Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:A little advice I heard, that maybe we all need to reread, and try to apply...

When arguing against something, we should study the subject thoroughly enough that we could argue for it. Know the subject's strengths, and argue against them. Arguing against things that have nothing to do with the subject, just makes us look dishonest.

Or confused. As far as I can tell, in that haystack ab is saying in effect that a virus is not
evolving if it does not change into a petunia.

The thing about "fully formed" appears to me to be born from this kind of
confusion "Not knowing the subject", as you put it.

So you're admitting life cannot evolve like has been believed for 150 years? Are you now admitting it?Well back to the drawing board dinosaurs cannot evolve into birds. Dinosaurs will always be dinosaurs and birds will always be birds,is that what you're saying?

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:A little advice I heard, that maybe we all need to reread, and try to apply...

When arguing against something, we should study the subject thoroughly enough that we could argue for it. Know the subject's strengths, and argue against them. Arguing against things that have nothing to do with the subject, just makes us look dishonest.

Or confused. As far as I can tell, in that haystack ab is saying in effect that a virus is not
evolving if it does not change into a petunia.

The thing about "fully formed" appears to me to be born from this kind of
confusion "Not knowing the subject", as you put it.

Audie,

I see ACB's point. There really aren't a whole lot of people here that don't agree that life evolves. But what ACB is talking about is life evolving from the first life forms on earth, to human life.

He's asking for evidence regarding that.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:A little advice I heard, that maybe we all need to reread, and try to apply...

When arguing against something, we should study the subject thoroughly enough that we could argue for it. Know the subject's strengths, and argue against them. Arguing against things that have nothing to do with the subject, just makes us look dishonest.

Or confused. As far as I can tell, in that haystack ab is saying in effect that a virus is not
evolving if it does not change into a petunia.

The thing about "fully formed" appears to me to be born from this kind of
confusion "Not knowing the subject", as you put it.

Audie,

I see ACB's point. There really aren't a whole lot of people here that don't agree that life evolves. But what ACB is talking about is life evolving from the first life forms on earth, to human life.

He's asking for evidence regarding that.

That is another very good point except that I'm not sure I agree that normal variation amongst the different kinds of life is life evolving. But yes based on the evidence the earliest life forms on earth would remain that kind of life with only normal variation and could never evolve into other kinds of life.I think when I mention normal variation in reproduction it is confusing,yet I don't see why because we see variation amongst the different kinds of life. Like cats for example we see lions,tigers,cougars,leapards,cheetahs,panthers,lynx,etc and even if some new kind of cat appeared like a mix breed,it would still be a cat and amongst that kind of life. We see normal variation amongst cats and all other kinds of life and I don't think of this as evolving.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:A little advice I heard, that maybe we all need to reread, and try to apply...

When arguing against something, we should study the subject thoroughly enough that we could argue for it. Know the subject's strengths, and argue against them. Arguing against things that have nothing to do with the subject, just makes us look dishonest.

Or confused. As far as I can tell, in that haystack ab is saying in effect that a virus is not
evolving if it does not change into a petunia.

The thing about "fully formed" appears to me to be born from this kind of
confusion "Not knowing the subject", as you put it.

So you're admitting life cannot evolve like has been believed for 150 years? Are you now admitting it?Well back to the drawing board dinosaurs cannot evolve into birds. Dinosaurs will always be dinosaurs and birds will always be birds,is that what you're saying?

No dear boy, I am no. But at leadt you asked, the second time, instead of stating that false conclusion as a fact.

But then you go back to stating "facts" that are only your ill informed opinions.

Virus, btw, are not even alive. Perhaps you are now supporting abio?
See how that works?

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:A little advice I heard, that maybe we all need to reread, and try to apply...

When arguing against something, we should study the subject thoroughly enough that we could argue for it. Know the subject's strengths, and argue against them. Arguing against things that have nothing to do with the subject, just makes us look dishonest.

