Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website design

SteveF

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by SteveF » Tue Oct 21, 2014 1:58 pm

dizerner wrote
I find it very hard to let go of a historical Adam, even if I have no problem taking the creation count as metaphorical. Too much theology is based on it...
Yes, I understand where you’re coming from! When I first considered the alternative theories for Adam they seemed somewhat implausible and quite counterintuitive to me. Over time I’ve found myself warming up a little more to non-traditional explanations for Adam.

Here’s an interesting discussion about Adam with three people on the Unbelievable broadcast who each have a different view. I actually listened to this broadcast some time ago at work when I was doing a mindless repetitive task. A couple of co-workers came in to work as well and listened along. Needless to say the broadcast prompted an interesting discussion, even though it was only rudimentary since my co-workers don’t really know the bible very well.

http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Sh ... believable

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by jriccitelli » Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:25 pm

If the characteristics of recent ancestors do not temporarily appear during late development, why would the human embryo be expected exhibit fishlike stages (which are ancestrally far more remote)… (Steve)
Good point, if this were true we should look more like a closer relative than a far distant one. We should resemble ape, lemur, horse, and bird embryos during development, not fishes. The evolution artists are often wise enough to draw the evolution tree with branches that go out and conveniently stop at each species, and often the Evolutionist artists have the tree trunk go from the human and other species ‘straight’ back to the fish without going through the other mammal species 'first'. That seems to admit there is not much evidence for anything in our human line like mice, squirrels, dogs or deer, that you would assume would have been in our own branch (rather than this straight line back to fish). Jon, why is there almost no information or data to the apes closest relative, nor the lemur. Both of these have a pretty mysterious history (it seems the lemur and the ape have lost ground as direct relatives to man, and their own relatives are less and less traceable. Including Madagascar and big problems relating either to the taxonomic group, Eocene or Paleocene fossils, or any other known primates or species).
Over & over you've presented facts -- hard data that anyone can see and nobody disputes. And over & over you've insisted that those facts somehow constitute scientific proof that some species evolved into other species. (Backwoods)
Jon, the fact that a bird, a mouse, a turtle, or anything all share some common design; is ‘not’ more proof for evolution than it is for design. At least a Creator easily explains ‘how’ things were designed. Microbiological data is being interpreted as matter that is designing and improving itself, but still it is illogical to suppose small improvements or changes could not also be pre-programmed into the code in the first place (Like I said, machines have the abilities to adjust themselves too). We believe the improvements that can happen in nature demonstrate ‘intelligent’ advances. For the sake of argument I will grant you if a cell or a fish developed, still there is no sense or reason for either to advance, or to invent all the mind bobbling structures we are surrounded with.
If they evolved, then all that wasted effort at a very vulnerable time, when it's extremely important to survival that the embryo develop as quickly as possible, should've been genetically selected against tens of millions of years ago. (Backwoods)
Jon, you might insist that there are ‘Christians’ who accept evolution, as if this is any justification, but intelligent design is not duped by Evolutions presumptions. Intelligent design would imply that there is no-sense in creating a design, and then wait for chance to take over and see what happens.

What sense is there in making an object that can start to blindly drive its own development? Such a ‘design’ that would allow senseless un-thought of developments to continue sounds dangerous and self destructive to say the least. Albeit, I have used this reasoning to explain disease and disfigurements, it seems there is a 'limit' and balance to disorders. But still none of these would suggest any 'positive' advancement. Disorder does suggest what evolution would produce if allowed to continue though, horrible mindless and blind defects.
Last edited by jriccitelli on Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by jriccitelli » Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:58 pm

I read the ‘Morphological and Molecular Evidence for a Stepwise Evolutionary Transition from Teeth to Baleen in Mysticete Whales’ article you linked. I don’t know if I should go into detail because I don’t know if you will read this, or listen to why this 'also' seems to just copy the same presumptions that all the other ‘Evolution’ data I’ve read before assumes. You have argued that ‘evolutionary’ thinking would make one 'go and look for' evidence of both baleen and teeth in (supposed) earlier whale species, something you assume a Creationist wouldn’t think of, or not do. Yet Creation has already ‘predicted’ that there are, and have always been thousands of varieties within a species. That some no longer exist is no surprise to anyone. I would 'suppose' there could be mice with wings, cats without tails and fur, white tigers, and women with mustaches. There are so many odd variations of things it doesn’t take much to 'imagine' a combination of anything (just look at fantasy art for instance). There is no reason a creator could not create things at 'any time' that he chooses. A Creator can make a fish one day and make a man the following day. He doesn’t even have to do it in that order. If a Creator wanted to make a fish with both baleen and teeth, and then allow it to become extinct, why not? Your argument does not rule out Creator, it does not even ‘insist’ evolution. All it does is ‘try’ and prove a whale existed at one time with both teeth and the bone structure for baleen.

