Wells is not arguing that is no evolution. There is evolution it is a univerally accepted fact, he is arguing that macroevolution is yet to be observed. No organism can produce an offspring with different number of chromosomes and be viable and fertile. Example is down syndrome, when a child has 1 extra chromosome, but that child is NOT viable and cannot create viable offspring.
I have yet to see a creationist that doesn't spew a gigantic load of convoluted bullshit that is only used to confuse the fuck out of the audience. Its like the fucking politicians:: lie your ass off and and confuse everyone so bad that they cant tell what the fuck is going on anymore and eventually give up.
@TheAspietunes What did he say, he was scientifically explaining his position. He scientifically disproved his explanation of the eye. What is BS about that? Is science only good when it suits you? Or is this science too complex for you to understand?
Evolution is utter nonsense. That we live in a self made fortuitous cosmos is laughable! Evolution with its creation story the big bang is nothig more then a willfull deniable denial of the Divine. It goes like this , if there is no creator God then there must be another explanation? So now I commit myself to a purely materialist belief system. I begin to examine all forms of matter in a way consistent with my new faith and its presupposition. I can provide the details as I go along
@JohnGolbunny ...were you really expecting an answer with evidence from him? Creationists seem to stick to their usual tactics: quote-mining, and attempting to disprove evolution. They never go into details about how creation actually took place or present any scientific evidence because they know that the people they're arguing with might actually know something about science!...and so the creationists just pull a bunch of shit out of their ass hoping nobody will notice it.
Why don't you explain to me in YOUR OWN WORDS why you think Evolution by the Darwinian mechanism of NS & RM works to increase the complex functional specified information in biological systems.
We do not know all the details about evolution, but it is a scientifically proven fact. Now, provide me with one shred of evidence for living organisms popping into existence via magic by god.
@revo1974 Actually that's what evolutionists claim too, that a matter popped out of nowhere and started expanding to give rise to our universe, the big bang.
Science teaches us the our Universe was once a singularity and that rapid expansion/inflation took place roughly 13.7 billion years ago, which is called the Big Bang. What happened before the Big Bang is unknown. What caused it to go bang and expand is unknown.
@revo1974 No they know the reason and cause of expansion it is observed in a big laboratory in Switzerland I think. The real question is HOW and from Where that small matter came from and started expanding
That lab is called CERN. Dark energy is the force that counters gravity and causes the Universe to expand. It has not been observed and is not really understood. It is just postulated because they know their is an effect that counters gravity causing expansion.
There are quantum fluctuation models that suggest the Universe derived from a sea of energy. Check out "A Universe from Nothing", a lecture given by Lawrence Krauss.
@revo1974 Now I know for sure you never took a physics course in your life. "Universe derived from a sea of energy" where did that energy come from. Fundamental laws of physics, energy is neither created or destroyed. Also they can explain why the universe is expanding, it's a question of how it all started. They could explain it, otherwise they would not have the knowledge to build that lab lol
You're very confused and obviously not up to date on contemporary cosmology. The notion that the Universe derived from a sea of energy as a quantum fluctuation has been around for a number of years. It's entirely theoretical, however, recent cosmological data supports it. Do some research on quantum fluctuation models and watch the documentary, which can be found here on YouTube that I recommended to you.
@revo1974 man you don't fuckin make sense, getting a word from google doesn't make you smart. I am a chemistry major, I have taken physics courses, don't try to educate me kid. My skills are lacking? You say we cannot explain how it is expanding like an idiot, then you say we can't explain how it all started. Of course dummy, it took you 4 comments to realize that, I said that during my 1st comment
The bottom line is that evolution is supported by multiple independent fields of science and has been observed in labs. Nobody has ever witnessed an organism just pop into existence yet this is what some creationists believe. It's a very silly belief.
Scientists openly admit that they aren't sure exactly how evolution works. There are still questions that need to be answered. The general principle of evolution is however correct and undeniable.
@revo1974 Of course like I said no one is denying evolution, just take a semester long biology lab you will see it yourself. But macroevolution is very questionable, it has not been observed, an organism cannot reproduce into an offspring with different number of chromosomes and still be viable and fertile, yet we see in life organisms range from chromosome 1 to couple of hundred
The evolutionary process by which new species arise is called speciation. This has been observed directly and indirectly numerous times. We have evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock.
I don't believe we have directly observed chromosomal speciation, but its quite clear that it has happened. Are you suggesting that a theistic god intervenes and magically makes new species with different chromosomes?
@revo1974 speciation.does not give rise to new organism with different number of chromosomes. speciation. is only a mutant form of the old organism, that expands independently in different conditions. You need to re-read your google results about biology
Wells openly advertising his academic background like that... isn't he embarrassed considering he cannot grasp the concept of disputing facts vs impoosing an opinion? I can't believe these "debates" still take place.
How the hell did he earn a PhD in biology without any knowledge of it's unifying theory? His comment on cetacean evolution is a total non-sequitur, and he's dead wrong about the human eye. Cephalopods have a very similar eye to tetrapods, but without the deficiency of being backwards.
Dude I think we are going to have to leave there, you are too far off, dude your are in NephillimFree, Malcolm Bowden and Ray Comfort camp, you believe in Genesis and the Noah Flood,
you are serial pathologically Fundamentalist and no amount of Fact or evidence will make you see reality.
@JerezJulio You just can't help yourself, as you cluelessly expose one embarrassing case of ignorance after another about your own neoDarwinist fundamentalism, which can't be defended on the basis of facts. Hence, typically you like many other such adherents have to resort to emotional ad hominem tactics.
@JerezJulio I realize that I am dealing with a NeoDarwinist adherent too emotionally invested in his fundamentalism to think logically about its untenable leap into the imaginary realm of bunk, popularized by professional evolutionism peddlers.
Oh man until when this morons for the Cato Institute and the Discovery Institute that analogy made with Car, Watches and Painting are designed because they object do no reproduce.
A mutant can evolve to be a Ferraris if an only if car where living organism.
I would like someone to make that point to this fundamentalist.
@JerezJulio You didn't listen to refutation of your dear evolutionism by the good professor Dr. Wells who made the salient point after salient point, as he absolutely owned evolutionism peddler Shermer. Evolutionism mixes two mutually exclusive aspects together, one real and the other imaginary. Speciation, often mislabeled "micro-evolution," is the real one.
@JerezJulio E Scientific evidence conclusively debunks the "common descent" conjecture of neoDarwinism because speciation has strict limits to variation that are NEVER crossed, the reality that every breeder of animals or plants encounters. As such, neoDarwinism is just one popular pseudo-science requiring a great imagination and blind faith.
@JerezJulio This explains the stark absence of IMAGINED intermediate transitional fossils from water dwelling creatures to humans. It is because there is no such evidence that leading evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould was compelled to concoct the conjecture known as "punctuated equilibrium."
@RussianPunch Creationists need to stop making the 'no transitional forms' argument. I can show you any transitions between any group and it's ancestors, and common ancestors of related groups. It's not even difficult, a cursory search on google will do it.
@0mniaV1nc1t You misunderstand. Evolutionism peddlers need to cease their lame rationalizations to account for the stark absence of INTERMEDIATE transitional forms--the absence of evidence for which Stephen Jay Gould had to invent the embarrassing fig leaf conjecture of "punctuated equilibrium." Do you realize absurdity that "punctuated equilibrium" is essentially the argument in which the absence of evidence is now taken as evidence of evolutionism?
