Since the existence of a deity cannot be tested, the null hypothesis (that such a being does not exist) MUST be provisionally accepted.
HOWEVER, any incontrovertible and empirical evidence in favor of the deity hypothesis must necessarily result in the consideration of the deity hypothesis, and most likely the discarding of the null hypothesis.
Darwin's theory of evolution is riddled with the assumption that while transitional fossils had not been found in his day, they eventually would be. This does not just relate to The Missing Link between man and ape, but Many Missing Links between many species, and massive confusion between adaptation and speciation, and yet his theory is given massive credence by the scientific community, despite being founded on the assumptions which you hold MUST result in the null hypothesis being accepted when applied to theism...
If one MUST give such credit to Darwin's theory, despite such gaping holes, then one must logically extend the same credit to theism.
The idea that everything in existence is simply 'random' is frankly ludicrous, as chaos works counter to the repetition and uniformity which life-systems require to function...
Darwin's theory of evolution is riddled with the assumption that while transitional fossils had not been found in his day, they eventually would be. This does not just relate to The Missing Link between man and ape, but Many Missing Links between many species, and massive confusion between adaptation and speciation, and yet his theory is given massive credence by the scientific community, despite being founded on the assumptions which you hold MUST result in the null hypothesis being accepted when applied to theism...
If one MUST give such credit to Darwin's theory, despite such gaping holes, then one must logically extend the same credit to theism.
The idea that everything in existence is simply 'random' is frankly ludicrous, as chaos works counter to the repetition and uniformity which life-systems require to function...
^^^This.
Also, the Christian God exists outside of any universe and is not limited by time. As to the many worlds theory, one flaw I see in the system is that if there were infinite universes with infinite possibilities, there must be one where they develop Daleks that can cross to our universe and exterminate everyone. Thus, either there aren't infinite universes, or they cannot interact with each other.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Darwin's theory of evolution is riddled with the assumption that while transitional fossils had not been found in his day, they eventually would be. This does not just relate to The Missing Link between man and ape, but Many Missing Links between many species, and massive confusion between adaptation and speciation, and yet his theory is given massive credence by the scientific community, despite being founded on the assumptions which you hold MUST result in the null hypothesis being accepted when applied to theism...
Here's the thing. Evolution is inherently testable and very clearly hypothetically falsifiable. Theism is neither.
Also, Tiktalik, Archaeopteryx, coelacanths, gorgonopsians, cynodonts, Euparkeria, Isanosaurus, Eoraptor, Haikuicthys, Pikaia, edicarian biota, fractal animals, archaeans, prions, basically the entire body of life, ginkgos, cycadoids, monkeypuzzles, ferns, Guanlong, Tianyulong, tree shrews, Eosimias, E. Coli, lizards in the Mediterranean...
See, evolution has literally been physically observed and documented in living animals and bacteria; both in lab conditions and in the natural world. Look how fast MRSA developed multidrug resistance; look at the differences in wing and beak shape and size in house finches from eastern and western North America.
This isn't just the aftereffects of evolution leaving a lot of radically different species from one common ancestor. This is species reacting to their environment and evolving literally on an observable timescale.
And it is fascinating, and it is bloody beautiful.
The idea that everything in existence is simply 'random' is frankly ludicrous, as chaos works counter to the repetition and uniformity which life-systems require to function...
I'd be happy to discuss the thermodynamics of life with you, but I feel that I, a non-physics specialist, am not properly equipped to explain the exact mechanics of how life actually INCREASES the entropy of the universe despite decreasing entropy within the living system. The woefully simple version is: Living organisms are open systems, not closed systems, and are inherently energetically inefficient. In every reaction a living creature performs withing its body, waste heat is produced, causing the entropy of the universe to increase even if the entropy of the system (the life-form) decreases.
As to the many worlds theory, one flaw I see in the system is that if there were infinite universes with infinite possibilities, there must be one where they develop Daleks that can cross to our universe and exterminate everyone. Thus, either there aren't infinite universes, or they cannot interact with each other.
It is entirely possible, albeit extremely unlikely, that we will be invaded by Daleks from another universe at any particular second in time.
In fact, there MUST be a finite universe somewhere in the infinite multiverse that was invaded by Daleks from another universe. This is how the law of infinite possibilities works.
^^^This.
Also, the Christian God exists outside of any universe and is not limited by time.
Equally, a day on Jupiter is somewhat longer than a day on Earth. What Genesis refers to as 'days', should not only not be limited to the local concept of 24 hours, but also considered as the simplification of something incomprehensible, into a comprehensible format. Something, inevitably, will 'get lost in translation'...
As to the many worlds theory, one flaw I see in the system is that if there were infinite universes with infinite possibilities, there must be one where they develop Daleks that can cross to our universe and exterminate everyone. Thus, either there aren't infinite universes, or they cannot interact with each other.
The Qu'ran states that Allah is the Lord of the worlds. I consider that plural very seriously :cool:
Equally, a day on Jupiter is somewhat longer than a day on Earth. What Genesis refers to as 'days', should not only not be limited to the local concept of 24 hours, but also considered as the simplification of something incomprehensible, into a comprehensible format. Something, inevitably, will 'get lost in translation'...
I always like to use this joke as an illustration.
Bob is talking to God (never mind how) and asks Him, "Heavenly Father, what does a million years look like to You?"
Quoth God, "Ah, my son, a million years to Me is but a second."
Bob thinks for a moment and asks, "What about a million dollars?"
