Evidence for God from Science

Nessa wrote:[

Audie is more cryptic and ambiguous than incoherent I think

I've been down with a touch of enigmiasis.

With ardy, obtusality is chronic with acute episodes.

As for ambiguous, that is a matter of interpretation.

abelcainsbrother wrote:l,we still only get only kinds producing after their kind.

And nobody ever claims any different, you are just making a big deal of restating the obvious.

Equally obvious is that no offspring is identical to the parents.

Also obvious, you deny that an accumulation of small changes adds up to big changes.

AND, obvious to painfully obvious, you talk about "kind" but have no idea what that actually means. AKA dont know what you are talking about.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I haven't wriggled out.

Well, I think you did. Your subsequent six comments not only didn't mention my syllogism at all, but merely reiterated your usual collection of unjustified assertions and then wandered off into Pakicetus. That's wrigglin' in my book.

However, moving on:

Movin' on in this case means, in this case, off t he squirrel goes thro' the treetops, where no pursuit could ever catch it.

I think you need to stick with it.

Likewise, I still have not gotten any sanity on the subject of the polar ice
surviving a world wide flood.

So far, there have been three different ideas:

First, he said the ice floated, sure; but it stayed intact, merely rotated in the circumpolar current, did not break apart, and as the water receded, it settled back down.

Precisely in place, I ask? That was a bit thick, even for him.

Then it was that the ice is stuck down, didnt float at all.

Possibly the problem of the millions of tons buoyancy and the observed fact that glaciers are not stuck down got half way through to him.

Because now the story is that the top half of the ice floated, leaving the bottom half, ah, stuck down still. THEN the top half, having floated about
for a year, settled back down, in place.

IF there had been a world wide flood, then the polar ice would have floated off, and so would the mountain glaciers. No glacial ice anywhere would be older than the date of the flood.

This is an incredibly simple thing to understand.

But extremely hard, if not impossible for the sealed mind utterly committed to a fantasy story that does not allow for any evidence to affect it.

Stick with the speciation thing! You may get some new facts as amazing as the layer cake polar ice, and the stuck-down glaciers.

The BIG difference is I gave evidence that you rejected. You just deny evidence I give while having none for what you believe.That is quite easy to do.I'm not denying evidence that a person presents.

You are exactly denying the evidence and the physics too. You've come up with three different excuses so far for not admitting that the ice disproves flood.

The "evidence" that the ice is stuck down is not evidence. it is phony baloney. Glaciers move. They are not stuck down.

And beyond that it is phony, it would not work if it were true. As I explained
and you cannot deny that immense buoyancy working against the weak adhesion of frost on ice.

Your latest is some vague reference to ice at some level being "different".

You have presented zero to support your story about the ice, other than contradictory made up stories about the ice either being stuck down or floating,but settling back just so.

As for the bit about "dust', the temperature at the bottom of a glacier, and this so called "different" ice, there may be some place you got this information.

There are thermal readings from glaciers, every layer of ice is different from every other, and, all contain some dust.


Now, back to your denial of the obvious:

Ice floats,
Polar ice is not stuck down.
In a world wide flood, the ice would float.
When it floated, it would drift about, break up and melt.
The ice is still there.

What is your excuse this time? You had three impossible stories so far, any new ones?

I'm not discussing the flood now. I'm discussing evolution.But I'm getting kind of tired of providing real evidence that you explain away,while you present no evidence for what you believe. It is one-sided.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Now you are wriggling out.What do you mean when you say you don't know what this means? You brought up speciation and it is based on not being able to breed,Google it.

Your grammar was as usual so incoherent as to make your inquiry unintelligible, but as you saw, I explained what I thought you might mean in considerable detail. No wriggling there.

So it is important to evolution when life can no longer breed,this is the difference between micro and macroevolution. But the problem you keep overlooking is that only normal variation amongst populations exists.

Really, abelcainsbrother, can't you see how unintelligible this is? I 'overlook a problem'. How utterly dishonest. I have been trying to solve this 'problem' with the greatest diligence. Your definition of a "kind" includes numerous difference species, members of which cannot interbreed, whereas a month or so ago you spent many days insisting that speciation wasn't possible. Your definition of 'normal variation' has widened from the species to the family. By the end of next year it I've no doubt it will have widened to include whole kingdoms.