@RussianPunch Yeah, and the goalposts have now been moved to somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy. This is that Duane T. Gish crap again, where as soon as a fossil fits into one of your gaps, lo and behold, there's two more gaps. What intermediate transitional forms are you looking for? 'Cos I'll contend that we've found a shit-load. Which you'll just reject.
You don't understand punctuated equilibrium either, it's actually a prediction of evolutionary theory.
@0mniaV1nc1t Nice try, but "FAIL"! Indeed, there obtains no body of such imagined body of intermediate fossils to fill ANY gaps to give credence to your materialistic fundamentalism. And no, fanciful artistic "gap-filling" renderings of entire bodies around several bone fragments do not count as evidence either.
@RussianPunch You pedlars are going to have to come up with something truly substantive to reject the scientific law of genetic limits, which does not allow for universal common descent. Evolutionists have fundamentalist blind faith that enough time can somehow allow the violation of observable scientific law known as Mendel's Law of genetic limits of variation within a kind, even though no such violation of scientific law has ever been observed.
@RussianPunch Oh, please cite your reference for this. Any chance you could explain this 'scientific law of genetic limits'. Molecular biology is kind of an area of special interest for me - I understand the processes involved. What constraints do you think that science places on the random variation within the genome. This is that 'micro/macro' crap again.
@0mniaV1nc1t Then, give me evidence where Mendel's law has ever been violated to give credence to common descent. Evolutionism mixes two mutually exclusive aspects together, one real and the other imaginary. Speciation, often mislabeled "micro-evolution," is the real one. Scientific evidence conclusively debunks the "common descent" conjecture of neoDarwinism because speciation has strict limits to variation that are NEVER crossed, the reality that every breeder of animals or plants encounters.
@0mniaV1nc1t I would expect you, then, to recognize that Mendel's law regarding natural limits to genetic change applies to the law of heredity. Moreover, at no time has there been any observation to justify the fundamentalist leap of faith that small, horizontal so-called micro-evolutionary changes become large, vertical changes, which are never observed, to validate "universal common descent" fundamentalism.
@RussianPunch That simply isn't the case. Mutations can occur at any point in the genome so you can't even provide a mechanism for this limitation. All changes are vertical by the very fact that they occur between one generation and the next. If you can't cite any piece of research that says otherwise, then your criticism is simply unsubstantiated. Speciation events can and do occur.
@0mniaV1nc1t Variation limited within basic kinds, i.e., speciation, is entirely consistent with the creation model of Genesis wherein organisms produce after their kind. The common evolutionist fallacy of equivocation, however, subsumes it. The fact that fauna have variations limited within their kinds does not demonstrate that they share a common ancestor. Indeed, there is no evidence that Mendel's law of heredity has ever been violated to give credence to common descent fundamentalism.
@RussianPunch And again this is where every creationist argument degenerates into circularity. You say that change can't happen between 'kinds', but the term 'kind' has been deliberately chosen because it has ZERO biological significance. All we hear is that change cannot happen between 'kinds', followed by some nonsense about cats evolving into dogs, or sheep evolving into whales. Genesis produces nothing approaching a scientific model. Evolutionary theory produces valid predictions.
@0mniaV1nc1t The Genesis sense of kind is a perfectly valid grouping to describe families of faunae, for example, the canidae. Scientists recognizing the reality of Genesis creation say that even they accept "evolution" in the limited sense of any delimited change within a such a group, from which no non-candid can emerge to violate the natural law of genetic limits to give credence to common descent fundamentalism.
@RussianPunch Okay, first off, no 'scientists' and certainly no biologists recognised the reality of the Genesis creation. So, you're definition of 'kind' is equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family? There's more than a few problems with this. You think you're referring to a limited amount of evolution here, but to get the biodiversity we see today from one representative pair (or seven, whatever) of each family would require a MASSIVE rate of variation and speciation, far more than exists.
@0mniaV1nc1t You shot any credibility that you might of had by making a readily refutable bigoted assertion of Christian biologists and other scientists. Let's be clear, you are a materialist / atheist fundamentalist too bigoted against Christians to evaluate facts logically. Now as for taxonomic rank, biologists are in disagreement on the arbitrary way species are defined. Yes, as an atheist fundamentalist, you are making a fatally flawed assumption that we get more diversity with time.
@RussianPunch Wrong. I have no bigotry towards Christians, or Christian biologist. I just think 'creation scientists' are intellectually dishonest, and unwilling to follow the scientific method. There's no such thing as an atheist fundamentalist, my atheism is simply a lack of belief due to the absence of any evidence to the contrary. As for species model, we can argue over details, but my original point was that higher taxonomic ranks are mainly for convenience.
@0mniaV1nc1t Of course, you affirm bigotry against Christian biologists courageously honest enough to recognize the reality of Genesis creation and its import with powerful evidence of the Noachian deluge. Yet, your bigotry blindly approves, unsurprisingly enough, the intellectual dishonesty of materialist/ atheist fundamentalist practices of neoDarwinist peddlers:
@RussianPunch If this 'evidence' for the Noachian deluge is so powerful, why is it accepted by essentially no-one outside of the fundamentalist Christian fringe? It's pretty funny that you should call anyone else a fundamentalist. The entire consensus opinion of science isn't based on intellectual dishonesty - the theory of evolution has verification from independent fields of study, and furthermore has generated THOUSANDS of predictive hypotheses. If evolution is untrue that wouldn't make sense
@0mniaV1nc1t You are not adducing evidence but regurgitating fundamentalist drivel debunked roundly by pure science, based on observable, repeatable and testable hypotheses, as opposed to your admittedly popular pseudo-science neo-Darwinism (materialist imagination conjectured in defiance of untainted science). The abundant evidence accounting for the Noachian deluge cannot be justifiably glossed over by its lack of regard among materialist and/ or atheist fundamentalists.
@0mniaV1nc1t Since neo-Darwinists are notoriously mendacious and riddled with double-speak when referring to evolution, I am compelled to ask, "In what sense are you using the term evolution, the true part referring to speciation or the false part applying to the dogma of universal common descent?" If you are referring to the latter, then you are flatly false, yet again. The overwhelming evidence against the latter is impossible to ignore unless you are a diehard atheist wilfully ignorant.
@RussianPunch So 'diehard atheist wilfully ignorant' refer to the entirety of the peer-reviewed literature in biology does it? Why is there not a single peer-reviewed paper supporting intelligent design? You'll no doubt say it's because of some grand and Machiavellian conspiracy. Or maybe I'm wrong. Cite the evidence for the Noachian deluge.
@0mniaV1nc1t continued -- dogmatically precluding from serious consideration overwhelming evidences against universal common descent dogma and in support of Genesis creation and the Noachian deluge.
@RussianPunch [cont.] For instance, the Bovidae contain over 140 species. The Cercopithecidae contains a similar number. And you expect these to emerge, from an incredibly shallow gene pool, in just 4,000 years? And for the 800th time, the Law of Genetic Limits you keep banging on about, doesn't exist. Apart from possibly on Ken Ham's repository of crap, Answers in Genesis.
@0mniaV1nc1t You make the fundamentalist assumption that life began from "an incredibly shallow gene pool" despite the evidence to the contrary. Changing the allele frequency of one variant sequence occurs at the expense to that of another to lead to a loss of genetic variability. The gene information no longer expressed is partially lost to the new generation.