The Qu'ran states that Allah is the Lord of the worlds. I consider that plural very seriously :cool:
Meanwhile we've got the Vatican saying that people on other planets aren't as sinful as humans because Original Sin only happened on Earth. *shrug*
I also like this thing from Mass Effect's codex where it says that some aliens have taken a liking to Earth religions (the turians have a fondness for Confucianism and Zen Buddhism), even as theistic belief among humans has decreased. And hell, I myself have written two openly Muslim characters in my STO fics (LCDR. Khoroushi from Morgan's crew, and a one-shot E-3 in Red Fire, Red Planet)
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Here's the thing. Evolution is inherently testable and very clearly hypothetically falsifiable. Theism is neither.
Darwin's theory of evolution is predicated on assumptions... Darwinism is also a massive conspiracy supported by deliberate falsification and misinformation.
Also, Tiktalik, Archaeopteryx, coelacanths, gorgonopsians, cynodonts, Euparkeria, Isanosaurus, Eoraptor, Haikuicthys, Pikaia, edicarian biota, fractal animals, archaeans, prions, basically the entire body of life, ginkgos, cycadoids, monkeypuzzles, ferns, Guanlong, Tianyulong, tree shrews, Eosimias, E. Coli, lizards in the Mediterranean...
What of them?
It is my understanding of Darwinism, that the claim is that creatures evolve from one state to another over a massive period of time: homo erectus to cro-magnon to homo sapiens etc.
I would suggest, that in all instances, all variations are a unique and distinct species, and none are transitional forms from one to another. Extinction (and predation) is the easiest answer for why certain species no longer exist. Take 21st century bigots for example -- they can't stand the idea of 'different beliefs/colors/lifestyles', let alone the idea of parallel species, and I suspect they were simply wiped out.
Equally, if creatures indeed transition gradually from one form to another, there are no examples of contemporary animals being an 'evolved form' from another (maybe differently/specifically bred, such as the various types of domestic dog...) and creatures such as the crocodile and shark, still exist in, what I've been lead to believe are, their 'prehistoric forms'...
I wouldn't rule out the idea that 'Life' was created to have the ability to evolve, if there weren't such assumptions in Darwin's theory which are being refuted by contemporary science... (such as the Ape DNA Human DNA comparison)
See, evolution has literally been physically observed and documented in living animals and bacteria; both in lab conditions and in the natural world. Look how fast MRSA developed multidrug resistance; look at the differences in wing and beak shape and size in house finches from eastern and western North America.
MRSA... Definitely not possible for a bioengineered illness to be modified and these 'revisions' to be released across the planet for the benefit of Big Pharma companies... (as suggested by the ending of Rise of the Planet of the Apes) or during sporting events as suggested by Rainbow Six) And re:finches, compare the history of the Rolex Submariner from the 1680 model through to the 116110 model... Same thing, different 'variation on a theme', but intelligently designed...
I'd be happy to discuss the thermodynamics of life with you, but I feel that I, a non-physics specialist, am not properly equipped to explain the exact mechanics of how life actually INCREASES the entropy of the universe despite decreasing entropy within the living system. The woefully simple version is: Living organisms are open systems, not closed systems, and are inherently energetically inefficient. In every reaction a living creature performs withing its body, waste heat is produced, causing the entropy of the universe to increase even if the entropy of the system (the life-form) decreases.
Makes sense, but I'm not really sure how that applies to the theory of evolution, however, which I simply view as a flawed 'notion' wrongly propagated by the 'academic establishment'...
MDK, I would submit that there is a difference between philosophical Darwinism, and the scientific process of evolution. If evolution is being taken further than it should be, to claim there is no God, I think you and I are in agreement that there is no basis for that and such attitudes should be dispensed with immediately and the proper tools used to make such decisions on faith instead.
Personally I happen to think creation is intentional, intelligent, and continuing, and that the means by which it is made to happen are available to us to discover. Even if my way of looking at it falls under the header of "theistic evolution" as opposed to what is commonly called "intelligent design" (which is a bending of science to achieve strict literalist conclusions), it doesn't preclude intelligence behind it.
Personally I happen to think it's pretty cool that on whatever small level we're capable of comprehending, we are privileged with the ability to get a look inside that black box of creating and see some of the building blocks and methods at work.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Darwin's theory of evolution is predicated on assumptions... Darwinism is also a massive conspiracy supported by deliberate falsification and misinformation.
Just like Christianity, which is a massive and world-spanning Illuminati hoax based on the communist ramblings of a desert barbarian and his 12 TRIBBLE buddies...
And Islam, which is basically the same thing but with a different cultural background.
MDK, I would submit that there is a difference between philosophical Darwinism, and the scientific process of evolution. If evolution is being taken further than it should be, to claim there is no God, I think you and I are in agreement that there is no basis for that and such attitudes should be dispensed with immediately and the proper tools used to make such decisions on faith instead.
See, evolution has nothing at all to do with the presence or absence of a deity. Evolution is a testable and empirically observable process; the presence or absence of a deity is an untestable hypothesis.
Completely different spheres. It's entirely hypothetically possible to have a static universe with no deity, or a changing and entropic universe with a deity that got things started but that's been just watching the fun ever since.
This is part of why I really get annoyed when people bring religious objections to science. Science has one thing and one thing only to say about religion: Cannot test, therefore ignore until testable. The two realms are otherwise entirely separate.