Or confused. As far as I can tell, in that haystack ab is saying in effect that a virus is not
evolving if it does not change into a petunia.

The thing about "fully formed" appears to me to be born from this kind of
confusion "Not knowing the subject", as you put it.

Audie,

I see ACB's point. There really aren't a whole lot of people here that don't agree that life evolves. But what ACB is talking about is life evolving from the first life forms on earth, to human life.

He's asking for evidence regarding that.

Perhaps, but he neither confirms nor denies that. I find it very difficult to learn what he does
think onnsubstantive matters. I gave up ttying to find out what he thinks
transitional or not fully formed might mean.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:A little advice I heard, that maybe we all need to reread, and try to apply...

When arguing against something, we should study the subject thoroughly enough that we could argue for it. Know the subject's strengths, and argue against them. Arguing against things that have nothing to do with the subject, just makes us look dishonest.

Or confused. As far as I can tell, in that haystack ab is saying in effect that a virus is not
evolving if it does not change into a petunia.

The thing about "fully formed" appears to me to be born from this kind of
confusion "Not knowing the subject", as you put it.

Audie,

I see ACB's point. There really aren't a whole lot of people here that don't agree that life evolves. But what ACB is talking about is life evolving from the first life forms on earth, to human life.

He's asking for evidence regarding that.

That is another very good point except that I'm not sure I agree that normal variation amongst the different kinds of life is life evolving. But yes based on the evidence the earliest life forms on earth would remain that kind of life with only normal variation and could never evolve into other kinds of life.I think when I mention normal variation in reproduction it is confusing,yet I don't see why because we see variation amongst the different kinds of life. Like cats for example we see lions,tigers,cougars,leapards,cheetahs,panthers,lynx,etc and even if some new kind of cat appeared like a mix breed,it would still be a cat and amongst that kind of life. We see normal variation amongst cats and all other kinds of life and I don't think of this as evolving.

ACB,

In one sense, Evolve means "change over time".

So, those are things that have evolved.

The problem is, if since we can see certain kinds of evolution, does that mean that we should assume evolution on a much larger scale(single cell to man, or whatever) is necessarily true?

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:A little advice I heard, that maybe we all need to reread, and try to apply...

When arguing against something, we should study the subject thoroughly enough that we could argue for it. Know the subject's strengths, and argue against them. Arguing against things that have nothing to do with the subject, just makes us look dishonest.

Or confused. As far as I can tell, in that haystack ab is saying in effect that a virus is not
evolving if it does not change into a petunia.

The thing about "fully formed" appears to me to be born from this kind of
confusion "Not knowing the subject", as you put it.

So you're admitting life cannot evolve like has been believed for 150 years? Are you now admitting it?Well back to the drawing board dinosaurs cannot evolve into birds. Dinosaurs will always be dinosaurs and birds will always be birds,is that what you're saying?

No dear boy, I am no. But at leadt you asked, the second time, instead of stating that false conclusion as a fact.

But then you go back to stating "facts" that are only your ill informed opinions.

Virus, btw, are not even alive. Perhaps you are now supporting abio?
See how that works?

I realize you want to believe life evolves,but nothing you said refutes my point about the virus,whether it is alive or not. Knowledge about science is good,but without evidence? It will only be impressive for so long,all of them big fancy technical scientific words and language just falls to the floor if there's no evidence behind it to confirm what they are explaining. How do you get around the fact you start out with a virus and over time it adapts,but remains a virus and will always be a virus? It is still kinds producing after its kind like I've explained. This means it cannot ever evolve,yet I know you want to believe life evolves.

Why are you giving scientists a pass when it comes to evidence,yet raise your evidence bar up high when it comes to God and his word? It is just about anger from creationists arguing why evolution is so wrong and it offends you? So you say,I will do the same to them and demand proof for God and things the bible says? I thought you said you'd reject evolution if it could be adequately refuted?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:A little advice I heard, that maybe we all need to reread, and try to apply...

