Question regarding evolution and creation?

[Air Between The Notes]

We have all observed the influence of gravity, radition from a fire, clotting of blood, and etc, etc, etc. What exactly is science taking purely on faith? I know what temperature water freezes at because I have made ice cubes before. I know 10 times out of 10 times if I jump into the air I will fall back to the ground because I have jumped into the air and fell back down countless times. Science is testable and delivers without fail. Don't believe me, rub your hands back and forth against each other vigorously for 30 seconds and I observe friction heat up your skin. It works 100 times out of 100 times, no faith required.

 

 

No one was present to see the original nor has anyone observed evolution and with so much design designed into Creation I don't see how the theory of evolution is anything one can swallow without much faith there is no evidence of a major species change from one type to another. Then how about the faith needed to accept that everything has always gone on as we see it now and so we have naturalistic based science faiths all based on what we see & that never has anything (say other than the bang) ever been moved upon by a force other than the ones we see at work in nature before us but yet a Supernatural force changing things through a world wide flood explains much that is no harder to believe than fossil fields or clay & oil coming about over long periods of time when what we know about these things all points to catastrophe to Create, not one little bug's body at a time falling upon another over vast periods of time to add up to pools of power for man to fight over.

[Arete]

nor has anyone observed evolution

 

 

 

Experimental Evolution is an entire field of study in which direct observations of evolution are made. E.g.

 

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/285289

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/5/1595.short

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/31/2/364/997936/Massive-Habitat-Specific-Genomic-Response-in-D

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/evo.13193/full

 

etc.

there is no evidence of a major species change from one type to another.

 

Actually, as previously explained ad infinitum there is tonnes of evidence from many independent lines for common ancestry. Ignoring it does not make it go away.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/101586-evolution-evidence/?p=969449

[Air Between The Notes]

Your speaking of test tubes here &/or intelligence forcing it's will via knowledge upon something not naturally occurring changes that can withstand the elements/veracity of life in the real world's challenges.

[Daecon]

So... what, exactly? Religion is real and we should all convert to Hinduism? Is that what you're saying?

[Arete]

Your speaking of test tubes here &/or intelligence forcing it's will via knowledge upon something not naturally occurring changes that can withstand the elements/veracity of life in the real world's challenges.

 

Nope. For e.g. you can take a naturally occurring trait like thermotolerance (i.e. it evolves in nature) and simulate selective conditions to generate evolutionary changes observed in nature. Btw's fish don't fit in test tubes, not that it matters or is relevant.

 

Regardless, the claim that evolution cannot be directly observed is comprehensively wrong.

[Moontanman]

 

 

No one was present to see the original nor has anyone observed evolution and with so much design designed into Creation I don't see how the theory of evolution is anything one can swallow without much faith there is no evidence of a major species change from one type to another. Then how about the faith needed to accept that everything has always gone on as we see it now and so we have naturalistic based science faiths all based on what we see & that never has anything (say other than the bang) ever been moved upon by a force other than the ones we see at work in nature before us but yet a Supernatural force changing things through a world wide flood explains much that is no harder to believe than fossil fields or clay & oil coming about over long periods of time when what we know about these things all points to catastrophe to Create, not one little bug's body at a time falling upon another over vast periods of time to add up to pools of power for man to fight over.

 

I am going to assume for the moment that you are not simply being disingenuous and really are as ignorant of evolutionary theory as you are of geology, paleontology, and quite evidently reality in general and suggest you go to talkorigins.org at the very least to see just how uninformed you really are. It's bad enough that you dismiss with wave of the hand hundreds of years of peer reviewed scientific inquiry but to suggest the supernatural is on equal or on even higher level of evidentiary support is down right dishonest in the extreme.

 

The supernatural has no empirical evidence of it's existence what so ever. How ever science has a huge advantage over the supernatural...

 

It Works!!!

 

Nothing has ever come from the supernatural, no supernatural claim has ever been shown to be true, at no time has the supernatural ever shown us anything about reality and never has the supernatural shown science to be wrong.

 

If indeed you really care about what is true and your posts so far haven't been nothing but troll drivel I suggest you do some research out side those who think magically and truly believe in faith and touch reality for what it is and not what you want it to be!

 

Your speaking of test tubes here &/or intelligence forcing it's will via knowledge upon something not naturally occurring changes that can withstand the elements/veracity of life in the real world's challenges.

 

 

Nothing but word salad...

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Air Between The Notes,

 

You have been suspended twice previously for using this forum to proselytise / preach / not engage in actual discussion. If we have to continue dealing with this from you, the next step is simply a permanent ban. This is your final warning on this matter.