On the contrary, macroevolution, the transition of one species into another, as detailed by Charles Darwin in the Origin of the Species, cannot be proven without time travel. It has not been observed directly, and any of the creatures such as archaeopteryx cannot be proven to be an in-between. Just because they have features of both birds and reptiles, does not mean they are the link between the two.
What has been observed, as you described with the example of the finches and MRSA is known as microevolution. This has been proven to exist, and is the adaptation of a particular organism over time to its surroundings. Survival of the Fittest, if you will. This never results in a new creature, merely an adaptation of existing genetic code.
Also, I would agree that belief in the Christian God can't be founded on the logic of nature. For something or someone to exist outside the realms of reality as we know them, and still influence us, is not scientifically verifiable or possible. But the alternative begs the question: where did the uni(or multi-)verse come from? Something had to have always been there, whether the cosmic seed that exploded in the big bang, or something else. Whatever it was existed outside the uni(or multi-)verse.
MDK, I would submit that there is a difference between philosophical Darwinism, and the scientific process of evolution. If evolution is being taken further than it should be, to claim there is no God, I think you and I are in agreement that there is no basis for that and such attitudes should be dispensed with immediately and the proper tools used to make such decisions on faith instead.
Personally I happen to think creation is intentional, intelligent, and continuing, and that the means by which it is made to happen are available to us to discover. Even if my way of looking at it falls under the header of "theistic evolution" as opposed to what is commonly called "intelligent design" (which is a bending of science to achieve strict literalist conclusions), it doesn't preclude intelligence behind it.
Personally I happen to think it's pretty cool that on whatever small level we're capable of comprehending, we are privileged with the ability to get a look inside that black box of creating and see some of the building blocks and methods at work.
I simply think that, as per my first post, if the null hypothesis of theism is the logical option because it cannot be proven, that applies equally to Darwin's theory of evolution, as that also has many points which cannot be proven, and (IMHO at least) is not only easier to discount, but is seemingly more and more discredited by scientific discoveries, such as a better understanding of DNA :cool:
Just like Christianity, which is a massive and world-spanning Illuminati hoax based on the communist ramblings of a desert barbarian and his 12 TRIBBLE buddies...
And Islam, which is basically the same thing but with a different cultural background.
Really, the only REAL religion is Tengri.
/sarcasm
Ergo they're both BS :cool:
Something I would point out in favour of theism (specifically Judaism and Islam) is that there are descriptions of processes (such as conception) which could not have been scientifically understood at the time, or kosher practices, for example, which 2000 years ago, would preclude massive instances of food poisoning, and the prohibition on shellfish for example, prevents people eating a foodstuff which people can have massive allergic reactions to (even if having eaten it for years) and I take that as a sign of that information coming from 'a higher source' :cool:
On the contrary, macroevolution, the transition of one species into another, as detailed by Charles Darwin in the Origin of the Species, cannot be proven without time travel. It has not been observed directly, and any of the creatures such as archaeopteryx cannot be proven to be an in-between. Just because they have features of both birds and reptiles, does not mean they are the link between the two.
What has been observed, as you described with the example of the finches and MRSA is known as microevolution. This has been proven to exist, and is the adaptation of a particular organism over time to its surroundings. Survival of the Fittest, if you will. This never results in a new creature, merely an adaptation of existing genetic code.
This is entirely incorrect on every possible level.
First off, there is no such thing as a distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. This is a false dichotomy, since the definition of a species is an inherently arbitrary, human concept created to help categorize and understand life.
Second, evolution is not about survival of the fittest. On the most basic, simplistic level, it's about reproduction-of-the-best-suited-to-the-environment-and/or-luckiest.
Evolution has been observed directly on multiple occasions. There is currently a speciation event in progress in the Mediterranean, because some lizards were accidentally misplaced and had to rapidly adapt to a new environment. The Western scrub-jay is in the process of becoming two or more separate species; IIRC it was officially split last year.
Apple borers in the united states, formerly on species dependent solely on hawthorn trees, are now two separate species, one dependent on hawthorns and the other on apples. I think the latest study showed even more evidence of divergence, as well.
Something I would point out in favour of theism (specifically Judaism and Islam) is that there are descriptions of processes (such as conception) which could not have been scientifically understood at the time, or kosher practices, for example, which 2000 years ago, would preclude massive instances of food poisoning, and the prohibition on shellfish for example, prevents people eating a foodstuff which people can have massive allergic reactions to (even if having eaten it for years) and I take that as a sign of that information coming from 'a higher source' :cool:
Nah, I'd take it as a sign of people being sentient creatures.
Sentient creatures notice things, and adapt their behavior to deal with those things. Heck, even nonsentient creatures notice things.
The prohibition on shellfish is no more complicated or inexplicable than a parrot learning to talk by watching other parrots get rewarded for talking.
The idea that humans are inherently incapable of noticing patterns and determining that certain foods (like shellfish) spoil really, really quickly in the environment of the Levant, for example, and must be given such information by a higher power is inherently fallacious and in defiance of all evidence.
Something I would point out in favour of theism (specifically Judaism and Islam) is that there are descriptions of processes (such as conception) which could not have been scientifically understood at the time, or kosher practices, for example, which 2000 years ago, would preclude massive instances of food poisoning, and the prohibition on shellfish for example, prevents people eating a foodstuff which people can have massive allergic reactions to (even if having eaten it for years) and I take that as a sign of that information coming from 'a higher source' :cool:
I think you're mixing up your cause and effect there. By the same token, IIRC Hinduism has a prohibition against consumption of dairy products, and Asians are statistically more likely than Caucasians or Africans to be lactose-intolerant.