When arguing against something, we should study the subject thoroughly enough that we could argue for it. Know the subject's strengths, and argue against them. Arguing against things that have nothing to do with the subject, just makes us look dishonest.

Or confused. As far as I can tell, in that haystack ab is saying in effect that a virus is not
evolving if it does not change into a petunia.

The thing about "fully formed" appears to me to be born from this kind of
confusion "Not knowing the subject", as you put it.

So you're admitting life cannot evolve like has been believed for 150 years? Are you now admitting it?Well back to the drawing board dinosaurs cannot evolve into birds. Dinosaurs will always be dinosaurs and birds will always be birds,is that what you're saying?

No dear boy, I am no. But at leadt you asked, the second time, instead of stating that false conclusion as a fact.

But then you go back to stating "facts" that are only your ill informed opinions.

Virus, btw, are not even alive. Perhaps you are now supporting abio?
See how that works?

I realize you want to believe life evolves,but nothing you said refutes my point about the virus,whether it is alive or not. Knowledge about science is good,but without evidence? It will only be impressive for so long,all of them big fancy technical scientific words and language just falls to the floor if there's no evidence behind it to confirm what they are explaining. How do you get around the fact you start out with a virus and over time it adapts,but remains a virus and will always be a virus? It is still kinds producing after its kind like I've explained. This means it cannot ever evolve,yet I know you want to believe life evolves.

Why are you giving scientists a pass when it comes to evidence,yet raise your evidence bar up high when it comes to God and his word? It is just about anger from creationists arguing why evolution is so wrong and it offends you? So you say,I will do the same to them and demand proof for God and things the bible says? I thought you said you'd reject evolution if it could be adequately refuted?

Ab, seeing the weird n'wacky things you think ( make up) about me, my motives my intellectual ethics
and everything else you can dream up shows much about your inability to look at anything and see
anything in it but a reflection of your own biases.

You never come anywhere remotely close to understanding how I think, no more than you do
to understanding anything about thd science you are so intent on discrediting.



You know what a strawman is? The Audie you think you are talking about, the
science you try to discredit, listen closely now...DO NOT EVEN EXIST.

You are heroically savaging strawmen, things not real or present.

I dont know how to redirect you toward reality. A start tho would be a glimmer of
understanding you are not there yet.

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:A little advice I heard, that maybe we all need to reread, and try to apply...

When arguing against something, we should study the subject thoroughly enough that we could argue for it. Know the subject's strengths, and argue against them. Arguing against things that have nothing to do with the subject, just makes us look dishonest.

Or confused. As far as I can tell, in that haystack ab is saying in effect that a virus is not
evolving if it does not change into a petunia.

The thing about "fully formed" appears to me to be born from this kind of
confusion "Not knowing the subject", as you put it.

Audie,

I see ACB's point. There really aren't a whole lot of people here that don't agree that life evolves. But what ACB is talking about is life evolving from the first life forms on earth, to human life.

He's asking for evidence regarding that.

That is another very good point except that I'm not sure I agree that normal variation amongst the different kinds of life is life evolving. But yes based on the evidence the earliest life forms on earth would remain that kind of life with only normal variation and could never evolve into other kinds of life.I think when I mention normal variation in reproduction it is confusing,yet I don't see why because we see variation amongst the different kinds of life. Like cats for example we see lions,tigers,cougars,leapards,cheetahs,panthers,lynx,etc and even if some new kind of cat appeared like a mix breed,it would still be a cat and amongst that kind of life. We see normal variation amongst cats and all other kinds of life and I don't think of this as evolving.

ACB,

In one sense, Evolve means "change over time".

So, those are things that have evolved.

The problem is, if since we can see certain kinds of evolution, does that mean that we should assume evolution on a much larger scale(single cell to man, or whatever) is necessarily true?

