Bhuddism and its peaceful teachings and ethereal plains of meditation? All of these religions are currently worshipped by many, many adults, some of whom claim to have divine and pesonal experiences, some of whom have near death experiences with their religious iconography, many who claim their lives are altered for the better in a way that wouldn't be humanly possible, etc. I think you need to get out more.Thats because, as a said earlier, the former have theogonies, i.e. they have a genesis of the gods, whereas the latter has a cosmogony, God created the universe.
You confuse the two for some reason, as if we have been researching Zeus or Santa Claus for centuries.
Get it now? You cannot lump God and these other human created gods indiscriminately into the same basket. It is not very clever and is apparent for all to see.
I still don't see how you've inferred design in the first place.Again, ill explain it a little more simply.
When we infer design, we do not directly infer God. you are jumping the gun.
If the ID inference is successful,step1, then you still have to complete step 2, prove that the intelligence inferred is the God of the bible.
At this point, you will people inferring panspermia, to thwart step 2!
..."compelling evidence"? as far as we know, there isn't any evidence besides the exclusive claim of Christians, and that's not even evidence. it's still a Claim.Try approach this from reading the new testament and exploring the compelling evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.
Have you looked into the equally similar explosion of Islam, and the many other items of 'evidence' they claim too?All ancient historian departments on university campus (secular and not), including those of Oxford and Cambridge, believe that the disciples believed they saw the risen Christ. The explosion of Christianity also echoes this and many other items of evidence.
The difference is that the secular ancient historians pen it down to the disciples having the same hallucination, or that Jesus didn't really die but only passed out, etc etc etc... But they at least acknowledge the strong evidence.
You know most of the Jews didn't see Jesus as their savior, right? apparently they think he didn't fit any of the prophetic conditions.And once you have the new testament, you get the old testament for free because Jesus confirmed it.
You can read William Lane Craig's book called On Guard for evidence for and against the hypotheses and the actual event that is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
How is it weak? Whenever we measure the genetic difference between species, their differences fall into an expected prediction for their diversity - that is, they have the expected amount of deviations in their genetic makeup that we would expect them to have if they were part of a branching divergent tree of life with every other life form on the planet. Can you explain how the natural rate of mutation that we know occurs coupled with natural selection that weeds out bad/non-functioning organism designs that we see in operation, couldn't create the biodiversity we see?I can't tell you exactly when evolution started, except ito the biblical account, which is the 7th day.
But what I can tell you is that, because we disregard chance as a mechanism that can explain the vast, vast level of biodiversity we see today, we look elsewhere for a satisfactory answer rather than settle with a weak 'evolution of the gaps' answer.
No we're not, if we had to look elsewhere (and we don't), then we would be led to "I don't know" pending more evidence.And when we assumed to look elsewhere we were lead to design.
How have you decided the above processes we've observed repeatedly are 'exceedingly improbable' when we can see these processes in operation both in the lab and in the field?Remember, design inference hinges on two aspects:
1. First, the event must be exceedingly improbable (so much so that it exhausts the available probabilistic resources).
...do you mean 'predictive'?2. Second, it must conform to a meaningful or independently given pattern.
Nope, because a forensic scientist would have Evidence that draws them to an inescapable conclusion. Do you have any evidence of a designer besides us designing anything in life forms?Does a forensic scientist commit an “arson-of-the-gaps” fallacy in inferring that a fire was started deliberately rather than by natural causes?
I am curious why you turn to an attack on my thinking process rather than address the issue.Of course life needs an agent. the difference between you and I is that I can infer design and u refuse to, when in fact you do so everyday. You don't pick up a book and infer a blind, mindless, unguided process do you?
Which is one lengthy evasion of a simple question. Do you think thunder requires an agent?This 'Thunder' thing, pertaining of course to greek mythology and those created gods, is an impediment to your understanding the Christian God.
Let me try to explain it a little more simply.
You stand in front of a crowd, and ask, who came to believe in Zeus or Thor as an adult?
No hands go up. What about Santa Claus?
No hands go up.
OK, you say, who came to believe in the God of the bible as an adult?
Hundreds of hands go up.
Thats because, as a said earlier, the former have theogonies, i.e. they have a genesis of the gods, whereas the latter has a cosmogony, God created the universe.
You confuse the two for some reason, as if we have been researching Zeus or Santa Claus for centuries.
BINGO!Get it now? You cannot lump God and these other human created gods indiscriminately into the same basket. It is not very clever and is apparent for all to see.
In other words, the way I characterize your views is exactly correct. You first try to infer an intelligent designer, then explain it was God. That is exactly what I said you said. So why do you act like you disagree with what I said about your position?Again, ill explain it a little more simply.
When we infer design, we do not directly infer God. you are jumping the gun.
If the ID inference is successful,step1, then you still have to complete step 2, prove that the intelligence inferred is the God of the bible.
At this point, you will people inferring panspermia, to thwart step 2!
Uh, that was a quick switch. I was talking about the God of the Old Testament.Try approach this from reading the new testament and exploring the compelling evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.
BINGO!And once you have the new testament, you get the old testament for free because Jesus confirmed it.
I wasn't asking for an exact date. I was asking for an order of magnitude for when you thought evolution started. And I gave you four choices and asked you which is the closest to when you thought evolution started:I can't tell you exactly when evolution started, except ito the biblical account, which is the 7th day.
But what I can tell you is that, because we disregard chance as a mechanism that can explain the vast, vast level of biodiversity we see today, we look elsewhere for a satisfactory answer rather than settle with a weak 'evolution of the gaps' answer.
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?