Now evolutionists have named it micro-evolution. I don't like to call it micro-evolution because it assumes life is evolving just because there is variation amongst populations,when it really is'nt evolving at all,it is really just reproduction.

Not exact reproduction, I'm sure you'll agree. No creature is identical to its parents. This is partially due to the shuffling of DNA brought about by sex, but also due to mutations. And that's what evolution is: "just reproduction" - with minor modification.

The problem that evolutionists have is that not breeding only still produces the exact same thing that happens when they can breed

Incoherent. What on earth does it mean?

It cannot lead to one kind of life changing eventually into a different kind of life.

The usual unsupported and unjustified assertion.

Like for instance Pakecetus evolving into a whale,because amongst Pakicetus the same applies to all populations just normal variation amongst it's population that means it could never become a different kind of life and become a whale.

No. Normal variation among the family of Pakicetus included the development of the family of Ambulocetus, and normal variation of that included the development of Kutchicetus and so on. Although this is only a hypothesis, it is well supported by the evidence.

This means how certain cats are considered a different genera than other cats cannot really be true because it is based on the false assumption life evolves,which doesn't happen.

Cats cannot belong to different genera? Do you really think that? Do you think they all belong one one single genus?

Cats are cats and always will be.It really doesn't matter if certain cats are in a different genera,they are still cats.

So they can belong to different genera. I wish you'd make up your mind.

You cannot really claim normal variation produced a cat in a different genera,because it is just normal variation amongst that population and is still a cat.

No, my mistake; they cannot belong to different genera.

It proves me right and evolution wrong.

Proof requires more than unintelligible denial of contrary opinion.

You cannot claim it is macroevolution at all and you cannot claim meer cats and hyaenas evolved from cats.

I can. I do.

No what you are asserting is an unsupported assertion not backed up by evidence. [et seq]

This is so transparently untrue that I'm tempted to accuse you of deliberate lies, but I suspect you really don't understand the nature of scientific discussion, so I won't.

There were birds in the former world too and they lived in a totally different world with dinosaurs,that world perished completely though and so any life that lived in the former world has nothing to do with the life in this world.

Guesswork.

abelcainsbrother wrote:You're preaching evolution and expect us to just believe you without evidence. [et seq]

I'm sorry, abelcainsbrother but by now this must surely count as a deliberate lie. However, although utterly dishonest I think we can forgive you because it is very apparent to me that the person you most earnestly want to deceive is yourself. With this in mind I hope you'll forgive me if I withdraw from further discussion with you until some sense of rationality returns.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:l,we still only get only kinds producing after their kind.

And nobody ever claims any different, you are just making a big deal of restating the obvious.

Equally obvious is that no offspring is identical to the parents.

Also obvious, you deny that an accumulation of small changes adds up to big changes.

AND, obvious to painfully obvious, you talk about "kind" but have no idea what that actually means. AKA dont know what you are talking about.

We must go by evidence and there is no evidence in evolution science that demonstrates small changes lead to big changes and this is my point.We only have reproduction. I'm not implying all life are identical twins of the same kind at all. I do not deny variation but this normal variation is used for evidence for evolution and this is the problem,it covers everything to evolution.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

hughfarey wrote:Well, I think you did. Your subsequent six comments not only didn't mention my syllogism at all, but merely reiterated your usual collection of unjustified assertions and then wandered off into Pakicetus. That's wrigglin' in my book.

However, moving on:

Movin' on in this case means, in this case, off t he squirrel goes thro' the treetops, where no pursuit could ever catch it.

I think you need to stick with it.

Likewise, I still have not gotten any sanity on the subject of the polar ice
surviving a world wide flood.

So far, there have been three different ideas:

First, he said the ice floated, sure; but it stayed intact, merely rotated in the circumpolar current, did not break apart, and as the water receded, it settled back down.

Precisely in place, I ask? That was a bit thick, even for him.

Then it was that the ice is stuck down, didnt float at all.

Possibly the problem of the millions of tons buoyancy and the observed fact that glaciers are not stuck down got half way through to him.

Because now the story is that the top half of the ice floated, leaving the bottom half, ah, stuck down still. THEN the top half, having floated about
for a year, settled back down, in place.

