Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Intelligent design and natural selection..

SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 1:23:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
...are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 1:24:10 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I think genetic engineering will soundly make this case.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 2:23:56 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 1:23:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
...are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.

That is true. Which is by using eugenics and Hitler against evolution makes no sense. Hitler was trying to use an artificial form of selection to weed out inferior people and preserve the best. This is micro-evolution within the human species not macro-evolution creating a new species. And many creationists believe in both micro-evolution and natural selection too.

We have seen new abilities evolve, new species that reproduce separately with distinct features evolve, and new species that can't reproduce with the original species evolve as well.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 4:38:23 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 2:23:56 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:23:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
...are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.

That is true. Which is by using eugenics and Hitler against evolution makes no sense. Hitler was trying to use an artificial form of selection to weed out inferior people and preserve the best. This is micro-evolution within the human species not macro-evolution creating a new species. And many creationists believe in both micro-evolution and natural selection too.

We have seen new abilities evolve, new species that reproduce separately with distinct features evolve, and new species that can't reproduce with the original species evolve as well.

New species evolved by doing what?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 4:59:04 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 4:38:23 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:23:56 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:23:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
...are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.

That is true. Which is by using eugenics and Hitler against evolution makes no sense. Hitler was trying to use an artificial form of selection to weed out inferior people and preserve the best. This is micro-evolution within the human species not macro-evolution creating a new species. And many creationists believe in both micro-evolution and natural selection too.

We have seen new abilities evolve, new species that reproduce separately with distinct features evolve, and new species that can't reproduce with the original species evolve as well.

New species evolved by doing what?

Eating. Reproducing. Surviving. That is what animals generally do.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 5:43:52 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 4:59:04 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 4:38:23 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:23:56 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:23:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
...are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.

That is true. Which is by using eugenics and Hitler against evolution makes no sense. Hitler was trying to use an artificial form of selection to weed out inferior people and preserve the best. This is micro-evolution within the human species not macro-evolution creating a new species. And many creationists believe in both micro-evolution and natural selection too.

We have seen new abilities evolve, new species that reproduce separately with distinct features evolve, and new species that can't reproduce with the original species evolve as well.

New species evolved by doing what?

Eating. Reproducing. Surviving. That is what animals generally do.

If this is true, I am going to evolve, right?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Stronn
Posts: 316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 6:32:10 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 1:23:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
...are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.

True enough. It's possible that the first cyanobacteria were created/engineered to get things rolling, then natural selection did the rest.

How would you test such a hypothesis, however?
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 7:06:56 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 5:43:52 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/19/2016 4:59:04 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 4:38:23 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:23:56 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:23:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
...are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.

That is true. Which is by using eugenics and Hitler against evolution makes no sense. Hitler was trying to use an artificial form of selection to weed out inferior people and preserve the best. This is micro-evolution within the human species not macro-evolution creating a new species. And many creationists believe in both micro-evolution and natural selection too.

We have seen new abilities evolve, new species that reproduce separately with distinct features evolve, and new species that can't reproduce with the original species evolve as well.

New species evolved by doing what?

Eating. Reproducing. Surviving. That is what animals generally do.

If this is true, I am going to evolve, right?

No evolution happens slowly from generation to generation. So no, you are safe. You will not evolve.

BTW you won't evaporate in the sun either just because humans are 80% water while we are discussing ridiculous fears based on a misinterpretation of science.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 7:51:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 7:06:56 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 5:43:52 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/19/2016 4:59:04 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 4:38:23 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:23:56 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:23:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
...are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.

That is true. Which is by using eugenics and Hitler against evolution makes no sense. Hitler was trying to use an artificial form of selection to weed out inferior people and preserve the best. This is micro-evolution within the human species not macro-evolution creating a new species. And many creationists believe in both micro-evolution and natural selection too.

We have seen new abilities evolve, new species that reproduce separately with distinct features evolve, and new species that can't reproduce with the original species evolve as well.

New species evolved by doing what?

Eating. Reproducing. Surviving. That is what animals generally do.

If this is true, I am going to evolve, right?

No evolution happens slowly from generation to generation. So no, you are safe. You will not evolve.

What is the reason for this 'slowly' thingy?

BTW you won't evaporate in the sun either just because humans are 80% water while we are discussing ridiculous fears based on a misinterpretation of science.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 11:16:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 6:32:10 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:23:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
...are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.

True enough. It's possible that the first cyanobacteria were created/engineered to get things rolling, then natural selection did the rest.

How would you test such a hypothesis, however?