[Strange]

 

 

No one was present to see the original nor has anyone observed evolution and with so much design designed into Creation I don't see how the theory of evolution is anything one can swallow without much faith there is no evidence of a major species change from one type to another. Then how about the faith needed to accept that everything has always gone on as we see it now and so we have naturalistic based science faiths all based on what we see & that never has anything (say other than the bang) ever been moved upon by a force other than the ones we see at work in nature before us but yet a Supernatural force changing things through a world wide flood explains much that is no harder to believe than fossil fields or clay & oil coming about over long periods of time when what we know about these things all points to catastrophe to Create, not one little bug's body at a time falling upon another over vast periods of time to add up to pools of power for man to fight over.

 

 

This kind of wilful ignorance is very depressing. Like the more general problem of "alternative facts" and "post truth", it makes me despair for human nature.

[DrP]

QUOTE: "...no evidence of major species change from one type to another"

 

Of course there isn't - because that isn't how it works at all. They diverge out from common ancestors, changing to fit their environment.

[Strange]

QUOTE: "...no evidence of major species change from one type to another"

 

Of course there isn't - because that isn't how it works at all. They diverge out from common ancestors, changing to fit their environment.

 

 

And that we can observe. OK, so we observe it happening in the past. But that is true for many things. You might as well deny that the city of Uruk existed because all we have are archeological records.

 

And we do observe new species being created today, so we know the mechanisms can create new species.

[Air Between The Notes]

Things can shift in attributes within their kind but there is no moving from ones pieces/kind to another & so it takes faith to believe it can happen

[DrP]

It would take great faith to believe that, yes... because it is not how it happens... it doesn't take faith if you know how it works. New species come from divergences from existing ones... This does happen. I'll let a biologist give you examples.

 

Look at the Laryngeal nerve in mammals.... it shows how we evolved from, or at least share a common ancestor with, fish.

[Air Between The Notes]

Yet nothing gains in knowledge without an input of data, so where does the data come from for a creature to improve upon itself? Chance? Really? You need intellect acting upon something by adding data at the (bio level we speak of now) for some"thing" to gain the ability via "gained attributes" to move onward & upward but that all takes information within the original creature to build it's self up. How does that happen when we know there is no way simple things learn how to sustain, fix, reproduce themselves without the data from within themselves & all the supporting mechanisms within that are needed to build various functions within a creature. All the info is within & never is it added to unless added by a higher power never chance as chance is just a word not a force of causational power. All we see in large print around us within natural history is a loss of data via species disappearing all the time, not new one's exploding onto this field of existance.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Air Between The Notes

[Strange]

Things can shift in attributes within their kind but there is no moving from ones pieces/kind to another & so it takes faith to believe it can happen

 

 

Define "kind".

 

As we have historical and genetic evidence of the emergence of species from common ancestors, and we see new species forming today, your statement is obviously false.

 

As you have been told this previously, this makes your false statement a deliberate lie.

[DrP]

QUOTE"Where does the input of data come from"..

 

It comes from the survivors... say we lived in 6 foot deep water... All those under 6 foot drown... those over live. So the 'tall', gene is passed on and on average the next generation are taller. Simple. It needs no input of data - the input of data comes from trial and error. If at 7 foot there are spinning blades.... then all those over 7 foot die too... but so do the ones under 6 foot! The information is passed on and future generations on average will produce more in the range between 6 foot and 7. You see? No intellect is needed.

 

Did you look up the stuff about the Laryngeal nerve? It is particularly interesting in a giraffe and shows that in no way what so ever was the thing designed!

Edited February 15, 2017 by DrP

[Strange]

Yet nothing gains in knowledge without an input of data, so where does the data come from for a creature to improve upon itself? Chance? Really?

 

Really. Yes. Your ignorance and incredulity do not change the facts.

 

Chance can create new genetic material. That new genetic material may or may not produce new features. Those new features may or may not result in a new species (immediately or by accumulation of such changes over time).

 

 

You need intellect acting upon something by adding data

 

Why?

 

We know there are genetic mechanisms that can do this.

 

 

All we see in large print around us within natural history is a loss of data via species disappearing all the time, not new one's exploding onto this field of existance.

 

Except we do see new species appearing - in the past and today.

 

You can keep repeating the lie or you can open your mind and learn about the world around you.

 

Do you think your god is proud of you being so stubbornly ignorant and preferring your opinions to the reality of his creation?

[Air Between The Notes]

Just because one say's with authority in their voice & has a following of others standing behind them that chance is the source of everything does not make it so & so you need much faith to bolster one's ideals in nothing x's much time ='s everything, ex nihilo nihil fit because there has always been something in the form of Someone, lol various amounts of faith for either side

[Strange]

It isn't anything to do with authority or followers, it is about EVIDENCE.