@RussianPunch Wrong. Again. It's you who assumes that life started from a very shallow gene pool. If you are saying that all 'kinds' are derived from a pair or a handful of pair, you are saying that a very rapid diversification occurred in a population in which all individuals would have a massive amount of genetic similarity. And actually, recessive traits aren't generally speaking eliminated from the population. New alleles, and even new genes are created by mutation.
@0mniaV1nc1t As for the ultimate belief of a "shallow gene pool," it is your cherished neo-Darwinist dogma that holds to the extreme conceit that all life originated from a single-celled organism.
To assert taxonomical ranking as merely "for convenience" is to belie grossly its taint by neo-Darwinist bias. Indeed, taxonomic ranking is completely corrupted with common descent dogma; so that, for example, birds may be classified as a subclass of reptiles.
@RussianPunch Yeah, the first proto-cells are though to have been in existence for over 3 billion years, and complex organisms didn't appear until the late pre-cambrian, so there was a tremendous amount of time in the intervening period for mutations to create genetic diversity. And there was very little biodiversity when the first complex organisms appeared.
You know why birds are classified as a clade within the larger archosaur group? Because they FUCKING ARE.
@0mniaV1nc1t LOL! Yes, "thought." Yet again you have to resort to discursive references to fundamentalist fables, now including imaginary proto-cells. Of course, ardent neo-Darwinists could not care less that such bunkum has sacrificed the integrity of science practices for the cause of neo-Darwinist, materialist ideology.
@RussianPunch No. I say thought, because absolute certainty is the language of religious fundamentalism, not science. Why would anyone pretend that evolution was valid if it wasn't? To what end? What is the advantage of believing in deep time and common ancestry? And again, I'd point you to the wealth of testable predictions of evolutionary theory... your inability to understand the scientific method doesn't invalidate it. You know that disproving evolution doesn't prove creation right?
@0mniaV1nc1t No, you have long before left any pretence of scientific integrity by appealing to fundamentalist fables of the imaginary needed to sustain neo-Darwinism, but you are obviously too emotionally invested in neo-Darwinist dogma to recognize your own delusional security in dogmatically precluding from serious consideration overwhelming evidences against universal common descent dogma. Why? Well, why do warmists continue to foist the falsehood that man-made CO2 endangers the climate?
@RussianPunch It's odd that most rational and inquiring people accept scientific facts isn't it? What's also revealing is how people who believe one fairytale tend to believe them all. Hence, you're a creationist and a climate-change denialist, and Wells is an HIV/AIDS denialist.
@0mniaV1nc1t Okay, no surprise there. You are veritably frothing at the mouth in your rabid, profanity-laced defence of the bias in taxonomical ranking criterion as long as it is convenient for neo-Darwinist ideologues.
@0mniaV1nc1t Furthermore, your belief that mutations support your dogma has no scientific validity, as my favourite feature channel video shows. Learn why, without exception, every TRUE FORM mutation decreases useful information or increases harmful information: /watch?v=_s9oKio-fEU
@RussianPunch Yeah, and as I've told you before, that video is, at best, factually inaccurate (at worst, whoever made it is a lying sack-of-shit).
Read any introductory text on genetics for examples of how mutation can add 'information' to the genome, and examples of verified beneficial mutations.
And that video's representation of horizontal gene transfer as though it somehow discredits evolution? Nonsense. Quit trolling.
@0mniaV1nc1t Acclaimed evolutionist Jun Yuan Chen's counters also that the history of life flows opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression that Dr. Chen calls "top-down evolution." Although, Dr. Chen's evolutionist time assumptions and interpretations are fundamentalist beliefs, at least his strictly scientific work reveals yet more overwhelming refutation against universal common descent fundamentalism.
@RussianPunch This claim is a little more difficult, because I can find very little on Jun Yuan Chen. He holds some very odd views on Eastern mysticism, and cites the Cambrian explosion as evidence against the consensus evolutionary theory. It's widely accepted that the Cambrian explosion was a result of certain climatological, geological, and biological factors. Chen isn't some major player who's revolutionizing science though.
Well that's seven minutes I'm not going to get back, and it'd take me a great deal longer to criticise everything that was wrong there. Using big words doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.
@JerezJulio This fanciful conjecture, in short, is the claim that the absence of transitional fossil evidence is somehow the evidence! What evolutionists hate to admit is that this leap of conjecture to deal pseudo-scientifically with this gross lacking evidence is no substitute for actual evidence, plainly speaking.
I see, so you do not believes that and living Organism can go from a water dwelling to a Land dwelling creature over ten of millions of years of accumulated micro changes that permits that the creature who tolerate their environment survive and reproduce, while the one that do not perish.
How do you explain that from a single Cell trough mitosis a living organism get all these different organs? a Neuron and a blood Cell ar very different but the come from the same cell.
@JerezJulio I have refrained from criticizing your illiteracy and ignorance concerning evolutionism, but it is time you understood that you have not made an argument in support of evolutionism. Proclamations and assertions that the materialistic philosophy of evolutionism is 'proven fact' never made it such. In fact, the imaginary part of 'evolution' called common descent is a fanciful conjecture that has never been observed, tested, and repeatedly demonstrated.
you can wish all you want, the fact still remain. Evolution is the central Theory that explain the diversity of life on the planet.
Today the principles of Evolution are much stronger than when Darwing first proposed it, It has being confirmed independently by the Fossil record, the Flora and Fauna of insolated ecosystems, the geological column, and in a devastating way confirmed by Genetic similarity of living things and theis common ansestors.
@JerezJulio Sorry, but your statements are exposing your huge gulf of ignorance separating you from reality. Scientific evidence conclusively debunks the "common descent" conjecture of neoDarwinism because speciation has strict limits to variation that are NEVER crossed (every living thing produces after its kind, just as Genesis states) the reality that every breeder of animals or plants encounters.
@JerezJulio As such, neoDarwinism is just one popular pseudo-science requiring a great imagination and blind faith.
To your other falsehood, the actual fact is that the situation for neoDarwinism is more dire now than when first proposed because of the fossil record. The exact opposite of what you falsely proclaimed! The stark absence of IMAGINED intermediate transitional fossils from water dwelling creatures to humans has evidenced yet another devastating problem for neoDarwinism.
Divine Creation and or Intelligence design has Zero explanation for the diversity of Life.
The only Theory that has come out of it are, IBehe Irreducible complexity, not so Irreducible after all, and Dembsky ass principle of conservation of Information, that no even him can explain.
Can you cite one Positive advancement that your theory of Creation has produced
in the last 50 years to the advancement of humanity?
@JerezJulio It is because there is no such evidence that leading evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould was compelled to concoct the conjecture known as "punctuated equilibrium." What evolutionists hate to admit is that this leap of imagination and blind faith to account for this lacking evidence is no substitute for actual evidence, plainly speaking.
@JerezJulio Acceptance of the common descent evolution conjecture thus explicitly violates the discipline of the scientific method, and as such fails to qualify as a true scientific hypothesis.
I have attempted to answer you questions as best I knew how. As I said several days ago, I am done here. The debate is ended for me. I have honestly stated what I think. Call it what you like. When in doubt, I default to God as a result of my life experience. Happy Trails.
"Dawkins and Hitchens prophets?" People who do not believe in God are His prophets? Sounds like you've been smoking some of that medical marijuana yourself.