Lets not ask about these things, lest you expose evolution for being pseudo-science.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 12:21:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 7:51:19 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/19/2016 7:06:56 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 5:43:52 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/19/2016 4:59:04 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 4:38:23 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:23:56 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:23:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
...are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.

That is true. Which is by using eugenics and Hitler against evolution makes no sense. Hitler was trying to use an artificial form of selection to weed out inferior people and preserve the best. This is micro-evolution within the human species not macro-evolution creating a new species. And many creationists believe in both micro-evolution and natural selection too.

We have seen new abilities evolve, new species that reproduce separately with distinct features evolve, and new species that can't reproduce with the original species evolve as well.

New species evolved by doing what?

Eating. Reproducing. Surviving. That is what animals generally do.

If this is true, I am going to evolve, right?

No evolution happens slowly from generation to generation. So no, you are safe. You will not evolve.

What is the reason for this 'slowly' thingy?

BTW you won't evaporate in the sun either just because humans are 80% water while we are discussing ridiculous fears based on a misinterpretation of science.

Because only about 3 mutations happen to protein coding DNA every generation.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 1:40:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 11:16:59 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 4/19/2016 6:32:10 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:23:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
...are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.

True enough. It's possible that the first cyanobacteria were created/engineered to get things rolling, then natural selection did the rest.

How would you test such a hypothesis, however?

Lets not ask about these things, lest you expose evolution for being pseudo-science.

Why would that expose evolution for being pseudo-science, and if this is true, why has no scientist done this and won a nobel prize?
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 5:39:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 1:40:17 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:16:59 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 4/19/2016 6:32:10 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:23:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
...are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.

True enough. It's possible that the first cyanobacteria were created/engineered to get things rolling, then natural selection did the rest.

How would you test such a hypothesis, however?

Lets not ask about these things, lest you expose evolution for being pseudo-science.

Why would that expose evolution for being pseudo-science, and if this is true, why has no scientist done this and won a nobel prize?

A scientist who denies evolution is not taken seriously by the establishment, and they tend to face overt discrimination and sabotage.

I'm not saying that evolution doesn't make sense. A lot of ways it does ,and a lot of ways it is demonstrable. That said, when you look at the methods they use to support the theory of evolution, it's not very solid. Anyone who has a dogmatic belief that evolution is solid science hasn't done their homework.

It's pseudoscience, for real. That said, it makes a lot of sense, and could very well be true. I just don't have a lot of faith in the evidence that they use to support it.

I think a big stumbling block is finding an alternative explanation. As far as explanations work, evolution is a very good one.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 6:07:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 5:39:22 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:40:17 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:16:59 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 4/19/2016 6:32:10 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:23:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
...are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.

True enough. It's possible that the first cyanobacteria were created/engineered to get things rolling, then natural selection did the rest.

How would you test such a hypothesis, however?

Lets not ask about these things, lest you expose evolution for being pseudo-science.

Why would that expose evolution for being pseudo-science, and if this is true, why has no scientist done this and won a nobel prize?

A scientist who denies evolution is not taken seriously by the establishment, and they tend to face overt discrimination and sabotage.

Only because they dont offer any evidence to back up their claims.

I'm not saying that evolution doesn't make sense. A lot of ways it does ,and a lot of ways it is demonstrable. That said, when you look at the methods they use to support the theory of evolution, it's not very solid. Anyone who has a dogmatic belief that evolution is solid science hasn't done their homework.

It's pseudoscience, for real. That said, it makes a lot of sense, and could very well be true. I just don't have a lot of faith in the evidence that they use to support it.

I think a big stumbling block is finding an alternative explanation. As far as explanations work, evolution is a very good one.

Really. Do you have any examples of these "methods they use to support the theory of evolution" that isnt very solid?
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 7:21:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 6:07:45 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/19/2016 5:39:22 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:40:17 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:16:59 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 4/19/2016 6:32:10 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:23:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
...are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.

True enough. It's possible that the first cyanobacteria were created/engineered to get things rolling, then natural selection did the rest.

How would you test such a hypothesis, however?

Lets not ask about these things, lest you expose evolution for being pseudo-science.

Why would that expose evolution for being pseudo-science, and if this is true, why has no scientist done this and won a nobel prize?

A scientist who denies evolution is not taken seriously by the establishment, and they tend to face overt discrimination and sabotage.

Only because they dont offer any evidence to back up their claims.


I'm willing to wager that you are making an assumption.