 

You are the one relying on faith instead of knowledge.

[DrP]

The Laryngeal nerve in your neck doesn't care about authority either... look it up before saying anything else and let us know what you think.

 

Here: - www.youtube.com/watch?v=c01a1Ek-HD0

[Moontanman]

Yet nothing gains in knowledge without an input of data, so where does the data come from for a creature to improve upon itself? Chance? Really? You need intellect acting upon something by adding data at the (bio level we speak of now) for some"thing" to gain the ability via "gained attributes" to move onward & upward but that all takes information within the original creature to build it's self up. How does that happen when we know there is no way simple things learn how to sustain, fix, reproduce themselves without the data from within themselves & all the supporting mechanisms within that are needed to build various functions within a creature. All the info is within & never is it added to unless added by a higher power never chance as chance is just a word not a force of causational power. All we see in large print around us within natural history is a loss of data via species disappearing all the time, not new one's exploding onto this field of existance.

 

 

I am asking you please to do some research someplace besides religion. Your answers and assertions are completely without merit. This doesn't mean there is no god or that your god is not real. It just means that your god cannot be detected by any empirical means.

 

I ask you please to at least watch this short video about genetic information...

 

Just because one say's with authority in their voice & has a following of others standing behind them that chance is the source of everything does not make it so & so you need much faith to bolster one's ideals in nothing x's much time ='s everything, ex nihilo nihil fit because there has always been something in the form of Someone, lol various amounts of faith for either side

 

 

Science prohibits faith based assertions about reality, you really need to read your homework...

[DrP]

I just hope she watches those vids and comments... all too often they just disappear when the 'evidence' against their untenable position is revealed.... funny - as she used this argument earlier in another thread to say that evolutionists go quiet when they cannot explain something.

[Arete]

Just because one say's with authority in their voice & has a following of others standing behind them that chance is the source of everything does not make it so

 

Of course not. Mountains upon mountains of observational, empirical evidence strongly support it being so.

Btw's:

1) New genetic information can and is created de novo through evolutionary processes - see gene duplication, pseudogene, recombination and transposable element for a start.

2) Complex traits can emerge through stochastic evolutionary processes - see citrate metabolism in E. coli

3) The argument that "evolution is faith based because no one was there to see it" is a poor argument - we infer past events based on contemporary evidence on a daily basis. For e.g. I can infer that the cleaner emptied my office trash can last night by the fact it is empty and we have cleaning staff employed to do so. An argument that a trash goblin who lives in my filing cabinet ate it after I left for the day is not an equivalently evidenced argument simply because I did physically see the cleaner empty my trash can.

[mistermack]

 

Of course not. Mountains upon mountains of observational, empirical evidence strongly support it being so.

Btw's:

1) New genetic information can and is created de novo through evolutionary processes - see gene duplication, pseudogene, recombination and transposable element for a start.

2) Complex traits can emerge through stochastic evolutionary processes - see citrate metabolism in E. coli

3) The argument that "evolution is faith based because no one was there to see it" is a poor argument - we infer past events based on contemporary evidence on a daily basis. For e.g. I can infer that the cleaner emptied my office trash can last night by the fact it is empty and we have cleaning staff employed to do so. An argument that a trash goblin who lives in my filing cabinet ate it after I left for the day is not an equivalently evidenced argument simply because I did physically see the cleaner empty my trash can.

Nicely put.

[Zinalu]

I feel like many religious people argue that "science can't prove it never happened" which is kinda annoying, to believe something you gotta prove it in fact happened, Paleotologists can't prove one spiecies evolved from another until they find that skeleton that are in between them, they theorize until they maybe find one, if they never find it maybe it turns out the two spieces they thought were related are not related at all. And there is no Adam anywhere.

So why is evolution a reason to deny creationism? Because there is proof evolution happened and not creationism, and as I said, you gotta have proof to see it happened at all.

Any reasonable person don't believe in Mary being a virgin ( if these people even excisted she maybe cheated and pulled a lie that it's gods child, how convinient eh? ) , theres a few spiecies of female that give birth to males without fertilation in case there is no male around and then she reproduce with that male offspring ( inbreeding much tough? )

 

Is there dinosaurs in the bible? Any pre-historic animal? So how does religion prove of what is actually in our ground right now and we just need to dig them up?

[DrP]

There are mention of sea monsters in the bible - but we sort of have them today, so they are not dinosaurs.

 

Typical and disappointing.... Air Between The Nodes boasts that evolutionists squirm and back out of conversations when they cannot answer questions..... she completely destroys her argument however by ducking out of the conversation when she can not explain or answer something which sort of proves her argument wrong. I don't know why I expected any less. Tut.