IF there had been a world wide flood, then the polar ice would have floated off, and so would the mountain glaciers. No glacial ice anywhere would be older than the date of the flood.

This is an incredibly simple thing to understand.

But extremely hard, if not impossible for the sealed mind utterly committed to a fantasy story that does not allow for any evidence to affect it.

Stick with the speciation thing! You may get some new facts as amazing as the layer cake polar ice, and the stuck-down glaciers.

The BIG difference is I gave evidence that you rejected. You just deny evidence I give while having none for what you believe.That is quite easy to do.I'm not denying evidence that a person presents.

You are exactly denying the evidence and the physics too. You've come up with three different excuses so far for not admitting that the ice disproves flood.

The "evidence" that the ice is stuck down is not evidence. it is phony baloney. Glaciers move. They are not stuck down.

And beyond that it is phony, it would not work if it were true. As I explained
and you cannot deny that immense buoyancy working against the weak adhesion of frost on ice.

Your latest is some vague reference to ice at some level being "different".

You have presented zero to support your story about the ice, other than contradictory made up stories about the ice either being stuck down or floating,but settling back just so.

As for the bit about "dust', the temperature at the bottom of a glacier, and this so called "different" ice, there may be some place you got this information.

There are thermal readings from glaciers, every layer of ice is different from every other, and, all contain some dust.


Now, back to your denial of the obvious:

Ice floats,
Polar ice is not stuck down.
In a world wide flood, the ice would float.
When it floated, it would drift about, break up and melt.
The ice is still there.

What is your excuse this time? You had three impossible stories so far, any new ones?

I'm not discussing the flood now. I'm discussing evolution.But I'm getting kind of tired of providing real evidence that you explain away,while you present no evidence for what you believe. It is one-sided.

If you ever figure out that you have that exactly backwards, you will have made great progress.

HInt: how likely is it, really, that you know more than I do about biology and geology? And once you have thought about that, how likely that you know more than any scientist on earth? Seriously?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:l,we still only get only kinds producing after their kind.

And nobody ever claims any different, you are just making a big deal of restating the obvious.

Equally obvious is that no offspring is identical to the parents.

Also obvious, you deny that an accumulation of small changes adds up to big changes.

AND, obvious to painfully obvious, you talk about "kind" but have no idea what that actually means. AKA dont know what you are talking about.

We must go by evidence and there is no evidence in evolution science that demonstrates small changes lead to big changes and this is my point.We only have reproduction. I'm not implying all life are identical twins of the same kind at all. I do not deny variation but this normal variation is used for evidence for evolution and this is the problem,it covers everything to evolution.

As another said: (hint: why do so many see this in you?)

I'm sorry, abelcainsbrother but by now this must surely count as a deliberate lie. However, although utterly dishonest I think we can forgive you because it is very apparent to me that the person you most earnestly want to deceive is yourself. With this in mind I hope you'll forgive me if I withdraw from further discussion with you until some sense of rationality returns.

As for evidence, you have provided abundant evidence for one thing at least:

Your nearly infinite capacity for self deception.

Bye for now, hope you will get better.

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Now you are wriggling out.What do you mean when you say you don't know what this means? You brought up speciation and it is based on not being able to breed,Google it.

Your grammar was as usual so incoherent as to make your inquiry unintelligible, but as you saw, I explained what I thought you might mean in considerable detail. No wriggling there.

So it is important to evolution when life can no longer breed,this is the difference between micro and macroevolution. But the problem you keep overlooking is that only normal variation amongst populations exists.

Really, abelcainsbrother, can't you see how unintelligible this is? I 'overlook a problem'. How utterly dishonest. I have been trying to solve this 'problem' with the greatest diligence. Your definition of a "kind" includes numerous difference species, members of which cannot interbreed, whereas a month or so ago you spent many days insisting that speciation wasn't possible. Your definition of 'normal variation' has widened from the species to the family. By the end of next year it I've no doubt it will have widened to include whole kingdoms.

Now evolutionists have named it micro-evolution. I don't like to call it micro-evolution because it assumes life is evolving just because there is variation amongst populations,when it really is'nt evolving at all,it is really just reproduction.

Not exact reproduction, I'm sure you'll agree. No creature is identical to its parents. This is partially due to the shuffling of DNA brought about by sex, but also due to mutations. And that's what evolution is: "just reproduction" - with minor modification.