I'm not saying that evolution doesn't make sense. A lot of ways it does ,and a lot of ways it is demonstrable. That said, when you look at the methods they use to support the theory of evolution, it's not very solid. Anyone who has a dogmatic belief that evolution is solid science hasn't done their homework.

It's pseudoscience, for real. That said, it makes a lot of sense, and could very well be true. I just don't have a lot of faith in the evidence that they use to support it.

I think a big stumbling block is finding an alternative explanation. As far as explanations work, evolution is a very good one.

Really. Do you have any examples of these "methods they use to support the theory of evolution" that isnt very solid?

Wouldn't it make more sense for you to look up the the methods they use to support the theory, and then examine it yourself rather than blindly believing it because a source you consider to be authoritative makes it out to be absolute fact? If you already consider these sources more authoritative than me, I'd be stupid to try.

Plus, it isn't really a battle I care to fight, because it isn't that important to me.

But if you really want me to do some work, present the evidence you find convincing, and I will give my opinion as to why the methods being used aren't truly scientific.

If you aren't curious enough to do some work on your own though, you probably aren't interested enough to hear what I say anyway. You get where I'm coming from? I'm not trying to imply disrespect.

I think that evolution is an interesting idea that might have a lot of truth to it. I'm not even saying that I don't believe in it. I just don't believe it is really science.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 7:27:40 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Interestingly enough though, the earliest instance I can find of the concept of evolution being put into words is not from Charles Darwin, but a Muslim scholar... 500 years before Darwin.

The Muqadimmah by Ibn Khaldun, which is actually hosted online here...

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com...

I think this soundly refutes the idea that intelligent design and natural selection are mutually exclusive, as the concept was first put into words by a Muslim. Muslims obviously believe in intelligent design.

I'm not denying the possibility that the concept was conceptualized earlier either, this is just the earliest thing that I've encountered in my studies.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 7:38:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 1:23:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
...are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.

Intelligent design (i.e. God) is compatible with anything unless it's shown to be somehow falsifiable. Hence, the concept of theistic evolution (https://en.wikipedia.org...).

In my opinion, however, such a creator I view as evil if it willingly chose to advance life through the grueling, agonizing process of evolution when it could have just created advanced beings, outright.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 7:49:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 7:38:50 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:23:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
...are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.

Intelligent design (i.e. God) is compatible with anything unless it's shown to be somehow falsifiable. Hence, the concept of theistic evolution (https://en.wikipedia.org...).

In my opinion, however, such a creator I view as evil if it willingly chose to advance life through the grueling, agonizing process of evolution when it could have just created advanced beings, outright.

Human beings don't make very good judges, they are very bias. It's hard for people in general to accept reality for what it is without filtering it through what might as well be an arbitrary sense of aesthetics.

Definitely gets in the way of being scientific. It's judgement from a clouded heart.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 7:58:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 7:49:02 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 4/19/2016 7:38:50 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:23:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
...are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.

Intelligent design (i.e. God) is compatible with anything unless it's shown to be somehow falsifiable. Hence, the concept of theistic evolution (https://en.wikipedia.org...).

In my opinion, however, such a creator I view as evil if it willingly chose to advance life through the grueling, agonizing process of evolution when it could have just created advanced beings, outright.

Human beings don't make very good judges, they are very bias. It's hard for people in general to accept reality for what it is without filtering it through what might as well be an arbitrary sense of aesthetics.

Definitely gets in the way of being scientific. It's judgement from a clouded heart.

Yes, humans are generally biased, which is what our scientific method is designed specifically to combat. To be clear, the first portion of my previous reply is the main point. The second I explicitly expressed was my own opinion; the first was not influenced by the second.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 8:32:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 7:21:44 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 4/19/2016 6:07:45 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/19/2016 5:39:22 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:40:17 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:16:59 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 4/19/2016 6:32:10 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:23:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
...are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.

True enough. It's possible that the first cyanobacteria were created/engineered to get things rolling, then natural selection did the rest.

How would you test such a hypothesis, however?

Lets not ask about these things, lest you expose evolution for being pseudo-science.

Why would that expose evolution for being pseudo-science, and if this is true, why has no scientist done this and won a nobel prize?

A scientist who denies evolution is not taken seriously by the establishment, and they tend to face overt discrimination and sabotage.

Only because they dont offer any evidence to back up their claims.


I'm willing to wager that you are making an assumption.

Its not an assumption because they consistently fail to get their papers published in peer reviewed journals.