"I would like you to give one recent example of a peer reviewed article supporting evolution for which you can show the conclusions are unfounded because of insufficient evidence"
Any article claiming that all of life descended from a common ancestor. Sufficient evidence will be able to describe, step by step, how life evolved from the first living organism through all the successive transitions to the life we see today. This will include the mutations that occurred,
Nothing was planned or has a purpose to it. It's all here by chance.
I am telling you, what appears to be designed with intelligence was. God is behind it all. I am choosing to believe as I do because through faith God has allowed me to experience His presence and power.
Consider this......there is a book that claims Christ is risen from the dead, that He is the Son of God and that through Him we have eternal life. I have personally experienced His resurrection power, thus believe His Word.
The placebo effect. Change your thinking and you change your mood and your emotional well being. Been there, done that through the CBT course. IT worked very well. My experience with God was nothing like that. This was an eternal being that entered me, with my permission, and filled me with His presence. I've never experienced anything like this in my life like this except for those 3 days. 15 years later I experienced something similar, but not nearly as intense. CBT is totally different.
@dp19032k9 I think you would really benefit from talking to a Paleontologist and learning just how they actually take a partial fossil and are able to fit it into the record. It is not just one criteria, there are many and they all have to converge to the same point. It is not always possible, there are fossils which are not categorized because they are vastly incomplete and/or are in an lineage which is very full of large gaps.
@CliffStamp "I think you would really benefit from talking to a Paleontologist and learning just how they actually take a partial fossil and are able to fit it into the record."
AS time permits I am interested in knowing about scientists ideas. However, nothing can change what has happened to me with God. That will always remain with me, as part of my experience and as part of how I view the world and the universe. It can never be changed because it was God. Not one doubt about it. Nada, zip.
@dp19032k9 You have just admitted that there is no empirical evidence that could be presented to you which would cause you to reject scripture. You have further admitted that your reasoning is illogical, inconsistent and irrational and that your decisions are not system coherent and you are perfectly aware of all of this and content because again it allows you to affirm scripture. Only one question remains, would you want people to think this way about everything or just that book?
@CliffStamp "You have further admitted that your reasoning is illogical, inconsistent and irrational and that your decisions are not system coherent and you are perfectly aware of all of this and content because again it allows you to affirm scripture."
Illogical, irrational..........Is believing in a universe and life which begins and is sustained in an organized, predictable, systematic manner with no intelligence behind it whatsoever. Utterly ridiculous.
@dp19032k9 "Is believing in a universe and life which begins and is sustained in an organized, predictable, systematic manner with no intelligence behind it whatsoever."
So you reject natural methodology as a framework for producing knowledge?
@dp19032k9 Consider this, you have a book, in order to accept it you have to ignore rational thought and empirical evidence, these things which for everything else aside from the book you not only accept but you embrace into your life and take advantage of. You have to forgo logic and reason and engage in self-contradiction to maintain the truth of the book. Does that sound like the book written by a God to bring enlightenment or a book written by a Devil to confuse?
@CliffStamp "Consider this, you have a book, in order to accept it you have to ignore rational thought and empirical evidence,"
In order to accept evolution, you have to ignore common sense and logic. You must affirm that life began from dead compounds by chance (no intelligence behind it), that the universe began and evolved with no intelligence behind it, that order, logic, and intelligence all developed by chance and with no intelligence behind it.
@dp19032k9 "In order to accept evolution, you have to ignore common sense and logic."
Most of science is not based on common sense and classical logic, by the same reasoning you would reject quantum theory, relativity, all of statistical mechanics, etc. (i.e. all of our fundamental understanding).
Seems to me too much has been inferred from insufficient information. Creates flawed thinking and wrong conclusions. Not a good way to carry on a profession, in my opinion. No one was there in real time to witness what happened. Plus intelligence is purposely filtered out of the equation. Doesn't add up to me.
@dp19032k9 It is extremely complicated to classify fossils yes, that is why placement us uncertain and it the linage can shift around. There is uncertainty in all of science, this is actually one of the most basic laws of science that no observations are absolute. However in the fossil record it is like trying to assemble one puzzle without a picture when all the puzzles in the world have been mixed together. Of course the more it gets filled in the easier it is to fill it in.
To me the evidence isn't black and white, but very, very gray. So, why are most scientists in the evolutioinary camp? Seems like there is tunnel vision. And there is a lot of assumption going on. Fossils are fossils, not living things. I'm not convinced you can take from them as much as has been inferred from them. And apparrently paleontologists and molecular biologists are at odds at times as to which fossils belong to a phyla or whatever the classification is.
@dp19032k9 Most scientists accept evolution because it is simply taught, it is only the very few primary researches who are actively involved in refining the theory. Note that evolution is now undergoing a secondary synthesis to take into account new observations, such as non-dnainheritance, it is not a static theory which has remained unchanged for 150 years. Natural selection is even argued by some to be not the dominant force of selection (instead genetic drift is suggested).
So, things aren't black and white. There are situations where I would not need a lot of evidence, if any at all in the case I just cited, to believe something to be true. Because of my personal experience, I don't require Pullinger healing someone in front of me. I believe what I am seeing in the documentary. It's happening in real time, plus there are witnesses, multiple witnesses who were healed. That's enough for me because of what I know of God.
@dp19032k9 If we met tomorrow and I told you I could lay hands and heal through divine will, and then demonstrated it right in front of you on someone in a wheelchair nearby and they got up and walked, would you really then believe me without any further evidence simply because that could be true if God was real?
@CliffStamp "If we met tomorrow and I told you I could lay hands and heal through divine will, and then demonstrated it right in front of you on someone in a wheelchair nearby and they got up and walked,"
If it could be verified that the person was disabled and could not walk, then yes, I would probably believe that.
@dp19032k9 Excellent now how do you know the guy who claimed to have pain actually had pain, and that it was in fact removed - he simply noted it.
Second, why do you think that all of these claims of miracles disappear when they are empirically tested to remove the placebo effect and only show up as anecdotal claims?
@CliffStamp "Excellent now how do you know the guy who claimed to have pain actually had pain, and that it was in fact removed - he simply noted it.
Second, why do you think that all of these claims of miracles disappear when they are empirically tested to remove the placebo effect"
His family was in the interview as well. They noted a change in behavior, better functioning. It did not take away the pain as much as it helped him function inspite of it.
@dp19032k9 Yes, and all of those claims, by himself and the family are perfectly explained by the placebo effect, so again do you deny the existence of the placebo effect, and why do none of those claims continue when controls are use to remove the placebo effect (double blind trials for example).
So, things aren't black and white. There are situations where I would not need a lot of evidence, if any at all in the case I just cited, to believe something to be true. Because of my personal experience, I don't require Pullinger healing someone in front of me. I believe what I am seeing in the documentary. It's happening in real time, plus there are witnesses, multiple witnesses who were healed. That's enough for me because of what I know of God.
I'm watching "Marijuana USA" on CNBC. I just heard of a patient with severe pain (not sure what his ailment is) say that smoking marijuana helps him a lot in dealing with the pain. Then they interview a someone who I assume is a sccientist who says there is no empirical evidence through double blind trials that marijuana is any different than placebo. Who do I believe? The guy with the pain.
@dp19032k9 To be clear, an individual states that a particular action has medical benefit and you believe him. A scientist researches, published in peer reviewed journals, this is repeated and verified - but you reject that. What exact is the standard of evidence that you are using to accept the first claim and reject the second conclusion?
