Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:It's a funny thing adaptation.
Doing a lot of work with your bare hands labouring and the like, your skin thickens and hardens.
So you know, if you go swimming lots then it eventually starts looking like this:

fin-hand.jpg (23.39 KiB) Viewed 2289 times

And then, before you know (or actually a long, long time after) your great, great, great, great, great, great ...., great, great, great, great grandchildren have adapted to the water, become a vicious predator and surviving the seven seas.

fishman.jpg (50.9 KiB) Viewed 2289 times

Yeah! That's what I'm talking about! No limits!
Pure adaptation and its oxymoronic brother natural selection baby!

Misplaced sarcasm, or are you really so clueless?

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Responding just to the science part, "need" is not really it. Outside forces act on living things,
eliminating the ones less able / unable to survive the stress. The result is a population
with the genetic makeup to better survive and reproduce.

Why haven't these "outside forces" eliminated homosexuality and infertility then?

With that logic, You'd think millions of years of human evolution would've eliminated things that hinder survivability and reproduction.

No, I would not think that, because I understand that evolution does not do petfection.

Maybe you think that natural selection does not eliminate individuals that are not equipped to endure environmental stress?

Audie wrote:Misplaced sarcasm, or are you really so clueless?

What do you mean, misplaced sarcasm? Clueless?
It's possible we could have turned out as these cool looking fish men according to ToE.
Our descendents still might. Like finch beaks getting longer and shorter, it's just the same only over much more time.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:Misplaced sarcasm, or are you really so clueless?

What do you mean, misplaced sarcasm? Clueless?
It's possible we could have turned out as these cool looking fish men according to ToE.
Our descendents still might. Like finch beaks getting longer and shorter, it's just the same only over much more time.

If you dont know why I said that, you are a clueless-budueless.

If you want to act silky, I dont want to play.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:Misplaced sarcasm, or are you really so clueless?

What do you mean, misplaced sarcasm? Clueless?
It's possible we could have turned out as these cool looking fish men according to ToE.
Our descendents still might. Like finch beaks getting longer and shorter, it's just the same only over much more time.

If you dont know why I said that, you are a clueless-budueless.

If you want to act silky, I dont want to play.

Of course I mixed in fantasy if that's what you're saying?
The real question is how much of the story is fantasy.

As for silky, I did shave last night.
Already feeling a little spikey though.

PS. Love your words. They're cutesy-wootsy.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:Misplaced sarcasm, or are you really so clueless?

What do you mean, misplaced sarcasm? Clueless?
It's possible we could have turned out as these cool looking fish men according to ToE.
Our descendents still might. Like finch beaks getting longer and shorter, it's just the same only over much more time.

If you dont know why I said that, you are a clueless-budueless.

If you want to act silky, I dont want to play.

Of course I mixed in fantasy if that's what you're saying?
The real question is how much of the story is fantasy.

As for silky, I did shave last night.
Already feeling a little spikey though.

PS. Love your words. They're cutesy-wootsy.

Now Kurieuo,

You're gonna force Audie to take her ball and go home.

Sorry, made me

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:Misplaced sarcasm, or are you really so clueless?

What do you mean, misplaced sarcasm? Clueless?
It's possible we could have turned out as these cool looking fish men according to ToE.
Our descendents still might. Like finch beaks getting longer and shorter, it's just the same only over much more time.

If you dont know why I said that, you are a clueless-budueless.

If you want to act silky, I dont want to play.

Of course I mixed in fantasy if that's what you're saying?
The real question is how much of the story is fantasy.

As for silky, I did shave last night.
Already feeling a little spikey though.

PS. Love your words. They're cutesy-wootsy.

Now Kurieuo,

You're gonna force Audie to take her ball and go home.

Another offering to your patron saint, St. Tedium the Onerous?

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: What do you mean, misplaced sarcasm? Clueless?
It's possible we could have turned out as these cool looking fish men according to ToE.
Our descendents still might. Like finch beaks getting longer and shorter, it's just the same only over much more time.

If you dont know why I said that, you are a clueless-budueless.

If you want to act silky, I dont want to play.

Of course I mixed in fantasy if that's what you're saying?
The real question is how much of the story is fantasy.

As for silky, I did shave last night.
Already feeling a little spikey though.

PS. Love your words. They're cutesy-wootsy.

Now Kurieuo,

You're gonna force Audie to take her ball and go home.

Another offering to your patron saint, St. Tedium the Onerous?

I love you Audie!

Yep, with Audie, she is certainly hilariously clever with her put-downs.