I'm not saying that evolution doesn't make sense. A lot of ways it does ,and a lot of ways it is demonstrable. That said, when you look at the methods they use to support the theory of evolution, it's not very solid. Anyone who has a dogmatic belief that evolution is solid science hasn't done their homework.

It's pseudoscience, for real. That said, it makes a lot of sense, and could very well be true. I just don't have a lot of faith in the evidence that they use to support it.

I think a big stumbling block is finding an alternative explanation. As far as explanations work, evolution is a very good one.

Really. Do you have any examples of these "methods they use to support the theory of evolution" that isnt very solid?

Wouldn't it make more sense for you to look up the the methods they use to support the theory, and then examine it yourself rather than blindly believing it because a source you consider to be authoritative makes it out to be absolute fact? If you already consider these sources more authoritative than me, I'd be stupid to try.

I already have.

Plus, it isn't really a battle I care to fight, because it isn't that important to me.

But if you really want me to do some work, present the evidence you find convincing, and I will give my opinion as to why the methods being used aren't truly scientific.

If you aren't curious enough to do some work on your own though, you probably aren't interested enough to hear what I say anyway. You get where I'm coming from? I'm not trying to imply disrespect.

I think that evolution is an interesting idea that might have a lot of truth to it. I'm not even saying that I don't believe in it. I just don't believe it is really science.

Im fine with posting evidence for evolution, but id also like you to substantiate your claim and post what you claimed to be a not so solid method of supporting evolution.

So, how about it? Ill post the evidence that supports evolution and you post your not so solid method of supporting evolution, and we both do some work?
Stronn
Posts: 316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 10:35:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 5:39:22 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:40:17 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:16:59 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 4/19/2016 6:32:10 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:23:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
...are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.

True enough. It's possible that the first cyanobacteria were created/engineered to get things rolling, then natural selection did the rest.

How would you test such a hypothesis, however?

Lets not ask about these things, lest you expose evolution for being pseudo-science.

Why would that expose evolution for being pseudo-science, and if this is true, why has no scientist done this and won a nobel prize?

A scientist who denies evolution is not taken seriously by the establishment, and they tend to face overt discrimination and sabotage.


The vast majority of scientists who deny evolution do so for religious reasons, which are inherently unscientific. If they made a scientifically credible case, then they would be taken seriously. They simply don't. Most of them are not interested in doing real science anyway, but only in getting creationism taught alongside science in schools, as a way of furthering their religious beliefs.

I'm not saying that evolution doesn't make sense. A lot of ways it does ,and a lot of ways it is demonstrable. That said, when you look at the methods they use to support the theory of evolution, it's not very solid. Anyone who has a dogmatic belief that evolution is solid science hasn't done their homework.


It's pseudoscience, for real. That said, it makes a lot of sense, and could very well be true. I just don't have a lot of faith in the evidence that they use to support it.

One way that science works is through competing theories. Theories that do not adequately explain observations get modified or tossed aside in favor of better or more explanatory theories. The following lines of evidence all establish that evolution occurred.

The universal genetic code
The fossil record
Observed change in species over time
Genetic commonalities
Homologies
The geographic distribution of species
Artificial selection
Comparative anatomy
Vestigal organs
Embryology

Many scientists have dedicated their careers to studying each of these topics in depth. Each line of evidence, has numerous ways that observations could falsify evolution. Yet the observations are all consistent with evolution, and with no other scientific theory. In fact, evolution is one of the most rigorously tested theories in all of science.

How then is evolution pseudoscience?

I think a big stumbling block is finding an alternative explanation. As far as explanations work, evolution is a very good one.

You seem to be flip-flopping.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 12:19:07 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 8:32:33 PM, tkubok wrote:
Im fine with posting evidence for evolution, but id also like you to substantiate your claim and post what you claimed to be a not so solid method of supporting evolution.

So, how about it? Ill post the evidence that supports evolution and you post your not so solid method of supporting evolution, and we both do some work?

I'd be willing to participate, I think it would be worth doing.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:04:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 12:19:07 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 4/19/2016 8:32:33 PM, tkubok wrote:
Im fine with posting evidence for evolution, but id also like you to substantiate your claim and post what you claimed to be a not so solid method of supporting evolution.

So, how about it? Ill post the evidence that supports evolution and you post your not so solid method of supporting evolution, and we both do some work?

I'd be willing to participate, I think it would be worth doing.

Okay.