@CliffStamp "To be clear, an individual states that a particular action has medical benefit and you believe him. A scientist researches, published in peer reviewed journals, this is repeated and verified - but you reject that. What exact is the standard of evidence that you are using to accept the first claim and reject the second conclusion?"
I asked my wife who she would believe, explaining what I had just watched on CNBC. She also said the guy with the pain.
@CliffStamp His family was on also and said that he, the husband, was able to do more things with his kids, etc. I simply believe him based upon what I observed. I'm really getting tired of your questions. I am a human being and believe things based on what I believe to be true. I am not black and white. Some things I may require evidence, some things I may not. Depends on the circumstance.
@dp19032k9 What you are describing is the placebo effect. Do you believe this does not exist?
Would you want medical research to proceed using the same system of logic you are using to infer that man had discovered a medical treatment for pain?
Would you use such treatment for disease if necessary if a doctor's only proof was he had one patient who would testify he was so cured?
Knowing of course there was absolutely no empirical evidence at all (no clinical trials) besides that claim?
@CliffStamp "What you are describing is the placebo effect. Do you believe this does not exist?
Would you want medical research to proceed using the same system of logic you are using to infer that man had discovered a medical treatment for pain?"
I know it exists, I have experienced it
No, I would want medical research to do what it is doing now.
@dp19032k9 Now how can you want medical research to continue using the current methodology and yet at the same time note that it produces false information and you would instead believe claims from people as truth? You are then advocating a methodology which you describe as inferior and which produces false information.
@CliffStamp "Now how can you want medical research to continue using the current methodology and yet at the same time note that it produces false information and you would instead believe claims from people as truth? You are then advocating a methodology which you describe as inferior and which produces false information. "
My choice, my decision. None of us are perfectly logical and that seems what you desire, perfect logic and perfection, black and white. People are not that way.
@CliffStamp "Would you use such treatment for disease if necessary if a doctor's only proof was he had one patient who would testify he was so cured?"
The man was not cured, it simply helped him deal with the pain. Someone is prescribing it, so some doctors are using it as treatment. I am not a doctor. Would never be in that situation.
Ok, I'm getting it now, I think. You see me wanting more evidence for evolution, but don't see me wanting the same concerning spiritual matters? Is that it?
If I hadn't had the life experience that I have had, I would be more accepting of the evidence for evolution. But, based on what has happened to me, I know there is more to it than just evolution. And I'm in doubt about macroevolution because of my personal experiences. God says one thing in scripture and evolution says there is no God.
@dp19032k9 Is there any empirical evidence which could be presented that you would accept as proof of evolution, or would you reject anything simply because of your personal experience in God?
@CliffStamp "Is there any empirical evidence which could be presented that you would accept as proof of evolution, or would you reject anything simply because of your personal experience in God?"
The personal experience is the primary factor. As a result of that, if in doubt, I default to what God says. It also works against the evidence for most scientists to not have a faith in God. There is a bias there, in my opinion, Dawkins being the best example. Maybe some things have been "cooked".
@dp19032k9 So there is no empirical evidence that could be presented that you would accept as supporting evolution because of the personal experience you have had with God, which you have noted that no one can falsify and that you can not even falsify if someone claims to have a different personal experience than you?
What would you do if another God manifested itself and told you that the first experience you had was the Devil, what would you believe then?
@CliffStamp There is some evidence that appears to support evolution, but macroevolution I really don't know. But what is behind it? Did an intelligence establish it or is it simply dumb mother nature? I don't buy dumb with no organization or intelligence. Goes against reason and logic. What confuses me is how it fits in with the creation story. Since it doesn't impact my earthly lot, or my eternal destiny if I choose to wait on an explanation from God, that's what I'll do.
@dp19032k9 The current theory of evolution has nothing behind it if you mean something directing it to create a specific goal, it is all just random chance. Directed evolution such as selective breeding takes place along the same general pathways but since it is not random anymore it is orders of magnitude faster.
There is a huge body of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, again, what would you actually want to see in order to for you to accept it?
I disagree. There is an intelligence behind the creation of the world and of life. There is an assumption it is all just random chance. I believe the assumption to be invalid.
@dp19032k9 There is no assumption that it is random chance, the null hypothesis exists as non-correlation, correlation is the assumption to be tested. In any experiment when data is gathered, the test is always is what is seen signi
Wells' argument can be summed up in one sentence. Darwins theory is wrong because I believe in God.
TheThunderduck 1 month ago
Wells is not arguing that is no evolution. There is evolution it is a univerally accepted fact, he is arguing that macroevolution is yet to be observed. No organism can produce an offspring with different number of chromosomes and be viable and fertile. Example is down syndrome, when a child has 1 extra chromosome, but that child is NOT viable and cannot create viable offspring.
TheRightThinker 1 month ago
I have yet to see a creationist that doesn't spew a gigantic load of convoluted bullshit that is only used to confuse the fuck out of the audience. Its like the fucking politicians:: lie your ass off and and confuse everyone so bad that they cant tell what the fuck is going on anymore and eventually give up.
TheAspietunes 2 months ago
@TheAspietunes What did he say, he was scientifically explaining his position. He scientifically disproved his explanation of the eye. What is BS about that? Is science only good when it suits you? Or is this science too complex for you to understand?
TheRightThinker 1 month ago
The fat man lost me when he started making false claims, and using car analogies that have nothing to do with evolution.
Johnf85 2 months ago
dawkins and several others have shown exactly how the eye would have evolved with a variety of examples.
isn't this the guy who said we could cut a cell open (killing it) and the elemental pieces will not form life? DER.......
kelbykross1 4 months ago
a moonie, A MOONIE? Really? holy crap. i cannot take wells seriously.
lhurien 4 months ago
Comment removed
BigFoot783 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lhurien Just because he's a part of a certain religion, you can't take him seriously? Come on.
BigFoot783 2 months ago
Evolution is utter nonsense. That we live in a self made fortuitous cosmos is laughable! Evolution with its creation story the big bang is nothig more then a willfull deniable denial of the Divine. It goes like this , if there is no creator God then there must be another explanation? So now I commit myself to a purely materialist belief system. I begin to examine all forms of matter in a way consistent with my new faith and its presupposition. I can provide the details as I go along
Mike198s 5 months ago
@Mike198s Instead of your laughable "details", how about evidence young man?
JohnGolbunny 4 months ago
@JohnGolbunny ...were you really expecting an answer with evidence from him? Creationists seem to stick to their usual tactics: quote-mining, and attempting to disprove evolution. They never go into details about how creation actually took place or present any scientific evidence because they know that the people they're arguing with might actually know something about science!...and so the creationists just pull a bunch of shit out of their ass hoping nobody will notice it.
kalash156 4 months ago
Creationist always say that we knowone has ever observed a species evolving into another.
Has anyone ever witnessed a new species pop into existense via magic?
revo1974 7 months ago 7
@revo1974 Evolution has been observed at lower levels [u know this already, I think] like the peppered moth. Just sharing, not starting a debate.
aaqucnaona94 3 months ago
@aaqucnaona94
This is true. I was simply turning the question around on theists to see what response they might have. So far, nothing at all.
revo1974 3 months ago
@revo1974
Whats the difference?
If you can't observe a species evolving into another but still infer it Evolved by Darwinian processes, then you are resorting to magic.