I'm not so sure,it seems to be giving a little too much benefit of the doubt. Here is why,It might seem because we have been so drenched in our world that has had the ToE pushed onto us as true science,but would we really say evolution is just "change over time" had the ToE never became the scientific theory it has? I'm not so sure we would see it as change over time.It is just really reproduction and the variety it produces.I admit there is change but mainly only if a new kind of life is produced,like amongst cats a Liger for example,is that just change over time? Or just what reproduction produced?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Or confused. As far as I can tell, in that haystack ab is saying in effect that a virus is not
evolving if it does not change into a petunia.

The thing about "fully formed" appears to me to be born from this kind of
confusion "Not knowing the subject", as you put it.

Audie,

I see ACB's point. There really aren't a whole lot of people here that don't agree that life evolves. But what ACB is talking about is life evolving from the first life forms on earth, to human life.

He's asking for evidence regarding that.

That is another very good point except that I'm not sure I agree that normal variation amongst the different kinds of life is life evolving. But yes based on the evidence the earliest life forms on earth would remain that kind of life with only normal variation and could never evolve into other kinds of life.I think when I mention normal variation in reproduction it is confusing,yet I don't see why because we see variation amongst the different kinds of life. Like cats for example we see lions,tigers,cougars,leapards,cheetahs,panthers,lynx,etc and even if some new kind of cat appeared like a mix breed,it would still be a cat and amongst that kind of life. We see normal variation amongst cats and all other kinds of life and I don't think of this as evolving.

ACB,

In one sense, Evolve means "change over time".

So, those are things that have evolved.

The problem is, if since we can see certain kinds of evolution, does that mean that we should assume evolution on a much larger scale(single cell to man, or whatever) is necessarily true?

I'm not so sure,it seems to be giving a little too much benefit of the doubt. Here is why,It might seem because we have been so drenched in our world that has had the ToE pushed onto us as true science,but would we really say evolution is just "change over time" had the ToE never became the scientific theory it has? I'm not so sure we would see it as change over time.It is just really reproduction and the variety it produces.I admit there is change but mainly only if a new kind of life is produced,like amongst cats a Liger for example,is that just change over time? Or just what reproduction produced?

Ah, a "new kind of life". Now what might a new kind of life be?

This may help reveal where some of your misunderstanding is.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote: Audie,

I see ACB's point. There really aren't a whole lot of people here that don't agree that life evolves. But what ACB is talking about is life evolving from the first life forms on earth, to human life.

He's asking for evidence regarding that.

That is another very good point except that I'm not sure I agree that normal variation amongst the different kinds of life is life evolving. But yes based on the evidence the earliest life forms on earth would remain that kind of life with only normal variation and could never evolve into other kinds of life.I think when I mention normal variation in reproduction it is confusing,yet I don't see why because we see variation amongst the different kinds of life. Like cats for example we see lions,tigers,cougars,leapards,cheetahs,panthers,lynx,etc and even if some new kind of cat appeared like a mix breed,it would still be a cat and amongst that kind of life. We see normal variation amongst cats and all other kinds of life and I don't think of this as evolving.

ACB,

In one sense, Evolve means "change over time".

So, those are things that have evolved.

The problem is, if since we can see certain kinds of evolution, does that mean that we should assume evolution on a much larger scale(single cell to man, or whatever) is necessarily true?

I'm not so sure,it seems to be giving a little too much benefit of the doubt. Here is why,It might seem because we have been so drenched in our world that has had the ToE pushed onto us as true science,but would we really say evolution is just "change over time" had the ToE never became the scientific theory it has? I'm not so sure we would see it as change over time.It is just really reproduction and the variety it produces.I admit there is change but mainly only if a new kind of life is produced,like amongst cats a Liger for example,is that just change over time? Or just what reproduction produced?

Ah, a "new kind of life". Now what might a new kind of life be?

This may help reveal where some of your misunderstanding is.