I suspect that what happened was, somebody saw Bob eat shellfish or whatever and die of anaphylactic shock, and ascribed it to God punishing the guy for eating shellfish.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
This is entirely incorrect on every possible level.
First off, there is no such thing as a distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. This is a false dichotomy, since the definition of a species is an inherently arbitrary, human concept created to help categorize and understand life.
Second, evolution is not about survival of the fittest. On the most basic, simplistic level, it's about reproduction-of-the-best-suited-to-the-environment-and/or-luckiest.
Evolution has been observed directly on multiple occasions. There is currently a speciation event in progress in the Mediterranean, because some lizards were accidentally misplaced and had to rapidly adapt to a new environment. The Western scrub-jay is in the process of becoming two or more separate species; IIRC it was officially split last year.
Apple borers in the united states, formerly on species dependent solely on hawthorn trees, are now two separate species, one dependent on hawthorns and the other on apples. I think the latest study showed even more evidence of divergence, as well.
So yeah. You're wrong. Sorry.
Again, what you are describing is microevolution, regardless of whether you believe in the distinction or not. As to the term "species" you are correct in stating it is an arbitrary term assigned by scientists for classification purposes. Perhaps a better idea would be the idea of "kinds," animals that can reproduce with each other, even if they look different. The Western Scrub-jays can still interbreed, because they are still of the same "kind". Even when they become so differentiated that they cannot breed, they still remain birds.
Never has a hippo been observed becoming a hummingbird, or a dolphin becoming a horse. There are limits to genetic differentiation. No new material is added, but irrelevant data is rejected so the animal can adapt to its surroundings.
Nah, I'd take it as a sign of people being sentient creatures.
Sentient creatures notice things, and adapt their behavior to deal with those things. Heck, even nonsentient creatures notice things.
The prohibition on shellfish is no more complicated or inexplicable than a parrot learning to talk by watching other parrots get rewarded for talking.
The idea that humans are inherently incapable of noticing patterns and determining that certain foods (like shellfish) spoil really, really quickly in the environment of the Levant, for example, and must be given such information by a higher power is inherently fallacious and in defiance of all evidence.
I think you're mixing up your cause and effect there. By the same token, IIRC Hinduism has a prohibition against consumption of dairy products, and Asians are statistically more likely than Caucasians or Africans to be lactose-intolerant.
I suspect that what happened was, somebody saw Bob eat shellfish or whatever and die of anaphylactic shock, and ascribed it to God punishing the guy for eating shellfish.
Possibly so. As mentioned, however, the Qu'ranic description of conception, could not have been observed (in such detail) 1400 years ago
Let's suffice to say, that I simply 'don't buy' the theory of evolution, and see it as nothing more than mankind's need to catagorise and find patterns in chaos (cloud watching, for example) It may indeed be 'internally consistent', but I just don't buy it :cool:
Again, what you are describing is microevolution, regardless of whether you believe in the distinction or not. As to the term "species" you are correct in stating it is an arbitrary term assigned by scientists for classification purposes. Perhaps a better idea would be the idea of "kinds," animals that can reproduce with each other, even if they look different. The Western Scrub-jays can still interbreed, because they are still of the same "kind". Even when they become so differentiated that they cannot breed, they still remain birds.
Never has a hippo been observed becoming a hummingbird, or a dolphin becoming a horse. There are limits to genetic differentiation. No new material is added, but irrelevant data is rejected so the animal can adapt to its surroundings.
....
What the f*ck?
Who the f*ck said anything about hippos turning into hummingbirds?
You clearly do not understand evolution at all. Also, ever hear of the tyrannids? Group of flycatchers, including kingbirds, empids, and wood-pewees.
Willow and Alder flycatchers look literally identical. Even in-hand it's effectively impossible to tell them apart, even with a UV light. Call and DNA are the ONLY ways to distinguish them.
And they NEVER, ever interbreed. Not ever.
How about Myrtle and Audobon's warblers? They look quite different, interbreed occasionally in a very small portion of their overlap zone, but nowhere else. They're two populations of one species that was separated during the ice ages. Now they're separate species.
Prairie and peregrine falcons, or peregrines and gyrfalcons. Hybrids (often reproductive hybrids) are common in captivity, but never in the wild despite massive range overlap. Ever seen a tigon? A liger? Many of those are capable of reproduction with the parent species or other hybrids. How about Savannah cats? Those are Felis Sylverstis (Felis Catus)/Felis Serval hybrids, perfectly capable of reproduction both among themselves and with the parent species.
Horse-zebra hybrids are possible despite the two species being separated for millions of years. Release a dog into the wild and it'll breed with wolves. Wolves and coyotes breed all the time.
Possibly so. As mentioned, however, the Qu'ranic description of conception, could not have been observed (in such detail) 1400 years ago
Let's suffice to say, that I simply 'don't buy' the theory of evolution, and see it as nothing more than mankind's need to catagorise and find patterns in chaos (cloud watching, for example) It may indeed be 'internally consistent', but I just don't buy it :cool:
Agreed. I simply cannot accept this theory as fact. What really bugs me is that so often, observations that might suggest evolutionary theory are immediately lauded as proof in scientific magazines and journals, when in fact, as the articles usually go on to say, the observations only suggest the possibility of the scientist's preconceived notions.