The problem that evolutionists have is that not breeding only still produces the exact same thing that happens when they can breed

Incoherent. What on earth does it mean?

It cannot lead to one kind of life changing eventually into a different kind of life.

The usual unsupported and unjustified assertion.

Like for instance Pakecetus evolving into a whale,because amongst Pakicetus the same applies to all populations just normal variation amongst it's population that means it could never become a different kind of life and become a whale.

No. Normal variation among the family of Pakicetus included the development of the family of Ambulocetus, and normal variation of that included the development of Kutchicetus and so on. Although this is only a hypothesis, it is well supported by the evidence.

This means how certain cats are considered a different genera than other cats cannot really be true because it is based on the false assumption life evolves,which doesn't happen.

Cats cannot belong to different genera? Do you really think that? Do you think they all belong one one single genus?

Cats are cats and always will be.It really doesn't matter if certain cats are in a different genera,they are still cats.

So they can belong to different genera. I wish you'd make up your mind.

You cannot really claim normal variation produced a cat in a different genera,because it is just normal variation amongst that population and is still a cat.

No, my mistake; they cannot belong to different genera.

It proves me right and evolution wrong.

Proof requires more than unintelligible denial of contrary opinion.

You cannot claim it is macroevolution at all and you cannot claim meer cats and hyaenas evolved from cats.

I can. I do.

No what you are asserting is an unsupported assertion not backed up by evidence. [et seq]

This is so transparently untrue that I'm tempted to accuse you of deliberate lies, but I suspect you really don't understand the nature of scientific discussion, so I won't.

There were birds in the former world too and they lived in a totally different world with dinosaurs,that world perished completely though and so any life that lived in the former world has nothing to do with the life in this world.

Guesswork.

abelcainsbrother wrote:You're preaching evolution and expect us to just believe you without evidence. [et seq]

I'm sorry, abelcainsbrother but by now this must surely count as a deliberate lie. However, although utterly dishonest I think we can forgive you because it is very apparent to me that the person you most earnestly want to deceive is yourself. With this in mind I hope you'll forgive me if I withdraw from further discussion with you until some sense of rationality returns.

Nope! You are watering down evolution big time to claim evolution is reproduction,only micro-evolution is reproduction. Evolution is one kind of a population of life evolving over time into other kinds of life.So because I don't just believe you preach evolution without providing evidence you are mad? It is rare that I can't provide evidence behind what I believe,it might get explained away,but I back myself up with evidence. I've been begging to get into the evidence for evolution,but all I get is preaching. Preaching is fine,but when we are discussing its validity evidence is important.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:l,we still only get only kinds producing after their kind.

And nobody ever claims any different, you are just making a big deal of restating the obvious.

Equally obvious is that no offspring is identical to the parents.

Also obvious, you deny that an accumulation of small changes adds up to big changes.

AND, obvious to painfully obvious, you talk about "kind" but have no idea what that actually means. AKA dont know what you are talking about.

We must go by evidence and there is no evidence in evolution science that demonstrates small changes lead to big changes and this is my point.We only have reproduction. I'm not implying all life are identical twins of the same kind at all. I do not deny variation but this normal variation is used for evidence for evolution and this is the problem,it covers everything to evolution.

As another said: (hint: why do so many see this in you?)

I'm sorry, abelcainsbrother but by now this must surely count as a deliberate lie. However, although utterly dishonest I think we can forgive you because it is very apparent to me that the person you most earnestly want to deceive is yourself. With this in mind I hope you'll forgive me if I withdraw from further discussion with you until some sense of rationality returns.

As for evidence, you have provided abundant evidence for one thing at least:

Your nearly infinite capacity for self deception.

Bye for now, hope you will get better.

Your insults is to cover up for your lack of argument. It is easy to do. I don't do insults because I have the truth on my side.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:
Movin' on in this case means, in this case, off t he squirrel goes thro' the treetops, where no pursuit could ever catch it.

I think you need to stick with it.

Likewise, I still have not gotten any sanity on the subject of the polar ice
surviving a world wide flood.

So far, there have been three different ideas:

First, he said the ice floated, sure; but it stayed intact, merely rotated in the circumpolar current, did not break apart, and as the water receded, it settled back down.

Precisely in place, I ask? That was a bit thick, even for him.