I wonder does she smile much? She seems the overly serious type.

Video clip - Audie as a child:





Yes, Audie, we do love you!

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Responding just to the science part, "need" is not really it. Outside forces act on living things,
eliminating the ones less able / unable to survive the stress. The result is a population
with the genetic makeup to better survive and reproduce.

Why haven't these "outside forces" eliminated homosexuality and infertility then?

With that logic, You'd think millions of years of human evolution would've eliminated things that hinder survivability and reproduction.

These are interesting topics, please start a thread for each one and we can cover it.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
I'm talking about normal variation in reproduction like with the many different dog breeds or many different cat breeds and I was trying to point out that your cancer example shows the same thing normal variation in reproduction and how this is not and cannot be used for evidence life evolves and I've already explained why.

If it's not too much too ask, can we try not to refer back to your conclusions in each post?
ok, so my next question.
What do you mean by normal variation in reproduction?

Yes,we can refer back to my conclusions.I already told you what normal variation in reproduction is.I'll just use one example this time - the many different varieties of dogs shows normal variation in reproduction.

We are trying to build your argument. To show that x leads to y.
When you refer back to your conclusion you are jumping to the conclusion.

Next question.
Did dogs come from wolves?

Yes dogs came from wolves.

You never answered me. Is reproduction evolution? What is the difference between reproduction and evolution? Because several here have already implied reproduction is evolution. There is a problem bigtime with this kind of thinking and evidence. First off Charles Darwin assumed that based on the normal variation in a litter of kittens,that variation might be accumulated,generation by generation,and extrapolated ad infinitum in order to finally turn a cat into a totally new and different kind of creature.

You see normal variation in reproduction was known about thousands of years before Charles Darwin,which is how we have dogs and roses with variety today,but this is called evolution today and all of the peer reviewed evidence in evolution science is just demonstrating normal variation in reproduction not that life evolves and my point is reproduction and scientists demonstrating there is variation in reproduction is not evidence life evolves,yet it is used for evidence life evolves.

Philip wrote:Yep, with Audie, she is certainly hilariously clever with her put-downs.

I wonder does she smile much? She seems the overly serious type.

Video clip - Audie as a child:





Yes, Audie, we do love you!

That got a smile! And a thanks. Its not funny if its not true.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: If it's not too much too ask, can we try not to refer back to your conclusions in each post?
ok, so my next question.
What do you mean by normal variation in reproduction?

Yes,we can refer back to my conclusions.I already told you what normal variation in reproduction is.I'll just use one example this time - the many different varieties of dogs shows normal variation in reproduction.

We are trying to build your argument. To show that x leads to y.
When you refer back to your conclusion you are jumping to the conclusion.

Next question.
Did dogs come from wolves?

Yes dogs came from wolves.

You never answered me. Is reproduction evolution? What is the difference between reproduction and evolution? Because several here have already implied reproduction is evolution. There is a problem bigtime with this kind of thinking and evidence. First off Charles Darwin assumed that based on the normal variation in a litter of kittens,that variation might be accumulated,generation by generation,and extrapolated ad infinitum in order to finally turn a cat into a totally new and different kind of creature.

You see normal variation in reproduction was known about thousands of years before Charles Darwin,which is how we have dogs and roses with variety today,but this is called evolution today and all of the peer reviewed evidence in evolution science is just demonstrating normal variation in reproduction not that life evolves and my point is reproduction and scientists demonstrating there is variation in reproduction is not evidence life evolves,yet it is used for evidence life evolves.

Reproduction is not evolution. They are not even spelled the same. The meaning is quite different. Genetic recombination is not evolution.

peer reviewed evidence in evolution science is just demonstrating normal variation in reproduction

There is a problem bigtime with this kind of thinking and evidence.

You have not accurately identified who is confused. On the average, who is it more likely to be?

The person with no formal education in biology, or all the biologists in every country, race and religion around the world?

Try answering just that one question.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Is reproduction evolution?

No.

abelcainsbrother wrote:What is the difference between reproduction and evolution?

Google is your friend.

abelcainsbrother wrote:First off Charles Darwin assumed that based on the normal variation in a litter of kittens,that variation might be accumulated,generation by generation,and extrapolated ad infinitum in order to finally turn a cat into a totally new and different kind of creature.

No wonder you always appear ignorant about evolution. Darwin was meticulous about finding supporting evidence for his theories.

And even excluding his theory of evolution, Darwin's other bodies of work made him a scientist of the first rank. You might want to (but surely won't) keep that in mind when your next urge to dismiss Darwin arises.