For example, recently there was a big hype over gravitational eddies proving the Big Bang in Popular Science. The title and intro basically exclaimed that the big bang was finally proven. However, upon further reading, the article noted that they had not observed the gravitational eddies at all. Rather, they found microwave signals that suggested that the eddies could exist. This kind of behavior really unsettles me.
Hence, faith aside, I simply cannot accept the theory of evolution. From what I've seen, the evidence just is not strong enough.
(Not to say that there is any scientific evidence for the Christian God. While I can observe things in nature that would lead me to believe in Intelligent Design, there is no purely scientific reason for my belief in the God of the Bible. That is based on faith alone, not grounded in human reason. [And yet there is nothing I have seen in the scientific community that can argue validly against Creation.])
Who the f*ck said anything about hippos turning into hummingbirds?
You clearly do not understand evolution at all. Also, ever hear of the tyrannids? Group of flycatchers, including kingbirds, empids, and wood-pewees.
Willow and Alder flycatchers look literally identical. Even in-hand it's effectively impossible to tell them apart, even with a UV light. Call and DNA are the ONLY ways to distinguish them.
And they NEVER, ever interbreed. Not ever.
How about Myrtle and Audobon's warblers? They look quite different, interbreed occasionally in a very small portion of their overlap zone, but nowhere else. They're two populations of one species that was separated during the ice ages. Now they're separate species.
Prairie and peregrine falcons, or peregrines and gyrfalcons. Hybrids (often reproductive hybrids) are common in captivity, but never in the wild despite massive range overlap. Ever seen a tigon? A liger? Many of those are capable of reproduction with the parent species or other hybrids. How about Savannah cats? Those are Felis Sylverstis (Felis Catus)/Felis Serval hybrids, perfectly capable of reproduction both among themselves and with the parent species.
Horse-zebra hybrids are possible despite the two species being separated for millions of years. Release a dog into the wild and it'll breed with wolves. Wolves and coyotes breed all the time.
Your analogy is flawed.
My apologies, the hippos into hummingbirds was a hyperbole and facetious.
And yes, there are examples within a kind that do not reproduce with each other, even if the genetic code is very similar. However, they still are basically the same creature, even if there has been differentiation.
There is no reason for a tiger and a lion to reproduce with each other, and I am not aware if they even live in the same vicinity.
All I'm trying to get a across is that in the end, a creature never really changes. Not in a germs-to-humans kind of way.
(Again, apologies if what I'm trying to say isn't exactly clear. I tend to be a bit scatterbrained.)
My apologies, the hippos into hummingbirds was a hyperbole and facetious.
And yes, there are examples within a kind that do not reproduce with each other, even if the genetic code is very similar. However, they still are basically the same creature, even if there has been differentiation.
There is no reason for a tiger and a lion to reproduce with each other, and I am not aware if they even live in the same vicinity.
All I'm trying to get a across is that in the end, a creature never really changes. Not in a germs-to-humans kind of way.
(Again, apologies if what I'm trying to say isn't exactly clear. I tend to be a bit scatterbrained.)
Yeah, and you're wrong.
Sorry. But you are.
We have a metric butt ton of evidence that directly supports the direct descent of humans from single-celled life-forms.
Coyotes and wolves frequently interbreed despite being different species.
Hybrid cichlids happen all the time in Lake Victoria.
Evolution happens, without regard for religious beliefs. Humans are simply bipedal, large-brained apes. There is no distinction between "miroevolution" and "macroevolution". Sorry.
We have a metric butt ton of evidence that directly supports the direct descent of humans from single-celled life-forms.
Coyotes and wolves frequently interbreed despite being different species.
Hybrid cichlids happen all the time in Lake Victoria.
Evolution happens, without regard for religious beliefs. Humans are simply bipedal, large-brained apes. There is no distinction between "miroevolution" and "macroevolution". Sorry.
Coyotes and wolves both belong to the canine kind, so this is to be expected. To suppose that they came from bacteria as per the tree of evolution is quite another thing entirely. For more information on the whole idea of "kinds" see the Answers in Genesis website. They do a lot better job than me of explaining this stuff.
I simply disagree on the amount of evidence for evolution. Not even Charles Darwin himself thought it likely in the end. But, I suppose, that is based on my interpretation of the so-called evidence for evolution that I have seen.
In the end, I suppose this debate, although interesting, is in a way pointless. It is highly unlikely that anyone, advocate of evolution or creation, will change their beliefs based on this discussion.
Coyotes and wolves both belong to the canine kind, so this is to be expected. To suppose that they came from bacteria as per the tree of evolution is quite another thing entirely. For more information on the whole idea of "kinds" see the Answers in Genesis website. They do a lot better job than me of explaining this stuff.
I simply disagree on the amount of evidence for evolution. Not even Charles Darwin himself thought it likely in the end. But, I suppose, that is based on my interpretation of the so-called evidence for evolution that I have seen.
In the end, I suppose this debate, although interesting, is in a way pointless. It is highly unlikely that anyone, advocate of evolution or creation, will change their beliefs based on this discussion.
Again, you're completely and utterly incorrect.
Also, Answers in Genesis is an openly religious organization that has zero scientific credentials and is led by a man who lies to children for a living.
Who the f*ck said anything about hippos turning into hummingbirds?
You clearly do not understand evolution at all. Also, ever hear of the tyrannids? Group of flycatchers, including kingbirds, empids, and wood-pewees.
Willow and Alder flycatchers look literally identical. Even in-hand it's effectively impossible to tell them apart, even with a UV light. Call and DNA are the ONLY ways to distinguish them.