Then it was that the ice is stuck down, didnt float at all.

Possibly the problem of the millions of tons buoyancy and the observed fact that glaciers are not stuck down got half way through to him.

Because now the story is that the top half of the ice floated, leaving the bottom half, ah, stuck down still. THEN the top half, having floated about
for a year, settled back down, in place.

IF there had been a world wide flood, then the polar ice would have floated off, and so would the mountain glaciers. No glacial ice anywhere would be older than the date of the flood.

This is an incredibly simple thing to understand.

But extremely hard, if not impossible for the sealed mind utterly committed to a fantasy story that does not allow for any evidence to affect it.

Stick with the speciation thing! You may get some new facts as amazing as the layer cake polar ice, and the stuck-down glaciers.

The BIG difference is I gave evidence that you rejected. You just deny evidence I give while having none for what you believe.That is quite easy to do.I'm not denying evidence that a person presents.

You are exactly denying the evidence and the physics too. You've come up with three different excuses so far for not admitting that the ice disproves flood.

The "evidence" that the ice is stuck down is not evidence. it is phony baloney. Glaciers move. They are not stuck down.

And beyond that it is phony, it would not work if it were true. As I explained
and you cannot deny that immense buoyancy working against the weak adhesion of frost on ice.

Your latest is some vague reference to ice at some level being "different".

You have presented zero to support your story about the ice, other than contradictory made up stories about the ice either being stuck down or floating,but settling back just so.

As for the bit about "dust', the temperature at the bottom of a glacier, and this so called "different" ice, there may be some place you got this information.

There are thermal readings from glaciers, every layer of ice is different from every other, and, all contain some dust.


Now, back to your denial of the obvious:

Ice floats,
Polar ice is not stuck down.
In a world wide flood, the ice would float.
When it floated, it would drift about, break up and melt.
The ice is still there.

What is your excuse this time? You had three impossible stories so far, any new ones?

I'm not discussing the flood now. I'm discussing evolution.But I'm getting kind of tired of providing real evidence that you explain away,while you present no evidence for what you believe. It is one-sided.

If you ever figure out that you have that exactly backwards, you will have made great progress.

HInt: how likely is it, really, that you know more than I do about biology and geology? And once you have thought about that, how likely that you know more than any scientist on earth? Seriously?

Evidence will outshine anything scientists have to say or explain.If they are wrong? Being able to explain it well won't make them right. The truth will always outshine for those who value truth. Nonsense is nonsense no matter who might say it,and how well they say it.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:l,we still only get only kinds producing after their kind.

And nobody ever claims any different, you are just making a big deal of restating the obvious.

Equally obvious is that no offspring is identical to the parents.

Also obvious, you deny that an accumulation of small changes adds up to big changes.

AND, obvious to painfully obvious, you talk about "kind" but have no idea what that actually means. AKA dont know what you are talking about.

We must go by evidence and there is no evidence in evolution science that demonstrates small changes lead to big changes and this is my point.We only have reproduction. I'm not implying all life are identical twins of the same kind at all. I do not deny variation but this normal variation is used for evidence for evolution and this is the problem,it covers everything to evolution.

As another said: (hint: why do so many see this in you?)

I'm sorry, abelcainsbrother but by now this must surely count as a deliberate lie. However, although utterly dishonest I think we can forgive you because it is very apparent to me that the person you most earnestly want to deceive is yourself. With this in mind I hope you'll forgive me if I withdraw from further discussion with you until some sense of rationality returns.

As for evidence, you have provided abundant evidence for one thing at least:

Your nearly infinite capacity for self deception.

Bye for now, hope you will get better.

Your insults is to cover up for your lack of argument. It is easy to do. I don't do insults because I have the truth on my side.

Again, abe, if you just flip it the other way you'd have something.

You are constantly insulting the integrity of others. "Cover up" is an insult; so is "lack of argument".

Notice how you made up three different ridiculous stories to cover up, yes, correct term, the obvious about ice vs flood.


As for your "truth" hat is merely your belief that reading the bible makes you
infallible.

Now, you are going on ig, so you can display yourself to the others, as you please.

So did someone actually find a "serious problem" with evolution, or can be
assume that, as has been the case for some 150 years now, the latest attempt
to square the circle, ah, cross that out, "disprove" ToE has failed?