The complex language of biology itself should be a glaring proof of complex design, in itself (just as any book on biology does, along with the colorful overlays that show the extreme complex inwards of human bodies, and other creatures). Do you look at a schematic for a computer, or a radio, and go; 'Well, I don't see any reason or intelligence behind this!?' Evolution seems to skip past the glaring and serious reality of how complex and ingenious the things they talk of really are. Just the fact that enamel exists at all is incredible, that enamel, teeth and baleen exist 'in the right places' is incredible. That enamel just happens to show up in the mouth and on teeth, and not on our behinds and elbows is something evolutionists should be amazed by. Evolutionists should be more amazed by the ‘lack’ of teeth and baleen (or finger nails) ‘all over’ our bodies, and all over every creature, than by the appearance of it on just some whale fossils.

Teeth themselves present a huge design challenge; you have to get the genes necessary for teeth to congregate all in the same place in the mouth cavity, along the gums. Then you have to get them to develop so they are all in a row, and not just in a row, but with a row below themselves ‘directly’ opposite of themselves, so that they don’t miss, or bite into themselves. Teeth without teeth below are useless, and teeth growing in different places alone in your mouth could only cause severe problems for any creature. And teeth need to be of the relative same shape and style of the one directly above. The teeth need to be spaced near the outer edge and pointing down and up if it’s going to work at all. You really should have a tongue also; otherwise the food will sit there in the mouth, or remain stuck on the teeth. And the tongue has to have room to move the food back around without being impeded by the teeth. You also have to correlate the growth and length of the jaw below to correspond with the row of teeth above. You also have to have a hinge in place to make it work. (If you have ever hung a simple door in a house you will find how difficult such a simple task can be. And how complex two or four angles can resist wanting to meet) And you have to have the muscles to work the jaw open and shut. And the muscles have to be strong enough to actually be effective in crushing the food. Gums also are necessary to absorb the shock of biting. How in the world did baby teeth know to fall out, knowing the skull would grow in size, and larger teeth needed to replace them?

Baleen itself is an incredible design for animals to develop on their own, as humans ‘demonstrate intelligence’ when they use traps to filter or strain food. We generally go 'whoa' when we encounter a stroke of invention or an idea somewhere, why is it an Evolutionist seems to ask; what 'idea'? If Blue whales did not have a massive tongue, the whole baleen thing would be a mouth full of water. If the baleen developed anywhere but along the opening edge of the mouth it would be useless if the water couldn’t be pushed back into the ocean.

I am not sure if the report is 'confirming' that toothed whales, along with all the other various species and the out-groups noted (or how much), each share of some genomes and structures of the baleen whales. But either way, since the Tragulus napu is a mouse deer, a Tayassu tajacu is a South American pig, and an Ovis dalli is a beautiful sheep that lives in the Yukon. Wouldn’t this lead one to believe that genes and DNA traits are spread ‘throughout’ creation without any real relationships or geography being traceable. If anything, it is like human DNA found at a murder, if your telling me the same DNA is found everywhere and all over the place, then what kind of case is that?

If you are saying a whale existed with both teeth and baleen DNA, and or gum structures, it doesn’t seem to make any better a case for Evolution than say women with mustaches, or lemurs with toothcombs. All you have done is perceive that a whale with both baleen and teeth may have existed; yet nothing in this explains or presents a case for how millions of creatures all have the jaw and tooth arraignment, the corresponding accompaniments and all the other necessary structures in place to make any such development (i.e. teeth or baleen) work. If a transistor, a computer chip and a 9volt battery all just happen to show up in the same place at the same time, still you have nothing but components without any intent and purpose to make something out of it, let alone a working whale.