Dumbass, as well as the 5 brainless others.
logicCplusplus 2 months ago
@logicCplusplus
w w w (dot) talkorigins (dot) org/faqs/faq-misconceptions (dot) html
superiorreasoning 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@superiorreasoning
Why don't you explain to me in YOUR OWN WORDS why you think Evolution by the Darwinian mechanism of NS & RM works to increase the complex functional specified information in biological systems.
logicCplusplus 2 months ago
@logicCplusplus
We do not know all the details about evolution, but it is a scientifically proven fact. Now, provide me with one shred of evidence for living organisms popping into existence via magic by god.
superiorreasoning 2 months ago
@revo1974 Actually that's what evolutionists claim too, that a matter popped out of nowhere and started expanding to give rise to our universe, the big bang.
TheRightThinker 1 month ago
@TheRightThinker
Science teaches us the our Universe was once a singularity and that rapid expansion/inflation took place roughly 13.7 billion years ago, which is called the Big Bang. What happened before the Big Bang is unknown. What caused it to go bang and expand is unknown.
revo1974 1 month ago
@revo1974 No they know the reason and cause of expansion it is observed in a big laboratory in Switzerland I think. The real question is HOW and from Where that small matter came from and started expanding
TheRightThinker 1 month ago
@TheRightThinker
That lab is called CERN. Dark energy is the force that counters gravity and causes the Universe to expand. It has not been observed and is not really understood. It is just postulated because they know their is an effect that counters gravity causing expansion.
There are quantum fluctuation models that suggest the Universe derived from a sea of energy. Check out "A Universe from Nothing", a lecture given by Lawrence Krauss.
revo1974 1 month ago
@revo1974 Now I know for sure you never took a physics course in your life. "Universe derived from a sea of energy" where did that energy come from. Fundamental laws of physics, energy is neither created or destroyed. Also they can explain why the universe is expanding, it's a question of how it all started. They could explain it, otherwise they would not have the knowledge to build that lab lol
TheRightThinker 1 month ago
@TheRightThinker
You're very confused and obviously not up to date on contemporary cosmology. The notion that the Universe derived from a sea of energy as a quantum fluctuation has been around for a number of years. It's entirely theoretical, however, recent cosmological data supports it. Do some research on quantum fluctuation models and watch the documentary, which can be found here on YouTube that I recommended to you.
....
revo1974 1 month ago
@TheRightThinker
....Quantum fluctuation models, if found to be true, will not violate the law of conservation of energy.
We do know why the Universe is expanding, but we do not know what "initially" caused it to expand.
No disrespect, but your reading comprehension skills are lacking. You have demonstrated this numerous times.
revo1974 1 month ago
@revo1974 man you don't fuckin make sense, getting a word from google doesn't make you smart. I am a chemistry major, I have taken physics courses, don't try to educate me kid. My skills are lacking? You say we cannot explain how it is expanding like an idiot, then you say we can't explain how it all started. Of course dummy, it took you 4 comments to realize that, I said that during my 1st comment
TheRightThinker 1 month ago
@TheRightThinker
The bottom line is that evolution is supported by multiple independent fields of science and has been observed in labs. Nobody has ever witnessed an organism just pop into existence yet this is what some creationists believe. It's a very silly belief.
Scientists openly admit that they aren't sure exactly how evolution works. There are still questions that need to be answered. The general principle of evolution is however correct and undeniable.
revo1974 1 month ago
@revo1974 Of course like I said no one is denying evolution, just take a semester long biology lab you will see it yourself. But macroevolution is very questionable, it has not been observed, an organism cannot reproduce into an offspring with different number of chromosomes and still be viable and fertile, yet we see in life organisms range from chromosome 1 to couple of hundred
TheRightThinker 1 month ago
@TheRightThinker
The evolutionary process by which new species arise is called speciation. This has been observed directly and indirectly numerous times. We have evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock.
I don't believe we have directly observed chromosomal speciation, but its quite clear that it has happened. Are you suggesting that a theistic god intervenes and magically makes new species with different chromosomes?
revo1974 1 month ago
@revo1974 speciation.does not give rise to new organism with different number of chromosomes. speciation. is only a mutant form of the old organism, that expands independently in different conditions. You need to re-read your google results about biology
TheRightThinker 1 month ago
"no one has demonstrated how it[the eye] evolved through a darwinian process" straight up lie.
AlxSnowxMatchsxRule 9 months ago 3
@AlxSnowxMatchsxRule Well actually Wells is 100% correct about this. You have no idea what you are talking about.
jeepsterrr 5 months ago
@jeepsterrr I've watched Richard Dawkins do it....
AlxSnowxMatchsxRule 5 months ago
"features they would have to lose in order to give birth to anything further on in the series" *facepalm*
AlxSnowxMatchsxRule 9 months ago
Wells openly advertising his academic background like that... isn't he embarrassed considering he cannot grasp the concept of disputing facts vs impoosing an opinion? I can't believe these "debates" still take place.
brostelio 9 months ago
:50 whoa he kept a straight face
4ks4ft8 9 months ago
Jonathan Wells speaks the truth !!!!
heightboosting 10 months ago
@heightboosting Hardly...
enysp 9 months ago
fap fap fap
FIGHTFANNERD3 10 months ago
Not pleasant listening to Well's brain farts....
philster61 10 months ago
@philster61 You are correct.
mik99D 10 months ago
Comment removed
RussianPunch 11 months ago
How the hell did he earn a PhD in biology without any knowledge of it's unifying theory? His comment on cetacean evolution is a total non-sequitur, and he's dead wrong about the human eye. Cephalopods have a very similar eye to tetrapods, but without the deficiency of being backwards.
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
Jonathan Wells is a lying sack-of-shit.
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
Jonathan Wells is my favorite AIDS denialist.
RomansPwnedJesus 1 year ago 5
@RussianPunch
Dude I think we are going to have to leave there, you are too far off, dude your are in NephillimFree, Malcolm Bowden and Ray Comfort camp, you believe in Genesis and the Noah Flood,
you are serial pathologically Fundamentalist and no amount of Fact or evidence will make you see reality.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@JerezJulio You just can't help yourself, as you cluelessly expose one embarrassing case of ignorance after another about your own neoDarwinist fundamentalism, which can't be defended on the basis of facts. Hence, typically you like many other such adherents have to resort to emotional ad hominem tactics.
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@JerezJulio I realize that I am dealing with a NeoDarwinist adherent too emotionally invested in his fundamentalism to think logically about its untenable leap into the imaginary realm of bunk, popularized by professional evolutionism peddlers.
RussianPunch 1 year ago
Oh man until when this morons for the Cato Institute and the Discovery Institute that analogy made with Car, Watches and Painting are designed because they object do no reproduce.
A mutant can evolve to be a Ferraris if an only if car where living organism.
I would like someone to make that point to this fundamentalist.
Also he is lien all the way.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@JerezJulio You didn't listen to refutation of your dear evolutionism by the good professor Dr. Wells who made the salient point after salient point, as he absolutely owned evolutionism peddler Shermer. Evolutionism mixes two mutually exclusive aspects together, one real and the other imaginary. Speciation, often mislabeled "micro-evolution," is the real one.
RussianPunch 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JerezJulio E Scientific evidence conclusively debunks the "common descent" conjecture of neoDarwinism because speciation has strict limits to variation that are NEVER crossed, the reality that every breeder of animals or plants encounters. As such, neoDarwinism is just one popular pseudo-science requiring a great imagination and blind faith.