And they NEVER, ever interbreed. Not ever.
How about Myrtle and Audobon's warblers? They look quite different, interbreed occasionally in a very small portion of their overlap zone, but nowhere else. They're two populations of one species that was separated during the ice ages. Now they're separate species.
Prairie and peregrine falcons, or peregrines and gyrfalcons. Hybrids (often reproductive hybrids) are common in captivity, but never in the wild despite massive range overlap. Ever seen a tigon? A liger? Many of those are capable of reproduction with the parent species or other hybrids. How about Savannah cats? Those are Felis Sylverstis (Felis Catus)/Felis Serval hybrids, perfectly capable of reproduction both among themselves and with the parent species.
Horse-zebra hybrids are possible despite the two species being separated for millions of years. Release a dog into the wild and it'll breed with wolves. Wolves and coyotes breed all the time.
Your analogy is flawed.
Humans're also a good example...
Dutch folks settled in South Africa. They adapted to the climate by developing tanned skin. However, that tan is not an inherited trait, and a white South African baby is no more dark skinned than their Amsterdam-living cousin... Adaptation, but certainly not enough to be considered speciation (if I am understanding the term correctly)
Also, Answers in Genesis is an openly religious organization that has zero scientific credentials and is led by a man who lies to children for a living.
Referencing them only damages your credibility.
On the contrary, they have reliable scientists within their organization.
As to Ken Ham, I may not like how he seems a bit... self-important, but I assure you he doesn't lie to children. Although he is often the spokesperson for the organization, there are scientists within the organization that have done research and give him an expert opinion.
So, again, they have reliable credentials.
Dutch folks settled in South Africa. They adapted to the climate by developing tanned skin. However, that tan is not an inherited trait, and a white South African baby is no more dark skinned than their Amsterdam-living cousin... Adaptation, but certainly not enough to be considered speciation (if I am understanding the term correctly)
UH...
Nope.
You're misunderstanding it entirely. Evolution affects species and populations, not individuals. And acquired traits are not passed on to offspring.
I hate to cite Wikipedia, but start there. Or alternatively get a copy of Campbell&Reece; that's the best intro bio textbook I know.
On the contrary, they have reliable scientists within their organization.
As to Ken Ham, I may not like how he seems a bit... self-important, but I assure you he doesn't lie to children. Although he is often the spokesperson for the organization, there are scientists within the organization that have done research and give him an expert opinion.
So, again, they have reliable credentials.
False on every level.
AIG has not one person with an actual credential on their payroll. Sure, they have some people who paid diploma mills for degrees, but Bob Jones University is not considered to be a reliable source for any form of higher education.
Also, Ken Ham very much does lie to children on a daily basis. He has that abomination of a museum in Kentucky, doesn't he?
AIG has not one person with an actual credential on their payroll. Sure, they have some people who paid diploma mills for degrees, but Bob Jones University is not considered to be a reliable source for any form of higher education.
Also, Ken Ham very much does lie to children on a daily basis. He has that abomination of a museum in Kentucky, doesn't he?
The abomination is a very nice facility. The only reason it would be considered an abomination is if you don't agree with what is being taught there.
Comments
If one MUST give such credit to Darwin's theory, despite such gaping holes, then one must logically extend the same credit to theism.
The idea that everything in existence is simply 'random' is frankly ludicrous, as chaos works counter to the repetition and uniformity which life-systems require to function...
Also, the Christian God exists outside of any universe and is not limited by time. As to the many worlds theory, one flaw I see in the system is that if there were infinite universes with infinite possibilities, there must be one where they develop Daleks that can cross to our universe and exterminate everyone. Thus, either there aren't infinite universes, or they cannot interact with each other.
Think again.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Also, Tiktalik, Archaeopteryx, coelacanths, gorgonopsians, cynodonts, Euparkeria, Isanosaurus, Eoraptor, Haikuicthys, Pikaia, edicarian biota, fractal animals, archaeans, prions, basically the entire body of life, ginkgos, cycadoids, monkeypuzzles, ferns, Guanlong, Tianyulong, tree shrews, Eosimias, E. Coli, lizards in the Mediterranean...
See, evolution has literally been physically observed and documented in living animals and bacteria; both in lab conditions and in the natural world. Look how fast MRSA developed multidrug resistance; look at the differences in wing and beak shape and size in house finches from eastern and western North America.
This isn't just the aftereffects of evolution leaving a lot of radically different species from one common ancestor. This is species reacting to their environment and evolving literally on an observable timescale.
And it is fascinating, and it is bloody beautiful. I'd be happy to discuss the thermodynamics of life with you, but I feel that I, a non-physics specialist, am not properly equipped to explain the exact mechanics of how life actually INCREASES the entropy of the universe despite decreasing entropy within the living system. The woefully simple version is: Living organisms are open systems, not closed systems, and are inherently energetically inefficient. In every reaction a living creature performs withing its body, waste heat is produced, causing the entropy of the universe to increase even if the entropy of the system (the life-form) decreases.
NOTHING can exist outside of a discreet and finite universe within the infinite multiverse.
It is entirely possible, albeit extremely unlikely, that we will be invaded by Daleks from another universe at any particular second in time.
In fact, there MUST be a finite universe somewhere in the infinite multiverse that was invaded by Daleks from another universe. This is how the law of infinite possibilities works.
The Qu'ran states that Allah is the Lord of the worlds. I consider that plural very seriously :cool:
Bob is talking to God (never mind how) and asks Him, "Heavenly Father, what does a million years look like to You?"