It seems most all mammals have an infraorbital groove and the nerve that lays in it, so does that mean all these grooves were reproduced and copied in each species from the one primal groove? Millions of other structures are replicated between species that have no real relation, all the while there are huge differences in shape and form that arise 'around' the familiar animal structures. And your telling me; all these animals develop independently, without losing the intent and purpose of these necessary structures? (Such as a protective groove for the major nerves). For example most all homes have chimneys, yet there are a million varieties of homes. How could the same idea of a chimney be retained throughout all creation ‘without’ an intelligent ‘redesign’ for each home? The same with sewer lines that flow downward, all homes have them, but each home has to have the pipes redesigned for each home, as each home presents different problems (just as each creature presents a different design problem, and creatures have 'way' more variety than homes) Anyways, Evolutionist thinking seems to skip this part of reasoning...

User avatar
jonperry
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:00 pm
Location: Corvallis Oregon
Contact:

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by jonperry » Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:10 pm

I'm getting way behind in this discussion. Forgive me for that. After a long work week I spent my free time yesterday carving pumpkins :D

To everyone,
If you get one thing from this discussion let it be this: Evolution is not a religion. Evolution is a scientific theory, a tool which scientists use to discover new things about reality.

Dizerner,
I'm working on an article on the evolution of irreducible complexity which I now have outlined but I'm still working on illustrations of the bee stinger (I have photos too but the illustration will show how it moves) and I'm still trying to find the best way to word it so I can keep it as brief and readable as possible.

Steve,
I'd love to hear your thoughts on what I wrote earlier on the significance of embryology. I'd like to elaborate on the topic but I want to better know where your hangups are first.

PR,
Sorry for putting you off for now but I'll need more time to respond specifically. I'm juggling multiple conversations here in the middle of an intense work month. Please read what I will write for Backwoodsman below as it should be inline with our discussion as well. I apologize for not giving you proper time.

Jriccitelli and Backwoodsman,
Our conversations suggest that you both see evolution as an enemy to Bible based Christianity. Is this a fair assessment?

Please note, as mentioned earlier, that evolution is not a religion nor a doctrine of atheism (though Richard Dawkins and others do often treat it as such). Evolution is a scientific theory. It is a tool. We use this tool to guide us to new discoveries. Some of these discoveries help us understand evolution better but many are just new facts about reality. Evolution is accepted by the scientific community because it has lead us to thousands of new observations and continues to lead us to more. Evolution is preferred over other theories because it has consistently proven to be more useful.

Because of the usefulness of evolution, it has been accepted by many religious people to varying degrees.

For a little personal background, I was raised Mormon. Though it was not very compatible with my religion, I accepted evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth when I was in my early teens. Most Mormons lean toward Young Earth Creationism. To avoid a clash between faith and science, I kept the two separated in my mind. It was not compromise, it was separation. Being an artist, I drew a picture of what this looked like: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jonathan- ... 459253339/

I left the Mormon Church after serving a full-time mission in Brazil. I served 2 years in Brazil, starting at 19 years of age. I left the church after my mission, not because of evolution (or the death of my uncle as Backwoodsman suggested), but because my studies into the history of Mormonism lead me to conclude that my childhood religion was a fraud. I have not found an alternative religion which appeals to me. I continue to live a lifestyle which is morally similar to that of most Mormons and is largely inline with the moral teachings of Jesus Christ.

I've given you two clear examples of new discoveries which scientists were lead to using evolution. No other theory could have lead them to these discoveries.
  • 1. The origin of HIV. This was discovered by researchers only because they rejected the "curse hypothesis" and instead were using Darwinian family trees.
    2. The existence of a toothed baleen whale. This was found by researchers only because they were specifically looking for evolutionary links between toothed and baleen whales.
I gave you a link to my animation "Does the theory of evolution really matter?" This animation shows over 20 more examples and goes over three in depth (one of which is HIV).

I gave you a list of scientific journals on evolution, each of which contains hundreds of new discoveries which scientists were lead to using evolutionary theory.

This should be more than enough to convince a thoughtful mind of the usefulness of the theory of evolution within science. I will not be providing more.

You both suggested that creationism could have predicted a toothed baleen whale but I do not understand how. To my knowledge there is nothing in creationism which actively guides people to look for links between species or "kinds" unless the creationists have accepted evolution to some degree. Creationists who partially accept evolution could have predicted the toothed baleen whale but they would have been using evolution, not creationism, to make that prediction.

Backwoodsman,
Looking at your response to my last post, it seems you were looking for me to show you an example of observed macro-evolution. For this reason you didn't like my baleen example. Am I correct in this assessment?