Quell surprise on the already seen deja vue all over again.

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Now you are wriggling out.What do you mean when you say you don't know what this means? You brought up speciation and it is based on not being able to breed,Google it.

Your grammar was as usual so incoherent as to make your inquiry unintelligible, but as you saw, I explained what I thought you might mean in considerable detail. No wriggling there.

So it is important to evolution when life can no longer breed,this is the difference between micro and macroevolution. But the problem you keep overlooking is that only normal variation amongst populations exists.

Really, abelcainsbrother, can't you see how unintelligible this is? I 'overlook a problem'. How utterly dishonest. I have been trying to solve this 'problem' with the greatest diligence. Your definition of a "kind" includes numerous difference species, members of which cannot interbreed, whereas a month or so ago you spent many days insisting that speciation wasn't possible. Your definition of 'normal variation' has widened from the species to the family. By the end of next year it I've no doubt it will have widened to include whole kingdoms.

Now evolutionists have named it micro-evolution. I don't like to call it micro-evolution because it assumes life is evolving just because there is variation amongst populations,when it really is'nt evolving at all,it is really just reproduction.

Not exact reproduction, I'm sure you'll agree. No creature is identical to its parents. This is partially due to the shuffling of DNA brought about by sex, but also due to mutations. And that's what evolution is: "just reproduction" - with minor modification.

The problem that evolutionists have is that not breeding only still produces the exact same thing that happens when they can breed

Incoherent. What on earth does it mean?

It cannot lead to one kind of life changing eventually into a different kind of life.

The usual unsupported and unjustified assertion.

Like for instance Pakecetus evolving into a whale,because amongst Pakicetus the same applies to all populations just normal variation amongst it's population that means it could never become a different kind of life and become a whale.

No. Normal variation among the family of Pakicetus included the development of the family of Ambulocetus, and normal variation of that included the development of Kutchicetus and so on. Although this is only a hypothesis, it is well supported by the evidence.

This means how certain cats are considered a different genera than other cats cannot really be true because it is based on the false assumption life evolves,which doesn't happen.

Cats cannot belong to different genera? Do you really think that? Do you think they all belong one one single genus?

Cats are cats and always will be.It really doesn't matter if certain cats are in a different genera,they are still cats.

So they can belong to different genera. I wish you'd make up your mind.

You cannot really claim normal variation produced a cat in a different genera,because it is just normal variation amongst that population and is still a cat.

No, my mistake; they cannot belong to different genera.

It proves me right and evolution wrong.

Proof requires more than unintelligible denial of contrary opinion.

You cannot claim it is macroevolution at all and you cannot claim meer cats and hyaenas evolved from cats.

I can. I do.

No what you are asserting is an unsupported assertion not backed up by evidence. [et seq]

This is so transparently untrue that I'm tempted to accuse you of deliberate lies, but I suspect you really don't understand the nature of scientific discussion, so I won't.

There were birds in the former world too and they lived in a totally different world with dinosaurs,that world perished completely though and so any life that lived in the former world has nothing to do with the life in this world.

Guesswork.

abelcainsbrother wrote:You're preaching evolution and expect us to just believe you without evidence. [et seq]

I'm sorry, abelcainsbrother but by now this must surely count as a deliberate lie. However, although utterly dishonest I think we can forgive you because it is very apparent to me that the person you most earnestly want to deceive is yourself. With this in mind I hope you'll forgive me if I withdraw from further discussion with you until some sense of rationality returns.

You have not explained why speciation matters when it comes to evolution. You are complaining about my grammar in order to avoid the delemna you have when it comes to evolution and why you think macroevolution happened because kinds produced after their kind.You can't seem to realize a cheetah is still a cat even if it cannot breed with other cat genera when you still just have variation amongst the population of cats. This is an example of using normal variation to cover macro too and the cheetah not being able to breed with other genera of cats only leads to more cats. So just like I've explained it does not matter if it can or cannot breed,either way we go you still get cats and not some other kind of life believing it will eventually become some other kind of life. It is all assumption,not backed up by evidence.This is done over and over in evolution science. It is a trick that needs to be exposed.

