Page 37 of 64
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:40 pm
by abelcainsbrother
Kenny wrote:abelcainsbrother wrote:Kenny wrote:abelcainsbrother wrote:Audie for some reason acts like science welcomes questioning and even criticism of evolution in the scientific community and I know she is going to ignore this example of what happens when you question or criticize or don't go along with scientific consensus evolution dogma.If you do these are the things that happen to you even if you are a biologist.
You are considered a scientific heretic!
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... mysteries/
You are banned!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kAuxXvNVhgA
Science does not allow questioning evolution scientific dogma even when you are an evolutionist,it makes no difference if you stray too far from evolution dogma you are considered a scientific heretic and banned from even being heard.
Science has a rich history of allowing once believed theories to become obsolete and discarded after proven wrong. Why do you feel an exception is being made for evolution?
Ken
There are many reasons but off the top of my head the Mito-Eve theory tells me they refuse to let go of the idea life evolves.
What evidence points to this theory and how does it show life does not evolve?
Ken
No it tells me that they refuse to give up on the idea life evolves.Basically they discovered man is unique compared to primates,neanderthal and apes and apes are more like the primates were than man,but they still push on anyway by coming up with a new theory.
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:41 pm
by Kenny
abelcainsbrother wrote:Kenny wrote:abelcainsbrother wrote:Kenny wrote:abelcainsbrother wrote:Audie for some reason acts like science welcomes questioning and even criticism of evolution in the scientific community and I know she is going to ignore this example of what happens when you question or criticize or don't go along with scientific consensus evolution dogma.If you do these are the things that happen to you even if you are a biologist.
You are considered a scientific heretic!
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... mysteries/
You are banned!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kAuxXvNVhgA
Science does not allow questioning evolution scientific dogma even when you are an evolutionist,it makes no difference if you stray too far from evolution dogma you are considered a scientific heretic and banned from even being heard.
Science has a rich history of allowing once believed theories to become obsolete and discarded after proven wrong. Why do you feel an exception is being made for evolution?
Ken
There are many reasons but off the top of my head the Mito-Eve theory tells me they refuse to let go of the idea life evolves.
What evidence points to this theory and how does it show life does not evolve?
Ken
No it tells me that they refuse to give up on the idea life evolves.Basically they discovered man is unique compared to primates,neanderthal and apes and apes are more like the primates were than man,but they still push on anyway by coming up with a new theory.
Perhaps if Evolution were proven wrong, they would give up on the theory like they did countless others in the past.
Ken
PS how often have religions given up on claims once proven wrong?
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:48 pm
by Kurieuo
Are you likening Evolution akin to religion?
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:04 pm
by Kenny
Kurieuo wrote:Are you likening Evolution akin to religion?
No; he appeared to be comparing science to religion; I was pointing out the differences.
Ken
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:07 pm
by abelcainsbrother
Kenny wrote:abelcainsbrother wrote:]
abelcainsbrother wrote:Kenny wrote:abelcainsbrother wrote:Audie for some reason acts like science welcomes questioning and even criticism of evolution in the scientific community and I know she is going to ignore this example of what happens when you question or criticize or don't go along with scientific consensus evolution dogma.If you do these are the things that happen to you even if you are a biologist.
You are considered a scientific heretic!
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... mysteries/
You are banned!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kAuxXvNVhgA
Science does not allow questioning evolution scientific dogma even when you are an evolutionist,it makes no difference if you stray too far from evolution dogma you are considered a scientific heretic and banned from even being heard.
Science has a rich history of allowing once believed theories to become obsolete and discarded after proven wrong. Why do you feel an exception is being made for evolution?
Ken
There are many reasons but off the top of my head the Mito-Eve theory tells me they refuse to let go of the idea life evolves.
What evidence points to this theory and how does it show life does not evolve?
Ken
No it tells me that they refuse to give up on the idea life evolves.Basically they discovered man is unique compared to primates,neanderthal and apes and apes are more like the primates were than man,but they still push on anyway by coming up with a new theory.
Perhaps if Evolution were proven wrong, they would give up on the theory like they did countless others in the past.