Macro-evoution is commonly defined as large scale evolution which takes too long to be observed directly by a human living only one lifetime. This means that macro-evolution is not an observable fact; instead, it is a conclusion based on thousands of observable facts. To understand macro-evolution we have to examine anatomy, fossils, genetics, embryology, and other lines of evidence as presented in my first animation of this thread. Evolution is the only theory which accurately accounts for all of these facts combined. For this reason, scientists are convinced that evolution happened.

Jriccitelli,
Your posts are too broad for me to adequately respond to in this forum. Please chose a single point you would like me to discuss and I will answer as soon as I'm caught up with Dizerner, PR, and Steve. I hope that is acceptable, I would give you more time if I could.

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by jriccitelli » Sat Nov 01, 2014 12:26 pm

Our conversations suggest that you both see evolution as an enemy to Bible based Christianity. Is this a fair assessment? (Jon)
I did not come to accept Christ from anything other than logic. Not that I am smart, just smart enough to know my Creator is greater than I am. My reason for believing in Jesus and the Bible was because it made sense, and submitting to such a Creator was the most logical thing I could do (your brother said he read my testimony, which I have linked here before). Evolutionist theory is an insult of sense, reason, logic, engineering, mechanics, and science. It is clear to many that it is a religion and a belief. For both views can look at the same scientific observation: we see it has design, and you do not.
We see change, and so do Evolutionists. But Evolutionists cannot explain ‘how’ the Creation can change 'and' have design. All they can say is matter and elements are observed changing into a design. The sensible, reasonable, logical and scientific answer is that design requires a designer, that does not require faith on our part, it is just logical.
‘Please note, as mentioned earlier, that evolution is not a religion nor a doctrine of atheism’ (Jon)
That is your ‘belief’ therefore it is your religion. To make such a statement is not scientific, therefore like other Evolutionist theory, this statement is not scientific nor logical.
‘Some of these discoveries help us understand evolution better but many are just new facts about reality’ (Jon)
The fact of design is always there. The more facts we find out about biological structures (reality) the more complexity we see, this is the antithesis and opposite of blind Evolution. The more complex a structure becomes the less likely it is happening by chance. Every step toward complexity is another step away from chance. The more we learn about the complexity of biology (the facts) the less and less likely your theory agrees with the facts.
‘Because of the usefulness of evolution, it has been accepted by many religious people to varying degrees” (Jon)
Many religious people kiss the finger of the Popes and statues of Mary, that doesn’t make anything true.
It is useless if it is not true. If I believe airplanes evolved on their own, I don’t see how that would be an improvement over believing airplanes are designed with a purpose and intent. It sure would make working on engines a strange thing, to think they just happened to have developed spark plugs and oil pumps on their own. It helps immensely to know the parts on an engine are there for a reason.

User avatar
jonperry
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:00 pm
Location: Corvallis Oregon
Contact:

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by jonperry » Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:45 pm

Dizerner,
Sorry for the delay but I have the article up for you to see on the evolution of irreducible complexity. I've created a new thread for it here: http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5000

Jriccitelli,
I have carefully explained, in this very thread, why evolution is a scientific theory and not a religion. I have given multiple examples of how evolution is useful for anyone studying biology.

When you ignore what has been said here and continue to play the part of a broken record, you waste my time, you waste your time, and you waste the time of those who are trying to follow this thread. Please chose a new approach to this discussion.

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by jriccitelli » Fri Nov 28, 2014 1:57 pm

Jon I appreciate your gracious candor and lavish approbation. I will try to be so kind.
I am glad you have been able to answer and respond to my observations here, as I have watched, spent time, and made notes on all your videos, I can't wait to share my observations with you also. But first, true, it is tiring to watch you and other Evolutionists spiral down the same hole you all are digging, I would like to save you all from a lot of wasted energy.

The theory of Evolution itself is a broken record, for one it is all based on the same reasoning ‘that if things look similar - they must have Evolved from one another’. This is repeated in every single thing Evolutionists put forth as evidence. It is repeated all through your animated videos, and it is the reasoning behind all your conclusions. The same groove on the same record, over and over, and you claim that evolution is progressive, all the while Gods designs are stolen, repackaged, and sold as Evolution.

