What does the data support?

[randman]

I don't accept common descent. Doesn't seem logical, and I don't see the evidence as demonstrating it.

I must admit that I don't know yet what the right model is.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Why Randman, it has to be the six day biblical model since most of your regections are on a religious basis, and since it is the way your religion explains creation.

 

[the worthy one]

I'm gonna poke my moronic nose in and say:

A fossil record is just that; a documentation of dead animals.

Proving one is an ancestor to another is "impossible", and it is accepted on faith that any transitions ever occurred.

Faith:
A strong belief in things not seen.

Did you see this transition occur?

"No but I know that nomadic birds can change color when the wind blows real hard."

 

[LewisWildermuth]

So the worthy one, since one can not have two masters, you divorce yourself from electronics because you have to have "faith" that the electrons will move like they should...

Wait, your using a computer... Argh you infedel!!! How can you have faith in two unseen things at one time?!?!

 

[the worthy one]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
So the worthy one, since one can not have two masters, you divorce yourself from electronics because you have to have "faith" that the electrons will move like they should...
Wait, your using a computer... Argh you infedel!!! How can you have faith in two unseen things at one time?!?!

Good jumping post there.

Computers work. I see it in action. Beneficial duplicating mutations don't.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

So bacteria that become immune to anti-bacterial agents by mutation are just a figment of our imagination? Even though we have more visual evedence for that then we do for electrons jumping between atoms?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
So the worthy one, since one can not have two masters, you divorce yourself from electronics because you have to have "faith" that the electrons will move like they should...

Wait, your using a computer... Argh you infedel!!! How can you have faith in two unseen things at one time?!?!

GASP!!! You're breathing! And God gave you the breath of life! You infidel! I insist that you stop breathing until you accept the fact that God gave you life, or else you're a big hypocrite.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by npetreley


GASP!!! You're breathing! And God gave you the breath of life! You infidel! I insist that you stop breathing until you accept the fact that God gave you life, or else you're a big hypocrite.

Well you see, I do accept that God gave me life, evolution and for that matter any other science isn't about denying God, just explaining how God did it by the evidence.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth


Well you see, I do accept that God gave me life, evolution and for that matter any other science isn't about denying God, just explaining how God did it by the evidence.

Ah, so the difference between you and randman, therefore, is that you believe:

1. "God gave us life"
2. "God used evolution"

And randman believes (although I think he said he's still unsure):

1. "God gave us life"
2. "God created humans"

Now explain to me again why this means he shouldn't use a computer?

 

[theyre here]

Originally posted by randman
I don't accept common descent. Doesn't seem logical, and I don't see the evidence as demonstrating it.

And thus, you feel you are more qualified than most other scientists viewing the evidence?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Actually the computer reference was to The Worthy One formerly known as theunworthyone.

Since Evolution requires faith in the unseen as he said, it is reasonable for us not to belive in it according to him. Well electronics require faith in the unseen too. But we accept electronics and deny evolution baised on faith. In that I find hypocrasy<sp?>. Physics can pose just as big of problems for Christianity as Biology, but no one argues against the theory of relativity, just the theory of evolution.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth

Since Evolution requires faith in the unseen as he said, it is reasonable for us not to belive in it according to him.

Huh? If that's what he meant, I sure didn't interpret it that way. IMO the comment was probably based on Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." The point here is the nature of faith.

Well electronics require faith in the unseen too. But we accept electronics and deny evolution baised on faith.

Again, I think the point is that evolution IS based on faith, not direct evidence. I don't think the value of faith itself is being questioned, just whether or not evolutionists will admit that evolution is based on faith.

In that I find hypocrasy<sp?>. Physics can pose just as big of problems for Christianity as Biology, but no one argues against the theory of relativity, just the theory of evolution.

Again, perhaps some of the "how" of electronics is unseen, but you can test your faith in how electronics work today to see if your theories are correct. But all that tells you is how electronics work today. It doesn't tell you anything about how the electron itself came to exist or how it came to behave the way it does today.