Ken
PS how often have religions given up on claims once proven wrong?[/quote]
I would like to know why you seem to trust them so much?I mean I already showed you what kind of evidence they present as evidence life evolves and explained why it is just variations in reproduction or adaptation they are using as evidence.So based on this kind of lying evidence how can you trust them so much?I mean you know the insects do not evolve even after they have adapted to survive the pesticide,it is the same insect and they tell you it evolved and you believe them.It is the same with every piece of evidence they present as evidence,notice it never evolves so stop believing them.
Christians have been wrong before,all man has, whether he believed in God or not.Religion has nothing to do with it.Man has been wrong many times in the past I mean there are wolves in sheep clothing today preaching a false version of God's word and they are wrong.
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:35 pm
by Kurieuo
Kenny wrote:Kurieuo wrote:Are you likening Evolution akin to religion?
No; he appeared to be comparing science to religion; I was pointing out the differences.
Ken
Oh, ok.
*Kurieuo steps backward and disappears into the background*
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 1:06 am
by bippy123
Ken[/quote]
I don't rationalize it I go be evidence.Does life evolve or not,what does the evidence show?It shows either life adapting that never evolves or variations in reproduction with no life evolving.Don't rationalize,that is another word for assume,instead go by the evidence.You know the insects adapt to survive the pesticide but do not evolve and yet you somehow assume they did.Why?[/quote]
How do you know the insects adapted instead of evolved? Did you do the test to see it was adaption and not evolution? The people who did the test said it was evolution; how do you know they were lying? Do you even know the difference between adaption and evolution?
Ken[/quote]
Kenny, the fruit fly experiment was a massive failure for make evolution and we have never seen one case of macroevolution . Lens kind also tried it with his bacteria.
Don't you think that someth I need like this should be empirically observable for these biologists to call evolution a scientific fact?
I find it amazing that you would trust an opinion over empirically observed scientific fact.
What we do observe in animals is a seemingly inherited type of limit.
No matter how much we try dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats. Sure we can interbreed small dogs with bigger dogs they always stay dogs.
As a person who believes in science don't you think that you should demand more then opinions?
Would you believe in ghosts if a Scientist told u that they were real? Or that a majority of scientists believed in them or would u ask for empirical proof of them. I'm confused Kenny , but isn't this the very definition of blind faith?
I sure haven't seen enough to warrant a belief in naturalistic macroevolution.
What I see is programming.
Now whether it was front loaded as Rick suggested (which is plausible ) or added at different times or created anew, those are all very interesting questions.
But I see nothing that warrants me calling naturalistic macroevolution a scientific fact
And no one has shown it to me yet.
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 1:09 am
by bippy123
Abel that's just it , we don't need to prove evolution wrong. It is evolutionists that are calling it Scientific fact and it they that need to prove it is scientific fact . The onus is on the one making the positive claim. This is especially more true in science .
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:20 am
by abelcainsbrother
bippy123 wrote:Abel that's just it , we don't need to prove evolution wrong. It is evolutionists that are calling it Scientific fact and it they that need to prove it is scientific fact . The onus is on the one making the positive claim. This is especially more true in science .
Bippy the indoctrination strong hold is hard to break through.It is amazing to me how so many people can deny what their evidence shows,it proves and shows itself life does not evolve.It is pure make-believe that life evolves.Too many people make fun of people who believe the bible by faith yet evolutionists believe life evolves based on not one scientist ever demonstrating it does.It shows people listen to them tell them it evolved and after so long of hearing it they believe it despite what their evidence shows.Evidence for life evolving is reproduction and adaptation and it fools so many people.
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:32 am
by abelcainsbrother
I was debating an atheist evolutionist earlier somewhere else and he told me the lizard the lizards produced was a different kind of lizard.I said how so? It is normal for lizards to produce a lizard.He then gets angry and starts saying I'm a coward.
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:16 am
by neo-x
bippy123 wrote:Abel that's just it , we don't need to prove evolution wrong. It is evolutionists that are calling it Scientific fact and it they that need to prove it is scientific fact . The onus is on the one making the positive claim. This is especially more true in science .
Dear Bippy, we do need to prove evolution wrong if we are going to claim its wrong. There is a reason why that has not been the case so far, because no one has successfully shown evidence which contradicts evolution. Disapproving evolution in theory is very simple, all anyone has to do is to show evidence which goes against the evolutionary model and there you will have it. But the problem is all evidence points to evolution not against it. If we ever find bunnies in the cretaceous, yup that will be a blow to the evolutionary model, but we haven't.