Unless you can prove that there is a mechanism that can design complexity, you have nothing.
Evolutionists have supposed there is a proof (mutation and or unnecessary genes) and mechanism (natural selection) for unintelligent design in gene formation, however this theory does not eliminate nor provide a better explanation than: By Design.
Simply stated: a simple observation doesn’t explain every other observation.

A. Having one simple sentence in a code (such as DNA) ‘appear’ to reorganize and leave a few unnecessary structures of code still in place, does not explain the fact that creation consists of zillions of fantastic complex, ingenious and organized structures that depend on this extremely complex code.
B. Natural selection does not answer ‘why’ a life force would even ‘want’ to continue to exist.
C. Natural selection does not explain how the choices being selected from, got on the shelf in the first place.
D. Again, since all your proofs and explanations are also consistent within the realm of Design and Creation, they don’t prove Evolution.

You are ignoring the point that everything you have presented in your videos and your statements here repeat the same idea: your proof is that - because things look alike - they evolved from each other. Everything Evolutionists have presented is the same argument, and I have given you dozens of different arguments explaining why this one observation is the same argument Evolutionists use over and over.

I have seen schoolbooks used in public classrooms dating back 50 years (and to Darwin) that use this same argument over and over, all building on this one singular premise.
“I have carefully explained, in this very thread, why evolution is a scientific theory and not a religion” (Jon)
Why evolution is a religion, and whether evolution is useful for studying biology, are different topics.
Although you made ‘your’ statement that Evolution is not a religion in ‘this’ thread (just above), and that you now assume that you have been making a case for this all along, is quite a leap of reason to suppose we have even discussed this statement, or reached a conclusion. But I will address the religion point in another thread.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evolutionist theory is akin to theft and plagiarism. Evolutionist theory copies someone elses idea and packages it as their own.
Who invented Legos? Lego? No, they copied an existing building block, and put their name on it.
Who invented Oreos? Oreo? No, Hydrox invented this, and Oreo put their name on them.
Who invented the Internet, Al Gore? Four years ago Barack Obama said Ford, uh uh, invented the Automobile, now he has toned it down to, uh uh, America invented the car. It is an ‘automobile’ Barack, and as an auto buff, the idea was driven way before Benz even built his automobile (And a German inventor Andreas Flocken, built the worlds first electric car in 1888! Barack).
Should I mention the idea for the book of Mormon (Ethan Smith etc.) and the plagiarism of the Bible?

(And you are making videos (or ads) to sell this stuff. It is interesting that you use animation. The Mormon church has produced hundreds of drawings and animations of Nephi, and the other book of Mormon stories, that make it seem as if this all really happened, NOT)

The Creation was here all along. A designer can and does, make things that look very similar in design. For every logical purpose known to man: 'an observation of design, means there is a designer' (of course 'except' for the Theory of Evolution). Professional designers often design numerous things that aren’t even related, and other times they design things that have very similar design. Evolutionists have taken this observation and sold it as Evolution. A design can have adaptability and adjustment built into it. Good designs can have many similar functions and uses, uses in multiple products, built for different purpose and environments, and yet keep their basic design, and more often than not, they do.

The only credible advancement made in Evolutionist theory (other than things look alike): is identifying genes that develop new code, which is the only place evidence can come from actually. But, unnecessary code, or mutant improvements in the code are not enough to explain everything else, and they themselves are suspect, because a creator could anticipate fluctuations, allow them for a purpose, utilize a code shift for a purpose, and or, even design the ability for minor change to occur, within limits. It is obvious there is more in the DNA code than we understand as yet, or presume to know, especially since they interact with so many other processes in biology that are still mysterious.

I know that you are also saying that it (Evolutionist theory) causes one to go ‘look’ for similar structures in design, and that this helps biological research. I do not see the logic in thinking that similar design in biological structures would be any different than similar structure in mechanical structures (So I don’t know how you could argue that this is a logical argument).

In design, the quickest way to design something is to familiarize yourself with other similar designs (just don’t get caught infringing a copyright. And I have a serious disregard for a lot of modern designers who neglect to look back at the history of similar design, bad automobile designs being a prime example). A good designer looks to other industries and products for inspiration. Much the same way a cook looks for recipe ideas.