Quoth God, "Ah, my son, a million years to Me is but a second."
Bob thinks for a moment and asks, "What about a million dollars?"
"Merely a penny."
"Can I have a penny?"
"Sure, in a second."
Meanwhile we've got the Vatican saying that people on other planets aren't as sinful as humans because Original Sin only happened on Earth. *shrug*
I also like this thing from Mass Effect's codex where it says that some aliens have taken a liking to Earth religions (the turians have a fondness for Confucianism and Zen Buddhism), even as theistic belief among humans has decreased. And hell, I myself have written two openly Muslim characters in my STO fics (LCDR. Khoroushi from Morgan's crew, and a one-shot E-3 in Red Fire, Red Planet)
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
What of them?
It is my understanding of Darwinism, that the claim is that creatures evolve from one state to another over a massive period of time: homo erectus to cro-magnon to homo sapiens etc.
I would suggest, that in all instances, all variations are a unique and distinct species, and none are transitional forms from one to another. Extinction (and predation) is the easiest answer for why certain species no longer exist. Take 21st century bigots for example -- they can't stand the idea of 'different beliefs/colors/lifestyles', let alone the idea of parallel species, and I suspect they were simply wiped out.
Equally, if creatures indeed transition gradually from one form to another, there are no examples of contemporary animals being an 'evolved form' from another (maybe differently/specifically bred, such as the various types of domestic dog...) and creatures such as the crocodile and shark, still exist in, what I've been lead to believe are, their 'prehistoric forms'...
I wouldn't rule out the idea that 'Life' was created to have the ability to evolve, if there weren't such assumptions in Darwin's theory which are being refuted by contemporary science... (such as the Ape DNA Human DNA comparison)
MRSA... Definitely not possible for a bioengineered illness to be modified and these 'revisions' to be released across the planet for the benefit of Big Pharma companies...
Makes sense, but I'm not really sure how that applies to the theory of evolution, however, which I simply view as a flawed 'notion' wrongly propagated by the 'academic establishment'...
Personally I happen to think creation is intentional, intelligent, and continuing, and that the means by which it is made to happen are available to us to discover. Even if my way of looking at it falls under the header of "theistic evolution" as opposed to what is commonly called "intelligent design" (which is a bending of science to achieve strict literalist conclusions), it doesn't preclude intelligence behind it.
Personally I happen to think it's pretty cool that on whatever small level we're capable of comprehending, we are privileged with the ability to get a look inside that black box of creating and see some of the building blocks and methods at work.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Just like Christianity, which is a massive and world-spanning Illuminati hoax based on the communist ramblings of a desert barbarian and his 12 TRIBBLE buddies...
And Islam, which is basically the same thing but with a different cultural background.
Really, the only REAL religion is Tengri.
/sarcasm
See, evolution has nothing at all to do with the presence or absence of a deity. Evolution is a testable and empirically observable process; the presence or absence of a deity is an untestable hypothesis.
Completely different spheres. It's entirely hypothetically possible to have a static universe with no deity, or a changing and entropic universe with a deity that got things started but that's been just watching the fun ever since.
This is part of why I really get annoyed when people bring religious objections to science. Science has one thing and one thing only to say about religion: Cannot test, therefore ignore until testable. The two realms are otherwise entirely separate.
What has been observed, as you described with the example of the finches and MRSA is known as microevolution. This has been proven to exist, and is the adaptation of a particular organism over time to its surroundings. Survival of the Fittest, if you will. This never results in a new creature, merely an adaptation of existing genetic code.
Also, I would agree that belief in the Christian God can't be founded on the logic of nature. For something or someone to exist outside the realms of reality as we know them, and still influence us, is not scientifically verifiable or possible. But the alternative begs the question: where did the uni(or multi-)verse come from? Something had to have always been there, whether the cosmic seed that exploded in the big bang, or something else. Whatever it was existed outside the uni(or multi-)verse.
Ergo they're both BS :cool:
Something I would point out in favour of theism (specifically Judaism and Islam) is that there are descriptions of processes (such as conception) which could not have been scientifically understood at the time, or kosher practices, for example, which 2000 years ago, would preclude massive instances of food poisoning, and the prohibition on shellfish for example, prevents people eating a foodstuff which people can have massive allergic reactions to (even if having eaten it for years) and I take that as a sign of that information coming from 'a higher source' :cool:
This is entirely incorrect on every possible level.
First off, there is no such thing as a distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. This is a false dichotomy, since the definition of a species is an inherently arbitrary, human concept created to help categorize and understand life.
Second, evolution is not about survival of the fittest. On the most basic, simplistic level, it's about reproduction-of-the-best-suited-to-the-environment-and/or-luckiest.
Evolution has been observed directly on multiple occasions. There is currently a speciation event in progress in the Mediterranean, because some lizards were accidentally misplaced and had to rapidly adapt to a new environment. The Western scrub-jay is in the process of becoming two or more separate species; IIRC it was officially split last year.
Apple borers in the united states, formerly on species dependent solely on hawthorn trees, are now two separate species, one dependent on hawthorns and the other on apples. I think the latest study showed even more evidence of divergence, as well.
So yeah. You're wrong. Sorry.
Nah, I'd take it as a sign of people being sentient creatures.
Sentient creatures notice things, and adapt their behavior to deal with those things. Heck, even nonsentient creatures notice things.
The prohibition on shellfish is no more complicated or inexplicable than a parrot learning to talk by watching other parrots get rewarded for talking.