But before i can start, id have to ask you exactly how much of evolution do you accept as being scientifically acceptable/substantiated?
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 6:35:05 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 2:04:19 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:19:07 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 4/19/2016 8:32:33 PM, tkubok wrote:
Im fine with posting evidence for evolution, but id also like you to substantiate your claim and post what you claimed to be a not so solid method of supporting evolution.

So, how about it? Ill post the evidence that supports evolution and you post your not so solid method of supporting evolution, and we both do some work?

I'd be willing to participate, I think it would be worth doing.

Okay.

But before i can start, id have to ask you exactly how much of evolution do you accept as being scientifically acceptable/substantiated?

When you look in relation to time, the universe is constantly shifting and expanding. In creation, change is a demonstrable fact. When human beings are observing the universe, many patterns can be discerned to have a genesis, an appointed time , and an extinction. Because these patterns always seem to exist in different contexts to each other, it can be said that variance is an observed phenomena intrinsically tied to the discerning of motion in the universe. Everything that can be observed in the physical causal realm is by definition "natural". As this is can be observed in nature, you can say that this is manner of discriminating is natural selection.

When creation is observed through the human being, evolution seems very intrinsic to how the human creature itself derives utility from a material world in order to adapt or survive in diverse environments. It is a reoccurring pattern of spirit that can be discerned as fitting many contexts in creation. The evolution pattern seems intrinsic to a particular type of relationship to God.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 3:06:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 6:35:05 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:04:19 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:19:07 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 4/19/2016 8:32:33 PM, tkubok wrote:
Im fine with posting evidence for evolution, but id also like you to substantiate your claim and post what you claimed to be a not so solid method of supporting evolution.

So, how about it? Ill post the evidence that supports evolution and you post your not so solid method of supporting evolution, and we both do some work?

I'd be willing to participate, I think it would be worth doing.

Okay.

But before i can start, id have to ask you exactly how much of evolution do you accept as being scientifically acceptable/substantiated?

When you look in relation to time, the universe is constantly shifting and expanding. In creation, change is a demonstrable fact. When human beings are observing the universe, many patterns can be discerned to have a genesis, an appointed time , and an extinction. Because these patterns always seem to exist in different contexts to each other, it can be said that variance is an observed phenomena intrinsically tied to the discerning of motion in the universe. Everything that can be observed in the physical causal realm is by definition "natural". As this is can be observed in nature, you can say that this is manner of discriminating is natural selection.

When creation is observed through the human being, evolution seems very intrinsic to how the human creature itself derives utility from a material world in order to adapt or survive in diverse environments. It is a reoccurring pattern of spirit that can be discerned as fitting many contexts in creation. The evolution pattern seems intrinsic to a particular type of relationship to God.

This still doesnt really answer my question.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 5:14:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I guess what I'm trying to say is, from my own personal observation, I can see how the pattern of evolution manifests itself in created reality.

If you are asking me to present the evidence that I do think is valid, I'm not terribly interested in doing so. I'd rather look at what evidence you personally think is convincing, and then explain why I don't believe the methodologies are truly scientific.

See, there are a lot of "evidences" people use to support evolution that aren't really evidences at all. The evidences themselves, in some cases that I've witness, seem to be the result of fabrication rather than testable experiment. I think I would be able to address this more clearly if I knew what it is you consider to be evidence.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 5:59:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
But actually, it would probably be a better idea to start another topic about it.

This particular topic is not about the validity of evolution, but assuming the presume to be true.

If evolution is true, intelligent design and natural selection are not mutually exclusive.

Surely, intelligent design would be a type of natural selection.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 6:12:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 5:14:46 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
I guess what I'm trying to say is, from my own personal observation, I can see how the pattern of evolution manifests itself in created reality.

If you are asking me to present the evidence that I do think is valid, I'm not terribly interested in doing so. I'd rather look at what evidence you personally think is convincing, and then explain why I don't believe the methodologies are truly scientific.

See, there are a lot of "evidences" people use to support evolution that aren't really evidences at all. The evidences themselves, in some cases that I've witness, seem to be the result of fabrication rather than testable experiment. I think I would be able to address this more clearly if I knew what it is you consider to be evidence.

Im not asking you to present evidence that you think is valid. Im asking what part of evolution do you accept, and what do you not accept.

The reason why, is because i dont want to list evidence for evolution and go into discussing it, only to find out that you already accept that aspect of evolution.

And what I consider evidence is what science considers as evidence, which is pretty much anything that is consistently or atleast observable in a verifiable sense, and experimental results.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 10:26:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Gotcha, but maybe for another topic.

Does anyone dispute the fact that intelligent design and natural selection are not mutually exclusive?
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,