This idea is not the property of Evolutionists (similar structures that have multiple uses), in fact evolutionists are guilty of taking this idea and making it their own, it is in a sense stealing an idea. Evolutionists are just repackaging things we’ve known all along: That a builder, artist, or writer, will produce things and structures for a variety of products that are similar, is not news to a designer. Also, good designers design things to last (Survival of the fittest). A good design should have the ability to adapt to surroundings (adaptation). And now we make machines that can adapt in numerous ways, good and bad, as in viruses and virus software.

I took your thinking and went and looked for similar structures in similar structures that serve different purposes (something designers have done since the idea of the bow and the arrow). Well amazing just as you predicted: things that are designed have similar structures that are used in other useful structures, and quite often for different purposes.
There are trucks with ladders that telescope, cement pumpers that telescope, water trucks that telescope. Fire trucks, boom trucks, and dump trucks: that lift people, lift machinery, dirt, rocks, babies, etc. Trucks that carry cattle and some that carry other trucks. Logging trucks that evolved to launch missiles. Airplanes with cargo doors that can drop both bombs, food and people, sometimes in the same place! Airplanes that spray water, bullets, fertilizer and poison, sometimes from the same kinds of pumps! This evolutionary idea will soon catch on among designers when they realize pumps and motors can be similar and yet be used for different purposes and functions! Think of the possibility’s: water pumps, oil pumps, air pumps, pumps for blood, pumps for industry and health care and transportation, all because now we realize you can use a similar design for multiple purposes! This was so obvious and we never saw it, tools can combine ideas, hammers that have claws attached…

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by backwoodsman » Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:02 pm

jonperry wrote:Backwoodsman,
Looking at your response to my last post, it seems you were looking for me to show you an example of observed macro-evolution. For this reason you didn't like my baleen example. Am I correct in this assessment?
Jon,

In looking through the forum for those loose ends I've mentioned, I found this to which I never responded. I hadn't intended to drop it, but I was out of ideas for how to try to communicate what seems to me to be a very simple question, and after a while it fell off the radar.

So, to answer your question: Absent actual observed macroevolution, the whale example is not solid proof of evolution, and is therefore irrelevant to the question.

Here's the question again, quoted from page 2 of this thread: "Why do evolutionists list fact after fact as supposedly solid proof of evolution, never so much as admitting that there's a viable alternative theory, much less explaining why evolution is the better choice?"

I think you may think you've answered it, but you haven't. What you've done is present some scientific data, then tack on the evolutionary interpretation as though it were part of the scientific data, without ever explaining why you think it's the best scientific explanation of the data. Which brings us to...

You say there's no viable alternative theory, but there is in fact a viable alternative theory. You just don't know anything about it, because you've neglected to educate yourself about it, because you're so convinced it's not there that you can't see it even when it's pointed out to you. (Of course, that's an assumption on my part; the other possibility is that you actually are fully informed about it, but choose to pretend ignorance because your chosen ideology can't stand up beside it. But which is correct is irrelevant at this point, so I'm happy to go with the more gracious explanation.)

So you come to this forum and try to convince us that evolution is the gospel truth, but you have nothing to offer by way of proof except your own unsupported opinion and belief. Clearly that is not convincing to intelligent analytical thinkers. (Maybe you weren't expecting to find those at a Christian forum?)

These things are not the behavior of a scientist, but of an ideologue. You're either unable or unwilling to see that your belief in evolution is not based on science, but is essentially a religious belief. It doesn't matter how many scientists agree with you; scientists are just people, just as subject as the rest of us to self-induced ideological blindness, which is, by definition, intellectual dishonesty.
This means that macro-evolution is not an observable fact; instead, it is a conclusion based on thousands of observable facts.
Maybe we can use this to try to approach the question from a slightly different angle. It would be a valid conclusion in any kind of scientific sense only if you'd evaluated the observable facts in light of all relevant scientifically valid theories, which you haven't done. Until you do, it's merely an assumption. What I'm trying to learn is, why have you stopped at an assumption, when you could go all the way to a scientifically valid conclusion?

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by Paidion » Mon Nov 02, 2015 5:06 pm

Anyone can see for himself that we have evolved from whales.
Open your hand and take a look at your palm. Don't you see the whale tail there? It's obvious.
Evolution is scientific—not religious.

Image
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

dizerner

Re: Evidence for Evolution - Final video and new website des

Post by dizerner » Mon Nov 02, 2015 7:57 pm

you can buy a whale flipper for only 80 bucks
http://www.universaltreasures.com/replicasother.htm
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Creation/Evolution”