[_ Old Earth _] The end of Evolution ?

[twinc]

It is always true that those who think they hate science, don't know what science is or what it says.

it seems there are many more who accept pseudo/phony non science and nonsense as science - see www.EvolutionvsGod.com - twinc

 

[Barbarian]

I just see more misconceptions there. How about showing us what you think is most persuasive?

 

[twinc]

I just see more misconceptions there. How about showing us what you think is most persuasive?

it speaks for itself and is self explanatory imho but it seems some have a problem - the problem appears to be man made as the per the Dvd - twinc

 

[Barbarian]

So nothing?

Do you understand something about it, well enough to explain it here?

 

[twinc]

I just see more misconceptions there. How about showing us what you think is most persuasive?

should we instead first discuss why you appear to see misconceptions and others don't - twinc

 

[Barbarian]

So nothing at all? If you can't understand it well enough to tell us about it, what makes you think it's true?

 

[twinc]

So nothing at all? If you can't understand it well enough to tell us about it, what makes you think it's true?

not being prepared to be too self opinionated or misleading I tend to rely on those I regard as united experts and specialists and especially God - so be told - twinc

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
So nothing at all? If you can't understand it well enough to tell us about it, what makes you think it's true?

not being prepared to be too self opinionated or misleading I tend to rely on those I regard as united experts and specialists and especially God - so be told - twinc

So, God telling us in Genesis that the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is false, doesn't affect you?

 

[twinc]

Barbarian asks:
So nothing at all? If you can't understand it well enough to tell us about it, what makes you think it's true?



So, God telling us in Genesis that the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is false, doesn't affect you?

it seems it affects you not me for I interpret as "simul et ex nihilo - twinc

 

[Edward]

it seems there are many more who accept pseudo/phony non science and nonsense as science - see www.EvolutionvsGod.com - twinc

I watched it. That was hilarious! These atheists and believers in evolution don't even know why the believe what they believe other than when backed into a corner, they realize that they put their (blind) faith into the scientists and trust that the "experts" did their work correctly.

That's what I've been saying. It's all on faith, whether in scientists or God. The difference being, there is evidence of God and not of evolution.

 

[Edward]

I just see more misconceptions there. How about showing us what you think is most persuasive?

So give us an example of observable evidence of a change in kind of species.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I watched it. That was hilarious! These atheists and believers in evolution don't even know why the believe what they believe other than when backed into a corner, they realize that they put their (blind) faith into the scientists and trust that the "experts" did their work correctly.

It's amazing what some dishonest editing to a video can accomplish. Certainly there are many people who simply take evolution to be true based off of scientific consensus. Yet this is not true for everyone.

If you would like to know why I accept Evolution to be true then I would have no problem explaining from my perspective, why it is the most plausible and likely theory out there and why I strongly believe it to be true.

That's what I've been saying. It's all on faith, whether in scientists or God. The difference being, there is evidence of God and not of evolution.

Would you like to know some of the evidence for evolution? Myself and others here would be more than happy to share the evidence with you, it's not some state secret that can't be shared.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

So give us an example of observable evidence of a change in kind of species.

This is a bad question, and a trap. We have a recorded history that is only a few thousand years old and even that is not long enough for the kind of drastic speciation that has occurred throughout earth's long history. We can show you countless examples of observable changes within species through different methods that demonstrate the basic function within evolution. Take for example dogs, which we know are descended from domesticated wolves. We breed dogs in specific ways to create all kinds of differing breeds that accomplish varying purposes for us. This is an example of artificial selection, and has been a method used by humans to domesticate pets, livestock and even crops and fruits. We are basically using the same biological mechanism without our DNA to manipulate the breeds of dogs as nature accomplishes through natural selection, we just do it through sexual selection.

Obviously you can observe the difference between a poodle and a wolf, yet we know that poodles are a man made breed accomplished in the 15th century. Think about that, poodles didn't exist until the 15th century. That means they must have come from another breed of dogs, and that breed of dogs must have come from another breed of dogs, and those dogs may have come directly from wolves... then you keep moving backwards and you see evolution in action. Evolution isn't something that just happens in a flash, it is about small incremental changes within a population geographically separated from another that causes little by little genetic shift until one day you have an entirely new species that may not be able to even breed with the former species.