The idea that humans are inherently incapable of noticing patterns and determining that certain foods (like shellfish) spoil really, really quickly in the environment of the Levant, for example, and must be given such information by a higher power is inherently fallacious and in defiance of all evidence.
I suspect that what happened was, somebody saw Bob eat shellfish or whatever and die of anaphylactic shock, and ascribed it to God punishing the guy for eating shellfish.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Never has a hippo been observed becoming a hummingbird, or a dolphin becoming a horse. There are limits to genetic differentiation. No new material is added, but irrelevant data is rejected so the animal can adapt to its surroundings.
Possibly so. As mentioned, however, the Qu'ranic description of conception, could not have been observed (in such detail) 1400 years ago
Let's suffice to say, that I simply 'don't buy' the theory of evolution, and see it as nothing more than mankind's need to catagorise and find patterns in chaos (cloud watching, for example) It may indeed be 'internally consistent', but I just don't buy it :cool:
....
What the f*ck?
Who the f*ck said anything about hippos turning into hummingbirds?
You clearly do not understand evolution at all. Also, ever hear of the tyrannids? Group of flycatchers, including kingbirds, empids, and wood-pewees.
Willow and Alder flycatchers look literally identical. Even in-hand it's effectively impossible to tell them apart, even with a UV light. Call and DNA are the ONLY ways to distinguish them.
And they NEVER, ever interbreed. Not ever.
How about Myrtle and Audobon's warblers? They look quite different, interbreed occasionally in a very small portion of their overlap zone, but nowhere else. They're two populations of one species that was separated during the ice ages. Now they're separate species.
Prairie and peregrine falcons, or peregrines and gyrfalcons. Hybrids (often reproductive hybrids) are common in captivity, but never in the wild despite massive range overlap. Ever seen a tigon? A liger? Many of those are capable of reproduction with the parent species or other hybrids. How about Savannah cats? Those are Felis Sylverstis (Felis Catus)/Felis Serval hybrids, perfectly capable of reproduction both among themselves and with the parent species.
Horse-zebra hybrids are possible despite the two species being separated for millions of years. Release a dog into the wild and it'll breed with wolves. Wolves and coyotes breed all the time.
Your analogy is flawed.
For example, recently there was a big hype over gravitational eddies proving the Big Bang in Popular Science. The title and intro basically exclaimed that the big bang was finally proven. However, upon further reading, the article noted that they had not observed the gravitational eddies at all. Rather, they found microwave signals that suggested that the eddies could exist. This kind of behavior really unsettles me.
Hence, faith aside, I simply cannot accept the theory of evolution. From what I've seen, the evidence just is not strong enough.
(Not to say that there is any scientific evidence for the Christian God. While I can observe things in nature that would lead me to believe in Intelligent Design, there is no purely scientific reason for my belief in the God of the Bible. That is based on faith alone, not grounded in human reason. [And yet there is nothing I have seen in the scientific community that can argue validly against Creation.])
And yes, there are examples within a kind that do not reproduce with each other, even if the genetic code is very similar. However, they still are basically the same creature, even if there has been differentiation.
There is no reason for a tiger and a lion to reproduce with each other, and I am not aware if they even live in the same vicinity.
All I'm trying to get a across is that in the end, a creature never really changes. Not in a germs-to-humans kind of way.
(Again, apologies if what I'm trying to say isn't exactly clear. I tend to be a bit scatterbrained.)
Yeah, and you're wrong.
Sorry. But you are.
We have a metric butt ton of evidence that directly supports the direct descent of humans from single-celled life-forms.
Coyotes and wolves frequently interbreed despite being different species.
Hybrid cichlids happen all the time in Lake Victoria.
Evolution happens, without regard for religious beliefs. Humans are simply bipedal, large-brained apes. There is no distinction between "miroevolution" and "macroevolution". Sorry.
I simply disagree on the amount of evidence for evolution. Not even Charles Darwin himself thought it likely in the end. But, I suppose, that is based on my interpretation of the so-called evidence for evolution that I have seen.
In the end, I suppose this debate, although interesting, is in a way pointless. It is highly unlikely that anyone, advocate of evolution or creation, will change their beliefs based on this discussion.
Again, you're completely and utterly incorrect.
Also, Answers in Genesis is an openly religious organization that has zero scientific credentials and is led by a man who lies to children for a living.
Referencing them only damages your credibility.
Humans're also a good example...
Dutch folks settled in South Africa. They adapted to the climate by developing tanned skin. However, that tan is not an inherited trait, and a white South African baby is no more dark skinned than their Amsterdam-living cousin... Adaptation, but certainly not enough to be considered speciation (if I am understanding the term correctly)
As to Ken Ham, I may not like how he seems a bit... self-important, but I assure you he doesn't lie to children. Although he is often the spokesperson for the organization, there are scientists within the organization that have done research and give him an expert opinion.
So, again, they have reliable credentials.
UH...
Nope.
You're misunderstanding it entirely. Evolution affects species and populations, not individuals. And acquired traits are not passed on to offspring.
I hate to cite Wikipedia, but start there. Or alternatively get a copy of Campbell&Reece; that's the best intro bio textbook I know.
False on every level.
AIG has not one person with an actual credential on their payroll. Sure, they have some people who paid diploma mills for degrees, but Bob Jones University is not considered to be a reliable source for any form of higher education.
Also, Ken Ham very much does lie to children on a daily basis. He has that abomination of a museum in Kentucky, doesn't he?