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@JerezJulio This explains the stark absence of IMAGINED intermediate transitional fossils from water dwelling creatures to humans. It is because there is no such evidence that leading evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould was compelled to concoct the conjecture known as "punctuated equilibrium."
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@RussianPunch Creationists need to stop making the 'no transitional forms' argument. I can show you any transitions between any group and it's ancestors, and common ancestors of related groups. It's not even difficult, a cursory search on google will do it.
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
Comment removed
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@0mniaV1nc1t You misunderstand. Evolutionism peddlers need to cease their lame rationalizations to account for the stark absence of INTERMEDIATE transitional forms--the absence of evidence for which Stephen Jay Gould had to invent the embarrassing fig leaf conjecture of "punctuated equilibrium." Do you realize absurdity that "punctuated equilibrium" is essentially the argument in which the absence of evidence is now taken as evidence of evolutionism?
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@RussianPunch Yeah, and the goalposts have now been moved to somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy. This is that Duane T. Gish crap again, where as soon as a fossil fits into one of your gaps, lo and behold, there's two more gaps. What intermediate transitional forms are you looking for? 'Cos I'll contend that we've found a shit-load. Which you'll just reject.
You don't understand punctuated equilibrium either, it's actually a prediction of evolutionary theory.
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
@0mniaV1nc1t What imagined body of intermediate fossils do you assert fits into the gaps?
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@RussianPunch Well that would be dependent upon you coming up with a clear definition of these 'gaps' wouldn't it?
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
@0mniaV1nc1t Nice try, but "FAIL"! Indeed, there obtains no body of such imagined body of intermediate fossils to fill ANY gaps to give credence to your materialistic fundamentalism. And no, fanciful artistic "gap-filling" renderings of entire bodies around several bone fragments do not count as evidence either.
RussianPunch 11 months ago
Comment removed
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@RussianPunch You pedlars are going to have to come up with something truly substantive to reject the scientific law of genetic limits, which does not allow for universal common descent. Evolutionists have fundamentalist blind faith that enough time can somehow allow the violation of observable scientific law known as Mendel's Law of genetic limits of variation within a kind, even though no such violation of scientific law has ever been observed.
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@RussianPunch Oh, please cite your reference for this. Any chance you could explain this 'scientific law of genetic limits'. Molecular biology is kind of an area of special interest for me - I understand the processes involved. What constraints do you think that science places on the random variation within the genome. This is that 'micro/macro' crap again.
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
Comment removed
RussianPunch 11 months ago
Comment removed
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@0mniaV1nc1t Then, give me evidence where Mendel's law has ever been violated to give credence to common descent. Evolutionism mixes two mutually exclusive aspects together, one real and the other imaginary. Speciation, often mislabeled "micro-evolution," is the real one. Scientific evidence conclusively debunks the "common descent" conjecture of neoDarwinism because speciation has strict limits to variation that are NEVER crossed, the reality that every breeder of animals or plants encounters.
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@RussianPunch Do you even know what Mendel's Laws are? There are two, neither of which concern some arbitrary evolutionary 'limit'
1) When an individual produces gametes, each gamete receives only one of the two copies of each gene.
2) When an individual produces gametes, genes (more correctly chromosomes) are able to assort independently of one another.
Speciation events DO occur, and to be honest, above that level labels for phylogenetic groups are kind of arbitrary.
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
@0mniaV1nc1t I would expect you, then, to recognize that Mendel's law regarding natural limits to genetic change applies to the law of heredity. Moreover, at no time has there been any observation to justify the fundamentalist leap of faith that small, horizontal so-called micro-evolutionary changes become large, vertical changes, which are never observed, to validate "universal common descent" fundamentalism.
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@RussianPunch That simply isn't the case. Mutations can occur at any point in the genome so you can't even provide a mechanism for this limitation. All changes are vertical by the very fact that they occur between one generation and the next. If you can't cite any piece of research that says otherwise, then your criticism is simply unsubstantiated. Speciation events can and do occur.
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
Comment removed
RussianPunch 11 months ago
Comment removed
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@0mniaV1nc1t Variation limited within basic kinds, i.e., speciation, is entirely consistent with the creation model of Genesis wherein organisms produce after their kind. The common evolutionist fallacy of equivocation, however, subsumes it. The fact that fauna have variations limited within their kinds does not demonstrate that they share a common ancestor. Indeed, there is no evidence that Mendel's law of heredity has ever been violated to give credence to common descent fundamentalism.
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@RussianPunch And again this is where every creationist argument degenerates into circularity. You say that change can't happen between 'kinds', but the term 'kind' has been deliberately chosen because it has ZERO biological significance. All we hear is that change cannot happen between 'kinds', followed by some nonsense about cats evolving into dogs, or sheep evolving into whales. Genesis produces nothing approaching a scientific model. Evolutionary theory produces valid predictions.
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
Comment removed
RussianPunch 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@0mniaV1nc1t The Genesis sense of kind is a perfectly valid grouping to describe families of faunae, for example, the canidae. Scientists recognizing the reality of Genesis creation say that even they accept "evolution" in the limited sense of any delimited change within a such a group, from which no non-candid can emerge to violate the natural law of genetic limits to give credence to common descent fundamentalism.
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@RussianPunch Okay, first off, no 'scientists' and certainly no biologists recognised the reality of the Genesis creation. So, you're definition of 'kind' is equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family? There's more than a few problems with this. You think you're referring to a limited amount of evolution here, but to get the biodiversity we see today from one representative pair (or seven, whatever) of each family would require a MASSIVE rate of variation and speciation, far more than exists.
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
@0mniaV1nc1t You shot any credibility that you might of had by making a readily refutable bigoted assertion of Christian biologists and other scientists. Let's be clear, you are a materialist / atheist fundamentalist too bigoted against Christians to evaluate facts logically. Now as for taxonomic rank, biologists are in disagreement on the arbitrary way species are defined. Yes, as an atheist fundamentalist, you are making a fatally flawed assumption that we get more diversity with time.
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@RussianPunch Wrong. I have no bigotry towards Christians, or Christian biologist. I just think 'creation scientists' are intellectually dishonest, and unwilling to follow the scientific method. There's no such thing as an atheist fundamentalist, my atheism is simply a lack of belief due to the absence of any evidence to the contrary. As for species model, we can argue over details, but my original point was that higher taxonomic ranks are mainly for convenience.
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
@0mniaV1nc1t Of course, you affirm bigotry against Christian biologists courageously honest enough to recognize the reality of Genesis creation and its import with powerful evidence of the Noachian deluge. Yet, your bigotry blindly approves, unsurprisingly enough, the intellectual dishonesty of materialist/ atheist fundamentalist practices of neoDarwinist peddlers:
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@RussianPunch If this 'evidence' for the Noachian deluge is so powerful, why is it accepted by essentially no-one outside of the fundamentalist Christian fringe? It's pretty funny that you should call anyone else a fundamentalist. The entire consensus opinion of science isn't based on intellectual dishonesty - the theory of evolution has verification from independent fields of study, and furthermore has generated THOUSANDS of predictive hypotheses. If evolution is untrue that wouldn't make sense
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
@0mniaV1nc1t You are not adducing evidence but regurgitating fundamentalist drivel debunked roundly by pure science, based on observable, repeatable and testable hypotheses, as opposed to your admittedly popular pseudo-science neo-Darwinism (materialist imagination conjectured in defiance of untainted science). The abundant evidence accounting for the Noachian deluge cannot be justifiably glossed over by its lack of regard among materialist and/ or atheist fundamentalists.