What I have mostly seen are philosophical and theological objections to evolution by Christians, which is understandable. No one has shown though why we must say that evolution is wrong. For that we need evidence to counter the evidence we currently have for evolution.
One can only say, they don't BELIEVE in evolution, for the sake of wording convenience but one can't say evolution is wrong because they have a theological or philosophical objection to it. To properly say evolution is wrong, you don't need to say anything at all, show evidence which contradicts the model and then it can be examined or reevaluated.
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:17 am
by Audie
Kurieuo wrote:I'm not sure what you are asking precisely, but...
"Morphic resonance" is an interesting idea, along with that recent study into NDEs and there being a strong undercurrent in science that perhaps it has been unnecessarily restricted to a material world.
Perhaps there are other properties in the world, and theorems yet to be discovered which many have to this time hastily ruled out because they don't have a physical basis.
Just like we have particles in the physical world, perhaps what these things allude to (as with consciousness) are a different set of laws or "particles" at work in the fabric of our natural world.
Maybe one day scientists will be discussing the "theory of telos" inherent in the natural fabric of our world, which necessarily causes both the physical and consciousness to bubble out.
Of course to me, such evidences God, but then there are many bright minds who don't believe in God who I see trying to explain such things already in a different way.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "creoheroes", but when I read this and similar language I see nostrils.
There have been many renown creation-believing scientists throughout time: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal
Then Georges Lemaitre recently discussed elsewhere. And what of your father-in-law, a Catholic / PhD geologist.
Given apparently 50% of scientists believe in God or some higher being, then I'm sure you'd have many "creoheroes".
In the world of science though, who cares? What's it got to do with anything.
Are you trying to make a statement about one's intellect and belief in creation? I don't know the point.
If we're going to go that end, then I'm happy to make a mockery of many Atheists as I once delighted of doing in the past.
But, for what reason? There are all sorts on both sides, and it doesn't really matter to truth who has the better minds.
Re: in science you get human nature indeed.
Often influencing the scientific process that is grounded in philosophical assumptions.
So what do I say?
I'm not sure what you want me to say, but I suppose everything previous.
Start with the thing about "higher education mocks". Ever encounter such a thing? A pervasive pattern?
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:47 am
by Kurieuo
Audie wrote:Start with the thing about "higher education mocks". Ever encounter such a thing? A pervasive pattern?
In my own experience? I've had two instances that I can remember during my higher education.
1) During IT degree, the lecturer during AI used an example of the Genesis creation. And in doing so noted that the "days" could just be phases of creation. This was a positive spin in my opinion on Scripture. He must have been Christian I suppose.
2) During my Theology Grad-Dip, pretty much all lecturers (except Catholic side) were openly hostile to Scripture. My studies crossed Uniting, Anglican and Catholic campuses. I was marked down even because I, unbeknown to myself, provided non-contradictory interpretation of Scripture which contradicted their acceptance of a blatant error.
So, based on those two examples, go figure why it was mocked in theology, whereas it wasn't in my other non-related studies.
Those who mock it though, are entitled to their opinions. But, I fail to see what relevance such beliefs have to much of higher education.
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:52 am
by Kurieuo
PS. I just re-read your post to me before last and seriously somehow missed entirely your question to me at the start re: higher education mocking.
Maybe I just didn't understand where it was coming from as I wasn't involved in the discussion so just ignored it. I don't know. Sorry.
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 5:29 am
by Kenny
abelcainsbrother wrote:
I would like to know why you seem to trust them so much?I mean I already showed you what kind of evidence they present as evidence life evolves
No you did not! I asked you specific questions and you ignored my question and went on to something else. I am still waiting for that response.
abelcainsbrother wrote: and explained why it is just variations in reproduction or adaptation they are using as evidence.
Really? I am going to ask you the same question again! How do you know in the example I gave you about insects and plants evolving to pesticides, that it was just variations of adapting and not actually evolution? Were you there during the experiment? They said it was evolution; how do you know they were lying? Do you even know the difference between evolution and adaption?
Try to answer the question this time; if you choose not to please don't return some other day claiming you did answer the question.