Likewise, you can confirm many things about how molecular biology in humans works today. What you cannot do is go back in time to test your faith that man evolved from the most primitive form of life.

Faith in evolution is not really like faith in Christ, howeve. It is more like the faith I have in my interpretation of the chronology of end times based on my understanding of prophecy. It seems perfectly reasonable to me. But I won't know if I'm even close to being right until after the events occur. I could be entirely wrong.

If evolutionists would simply admit that their theory is based entirely on "what seems reasonable to me" and also admit that it could be entirely wrong, then perhaps it wouldn't be such an emotionally charged issue.

(See also, 1 Cor 5:7 -- "For we walk by faith, not by sight.")

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by npetreley



If evolutionists would simply admit that their theory is based entirely on "what seems reasonable to me" and also admit that it could be entirely wrong, then perhaps it wouldn't be such an emotionally charged issue.

(See also, 1 Cor 5:7 -- "For we walk by faith, not by sight.")

*sigh* We have told you and the other creationists in here that time after time. THat is why evolution is called a theory not a law. How many times do we have to repeat it before you believe us? You see it is not a religion soley suported by faith but also backed by evidence. That is what science is, our best guess on how things work. Religion is our best guess on why things work i.e. God.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Again, perhaps some of the "how" of electronics is unseen, but you can test your faith in how electronics work today to see if your theories are correct. But all that tells you is how electronics work today. It doesn't tell you anything about how the electron itself came to exist or how it came to behave the way it does today.

Actually, you can't even tell that electrons EXISTED in the past (even thirty minutes ago) by the methods you seem to think science should restrict it to. Nice thing about materialist causality, though, is that nothing can happen in the past without leaving marks that can usually be seen in the future, by a trained eye. Those marks are in our genes, in the distributions of plants and animals on the planet, in our body plans, in our bones, and in the rocks. We can test our ideas about the past by looking at the marks it left behind for us to see in the present.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

We can test our ideas about the past by looking at the marks it left behind for us to see in the present.

What you're really saying is that you can speculate based on the evidence. I have no problem with that. All I'm saying is:

1. Stop calling it fact. It's just speculation.

2. I believe you've selected certain evidence, presented it to a jury with blinders on, and have consequently convicted the wrong guy.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
I believe you've selected certain evidence, presented it to a jury with blinders on, and have consequently convicted the wrong guy.

Oh really? What evidence has been ignored?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley

What you're really saying is that you can speculate based on the evidence. I have no problem with that. All I'm saying is:

1. Stop calling it fact. It's just speculation.

No one is speculating based on the evidence. People speculate based on limited observation. They test their ideas based on their conformance to the evidence AS IT IS FOUND. The speculation stage of evolutionary theory is only a distant memory. Fact is a status that it has earned.

2. I believe you've selected certain evidence, presented it to a jury with blinders on, and have consequently convicted the wrong guy.

I believe the earth is flat. So there, we can both have facile beliefs.
If in fact we have convicted the wrong guy, the only possibility is that he was expertly FRAMED by the real perpetrator.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth


*sigh* We have told you and the other creationists in here that time after time. THat is why evolution is called a theory not a law. How many times do we have to repeat it before you believe us? You see it is not a religion soley suported by faith but also backed by evidence. That is what science is, our best guess on how things work. Religion is our best guess on why things work i.e. God.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

The speculation stage of evolutionary theory is only a distant memory. Fact is a status that it has earned.

 

[Jerry Smith]

LW is correct that evolution is not a law. He doesn't seem to be correct on his ideas about why. A theory in science is not a best guess, but an idea so well supported by the evidence that it is not reasonable to reject its veracity.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth

Religion is our best guess on why things work i.e. God.

Actually, I always felt that was the definition of mythology. My definition of religion is man's desire to reconcile himself to god. Christianity is more like God reconciling man to Himself.

Anyway, if you're equating "religion" with "Judaism" or "Christianity" or even the Bible, then it has nothing to do with our best guess about anything.