Salamanders used for evidence shows the exact same thing. We have normal variation and a salamander is produced but they claim macro evolution now because it cannot breed and yet it is still a salamander and only more salamanders are produced. Either way we go we get salamanders and not some other kind of life eventually. This evidence does not even come close to demonstrating life evolves,mutations matter and natural selection is real,instead it proves kinds produce after their kind,just like the bible says.

Nicki wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:What I've said here doesn't necessarily imply tinkering, which really isn't how I'd describe my view but something Audie actually coined. When fleshed out I wouldn't call it tinkering, even if I just went with her on it and played it out a little.

That said, I'm talking of a set of laws to describe the effects of consciousness upon the physical and vice-versa, a world which otherwise seems mechanical. Many scientists will continue puzzling over QM when within a purely mechanical framework, but if there are another set of laws alongside or weaved with the physical, that is consciousness also part of the order, then observer impacting upon outcomes of physical arrangements (eg double slit) aren't that puzzling like you previously described.

Think of what it also does for the biggest criticism against evolution, which is one of order and arrangement, an apparent telos to living beings and way things are arranged. At the universe level, the anthropic principle is a real term coined, not by Theists, but generally accepted that things seem arranged for us. Then there is the Gaia Hypothesis.

If embedded in the fabric of the world is a self regulating consciousness of sorts, then it seems more possible the physical world will self organise, Nature with a capital 'N' really does select. It's not as far out sounding as one might initially think, it in fact seems to be where science hints us towards. Minimally, it shouldn't and can't be ruled out.

I understand what you are saying and I don't necessarily think that it isn't possible. However, I do think it's unlikely and more so that there is no conscience driving it to be the way it is. We probably call it that because we try to look for patterns. It's a very common trait of all life actually.

Following on what Phil and me talked about, when I read the Bible, the focus is so entirely on humans and humans alone that it boggles me when I look up at the sky and think what going out there and why?

The scriptures remotely don't care or focus on evolution or creationism for that matter. The sole focus remains of what Christ did. And then when I see people dragging that same scripture to justify some new theory etc I kind of cringe.

I kind of understand that it's hard to accept that we may not be special at all the way it has always been taught and preached. However, to me the miracle, if I may call it that, lies with in the random. I mean look around and see there is no life for as far as we can look just outside of our little planet.

I think you hold to the view that God sustains all creation/universe at every given moment. I didn't mean to misrepresent, its just that I probably saw you or a conversation where you may have had used the word tinkering, hence I used it. Apologies.

If the yellow stone caldera blows up or a comet hits us or Andromeda collides with the Milky way, what will happen? Certainly nothing like the scriptures have ever said or probably predict. It's that far apart. And therefore I don't really think we need to drag the creator in almost everything we do. To me it's a note back to our own importance and perhaps that's why we ascribe everything with a goal and purpose.

The only way it makes sense to me, is when things go random, where NS works in a way which is really blind chance. That is the only way the universe makes sense. If not then things are really awkward at least that is what I think.

Isn't it possible that God is actually in control of things and wouldn't allow any of those unfortunate cosmic events? Just because they're theoretically possible doesn't mean they're going to happen.

That's just special pleading. They happen all the time in our universe, just like death. Supernova go down, black holes exist, earthquakes hit, Tsunamis hit. Why do you think the events I mentioned can't happen?

Yellow stone erupts every 600000 years on average. Andromeda is on a collision course, the moon is inching away from us, the sun will go out. A comet can hit us anytime, most of the time we won't be able to even see it coming until its too late.

So whats the plan or what the sustanance that we are looking for, or atleast how we define it?

God doesn't have to actively prevent any of those things. He can just know they aren't going to happen on any timescale relevant to His plan. While I grant with neo that we ought to accept randomness as a fundmental aspect of reality (so my arguments elsewhere about nature as fundamentally indeterministic), I don't think we should confuse that with history not having a goal. Let's not confuse the method by which God created--by it direct creationism in any of its forms (YEC, theistic evolution, or something else)--with the more fundamental theological point of God's direction of history. And, contrary to neo's point, not just human history, but history itself, the history of all things. The Bible is not ignorant of the very low place humans have in the vastness of creation. Far from it, the Bible takes that small place and makes it the height of irony that it is the drama of human history that will so fundamentally shape the history--yet to unfold!--of all the rest. That's part of what makes the Incarnation so special, a fitting observation given the season we are now celebrating.