It's interesting stuff!

 

[Edward]

This is a bad question, and a trap. We have a recorded history that is only a few thousand years old and even that is not long enough for the kind of drastic speciation that has occurred throughout earth's long history. We can show you countless examples of observable changes within species through different methods that demonstrate the basic function within evolution. Take for example dogs, which we know are descended from domesticated wolves. We breed dogs in specific ways to create all kinds of differing breeds that accomplish varying purposes for us. This is an example of artificial selection, and has been a method used by humans to domesticate pets, livestock and even crops and fruits. We are basically using the same biological mechanism without our DNA to manipulate the breeds of dogs as nature accomplishes through natural selection, we just do it through sexual selection.

Obviously you can observe the difference between a poodle and a wolf, yet we know that poodles are a man made breed accomplished in the 15th century. Think about that, poodles didn't exist until the 15th century. That means they must have come from another breed of dogs, and that breed of dogs must have come from another breed of dogs, and those dogs may have come directly from wolves... then you keep moving backwards and you see evolution in action. Evolution isn't something that just happens in a flash, it is about small incremental changes within a population geographically separated from another that causes little by little genetic shift until one day you have an entirely new species that may not be able to even breed with the former species.

It's interesting stuff!

Ok so where's the fossilized evidence of fish with legs and stuff like that? Transition species.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Ok so where's the fossilized evidence of fish with legs and stuff like that? Transition species.

Nothing to comment on in my post? Just another question? Is my assessment wrong, and do you not see the logic of my position?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Ok so where's the fossilized evidence of fish with legs and stuff like that? Transition species.

Here are some transitional fossils for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Have at it!

 

[twinc]

Here are some transitional fossils for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Have at it!

no change into another kind of animal - on this Christian forum see 1Cor.15:39 - also as suggested in the original post see www.EvolutionvsGod.com - twinc

 

[Drew]

no change into another kind of animal - on this Christian forum see 1Cor.15:39 - also as suggested in the original post see www.EvolutionvsGod.com - twinc

1. Re 1 Cor 15:39: You may well have a particular interpretation of this text - one that denies the possibility of evolution. Well, OK, but then you are not making a scientific argument - a scientific argument is based on comparing the predictions of theory with evidence; when you appeal to authoritative texts, you are no longer involved in any kind of scientific method.

2. I watched 5 minutes of EvolutionvsGod and my opinion is that it is either the work of someone who does not understand the scientific method or of someone who is intentionally misrepresenting the nature of the scientific enterprise. The basic implication is that if we cannot observe evolution over the course of a few years or decades, the theory of evolution cannot be scientific for that reason.However, there is nothing in the scientific method, as I understand it, that requires direct immediate evidence. We cannot produce directly observable evidence that the Nazis killed millions in death camps. But there is tons of evidence that this did happen. Same thing with evolution - even if we cannot see evolution acting over a few years (and I think even that is debatable), this does not mean it is not a scientific theory supported by mountains of evidence.

 

[twinc]

1. Re 1 Cor 15:39: You may well have a particular interpretation of this text - one that denies the possibility of evolution. Well, OK, but then you are not making a scientific argument - a scientific argument is based on comparing the predictions of theory with evidence; when you appeal to authoritative texts, you are no longer involved in any kind of scientific method.

2. I watched 5 minutes of EvolutionvsGod and my opinion is that it is either the work of someone who does not understand the scientific method or of someone who is intentionally misrepresenting the nature of the scientific enterprise. The basic implication is that if we cannot observe evolution over the course of a few years or decades, the theory of evolution cannot be scientific for that reason.However, there is nothing in the scientific method, as I understand it, that requires direct immediate evidence. We cannot produce directly observable evidence that the Nazis killed millions in death camps. But there is tons of evidence that this did happen. Same thing with evolution - even if we cannot see evolution acting over a few years (and I think even that is debatable), this does not mean it is not a scientific theory supported by mountains of evidence.

5minute judgement - speaks for itself - twinc

 

[Doulos Iesou]

5minute judgement - speaks for itself - twinc

I have watched the whole thing before and thought it was garbage, just to throw it out there..