Male and female cat = cat,is that now evolution?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
That is another very good point except that I'm not sure I agree that normal variation amongst the different kinds of life is life evolving. But yes based on the evidence the earliest life forms on earth would remain that kind of life with only normal variation and could never evolve into other kinds of life.I think when I mention normal variation in reproduction it is confusing,yet I don't see why because we see variation amongst the different kinds of life. Like cats for example we see lions,tigers,cougars,leapards,cheetahs,panthers,lynx,etc and even if some new kind of cat appeared like a mix breed,it would still be a cat and amongst that kind of life. We see normal variation amongst cats and all other kinds of life and I don't think of this as evolving.

ACB,

In one sense, Evolve means "change over time".

So, those are things that have evolved.

The problem is, if since we can see certain kinds of evolution, does that mean that we should assume evolution on a much larger scale(single cell to man, or whatever) is necessarily true?

I'm not so sure,it seems to be giving a little too much benefit of the doubt. Here is why,It might seem because we have been so drenched in our world that has had the ToE pushed onto us as true science,but would we really say evolution is just "change over time" had the ToE never became the scientific theory it has? I'm not so sure we would see it as change over time.It is just really reproduction and the variety it produces.I admit there is change but mainly only if a new kind of life is produced,like amongst cats a Liger for example,is that just change over time? Or just what reproduction produced?

Ah, a "new kind of life". Now what might a new kind of life be?

This may help reveal where some of your misunderstanding is.

Male and female cat = cat,is that now evolution?

Do you really have such problems understanding what you resd?



I ask you a simple question, what you mean by " a new kind of life".

You ask as silly q. about cats.

Can you do better than that?

to differentiate between macro and micro evolution is at now, best an argument from ignorance. There's evidence after evidence. But to most Christians it's ez to reject it because they are looking for the wrong evidence. The famous crocaduck comes to mind and other examples. That is what is being expected, and thus the strawman is defeated.

neo-x wrote:to differentiate between macro and micro evolution is at now, best an argument from ignorance. There's evidence after evidence. But to most Christians it's ez to reject it because they are looking for the wrong evidence. The famous crocaduck comes to mind and other examples. That is what is being expected, and thus the strawman is defeated.

I have been hoping to get some specific ideas of what the creationists
think would be necessary for an organ or species to be ""transitional".

Somehow "fully formed" is part of it.

"Half a wing" is one idea.

Crochet came closest so far, with her comment on gills magically disappearing
to be replaced by lungs.

Not so much looking at the wrong evodence, but false expectations based on
major misunderdtanding of what relatively little they know of the subject.

"A virus is still a virus". I think this leads to the heart of at least one confusion that besets creationists. Genesis cheerfully announces that God made various organisms "after their kind" but is very unscientific about what is meant by a "kind". Answersingenesis says "at the level of family and possibly order ... On rare occasions, a kind may be equivalent to the genus or species levels." Bit of bet-hedging going on there if you ask me. That wonderful ark in Kentucky is supposed to have carried "about 1,500" different kinds, which, given that there are well over that number of orders in the animal kingdom, must include at least some kinds at the level of classes or higher.

Abelcainsbrother lists these as all being of the same "kind" and says they are all examples of "normal variation": Panthera leo, Panthera tigris, Panthera pardus, Puma concolor, Acinonyx jubatus, Lynx lynx, to which we could no doubt add various other "cats" such as Felis catus, Felis sylvestris and, I dare say, the sabre-toothed tiger as well. Including other "cats", this appears to place the "cat" kind at the level of the family. They're all cats, and only differ from each other "normally."

Well, here, irrefutably according to abelcainsbrother, is proof - not just evidence but proof - that the evolution of separate species is all part of the "normal variation" he admits - indeed, insists on. Whereas various hybrids are possible between members of the same genus, resulting in ligers and tigons, interbreeding is certainly not possible between, say, a cheetah and a lynx, which are in different genera.

So at last abelcainsbrother will admit that speciation is proved.