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@0mniaV1nc1t Since neo-Darwinists are notoriously mendacious and riddled with double-speak when referring to evolution, I am compelled to ask, "In what sense are you using the term evolution, the true part referring to speciation or the false part applying to the dogma of universal common descent?" If you are referring to the latter, then you are flatly false, yet again. The overwhelming evidence against the latter is impossible to ignore unless you are a diehard atheist wilfully ignorant.
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@RussianPunch So 'diehard atheist wilfully ignorant' refer to the entirety of the peer-reviewed literature in biology does it? Why is there not a single peer-reviewed paper supporting intelligent design? You'll no doubt say it's because of some grand and Machiavellian conspiracy. Or maybe I'm wrong. Cite the evidence for the Noachian deluge.
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
Comment removed
RussianPunch 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@0mniaV1nc1t continued -- dogmatically precluding from serious consideration overwhelming evidences against universal common descent dogma and in support of Genesis creation and the Noachian deluge.
RussianPunch 11 months ago
Comment removed
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@RussianPunch [cont.] For instance, the Bovidae contain over 140 species. The Cercopithecidae contains a similar number. And you expect these to emerge, from an incredibly shallow gene pool, in just 4,000 years? And for the 800th time, the Law of Genetic Limits you keep banging on about, doesn't exist. Apart from possibly on Ken Ham's repository of crap, Answers in Genesis.
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
@0mniaV1nc1t You make the fundamentalist assumption that life began from "an incredibly shallow gene pool" despite the evidence to the contrary. Changing the allele frequency of one variant sequence occurs at the expense to that of another to lead to a loss of genetic variability. The gene information no longer expressed is partially lost to the new generation.
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@RussianPunch Wrong. Again. It's you who assumes that life started from a very shallow gene pool. If you are saying that all 'kinds' are derived from a pair or a handful of pair, you are saying that a very rapid diversification occurred in a population in which all individuals would have a massive amount of genetic similarity. And actually, recessive traits aren't generally speaking eliminated from the population. New alleles, and even new genes are created by mutation.
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
@0mniaV1nc1t As for the ultimate belief of a "shallow gene pool," it is your cherished neo-Darwinist dogma that holds to the extreme conceit that all life originated from a single-celled organism.
To assert taxonomical ranking as merely "for convenience" is to belie grossly its taint by neo-Darwinist bias. Indeed, taxonomic ranking is completely corrupted with common descent dogma; so that, for example, birds may be classified as a subclass of reptiles.
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@RussianPunch Yeah, the first proto-cells are though to have been in existence for over 3 billion years, and complex organisms didn't appear until the late pre-cambrian, so there was a tremendous amount of time in the intervening period for mutations to create genetic diversity. And there was very little biodiversity when the first complex organisms appeared.
You know why birds are classified as a clade within the larger archosaur group? Because they FUCKING ARE.
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
@0mniaV1nc1t LOL! Yes, "thought." Yet again you have to resort to discursive references to fundamentalist fables, now including imaginary proto-cells. Of course, ardent neo-Darwinists could not care less that such bunkum has sacrificed the integrity of science practices for the cause of neo-Darwinist, materialist ideology.
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@RussianPunch No. I say thought, because absolute certainty is the language of religious fundamentalism, not science. Why would anyone pretend that evolution was valid if it wasn't? To what end? What is the advantage of believing in deep time and common ancestry? And again, I'd point you to the wealth of testable predictions of evolutionary theory... your inability to understand the scientific method doesn't invalidate it. You know that disproving evolution doesn't prove creation right?
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
Comment removed
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@0mniaV1nc1t No, you have long before left any pretence of scientific integrity by appealing to fundamentalist fables of the imaginary needed to sustain neo-Darwinism, but you are obviously too emotionally invested in neo-Darwinist dogma to recognize your own delusional security in dogmatically precluding from serious consideration overwhelming evidences against universal common descent dogma. Why? Well, why do warmists continue to foist the falsehood that man-made CO2 endangers the climate?
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@RussianPunch Good luck with the entire 'not accepting reality' thing.
0mniaV1nc1t 10 months ago
Comment removed
RussianPunch 10 months ago
@0mniaV1nc1t So you buy into the warmist bunk too, huh? At least that is consistent.
RussianPunch 10 months ago
@RussianPunch It's odd that most rational and inquiring people accept scientific facts isn't it? What's also revealing is how people who believe one fairytale tend to believe them all. Hence, you're a creationist and a climate-change denialist, and Wells is an HIV/AIDS denialist.
0mniaV1nc1t 10 months ago
@RussianPunch you can tell someone is foolish by their awkward pseudo-intellectual word usage.
4ks4ft8 9 months ago
@0mniaV1nc1t Okay, no surprise there. You are veritably frothing at the mouth in your rabid, profanity-laced defence of the bias in taxonomical ranking criterion as long as it is convenient for neo-Darwinist ideologues.
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@0mniaV1nc1t Furthermore, your belief that mutations support your dogma has no scientific validity, as my favourite feature channel video shows. Learn why, without exception, every TRUE FORM mutation decreases useful information or increases harmful information: /watch?v=_s9oKio-fEU
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@RussianPunch Yeah, and as I've told you before, that video is, at best, factually inaccurate (at worst, whoever made it is a lying sack-of-shit).
Read any introductory text on genetics for examples of how mutation can add 'information' to the genome, and examples of verified beneficial mutations.
And that video's representation of horizontal gene transfer as though it somehow discredits evolution? Nonsense. Quit trolling.
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
@0mniaV1nc1t Acclaimed evolutionist Jun Yuan Chen's counters also that the history of life flows opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression that Dr. Chen calls "top-down evolution." Although, Dr. Chen's evolutionist time assumptions and interpretations are fundamentalist beliefs, at least his strictly scientific work reveals yet more overwhelming refutation against universal common descent fundamentalism.
RussianPunch 11 months ago
@RussianPunch This claim is a little more difficult, because I can find very little on Jun Yuan Chen. He holds some very odd views on Eastern mysticism, and cites the Cambrian explosion as evidence against the consensus evolutionary theory. It's widely accepted that the Cambrian explosion was a result of certain climatological, geological, and biological factors. Chen isn't some major player who's revolutionizing science though.
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@0mniaV1nc1t Also check out my feature favourite video Evolution And The Fabled Mutations - THE TRUTH.
RussianPunch 11 months ago
Well that's seven minutes I'm not going to get back, and it'd take me a great deal longer to criticise everything that was wrong there. Using big words doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.
0mniaV1nc1t 11 months ago
@0mniaV1nc1t Just ask them to show you all the evidence of all the ancestors of all the people from adam to Abraham to jesus and watch their faces...
enysp 9 months ago 2
@enysp u rock
masoodrodman 8 months ago
Comment removed
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@JerezJulio This fanciful conjecture, in short, is the claim that the absence of transitional fossil evidence is somehow the evidence! What evolutionists hate to admit is that this leap of conjecture to deal pseudo-scientifically with this gross lacking evidence is no substitute for actual evidence, plainly speaking.
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@RussianPunch
I see, so you do not believes that and living Organism can go from a water dwelling to a Land dwelling creature over ten of millions of years of accumulated micro changes that permits that the creature who tolerate their environment survive and reproduce, while the one that do not perish.
How do you explain that from a single Cell trough mitosis a living organism get all these different organs? a Neuron and a blood Cell ar very different but the come from the same cell.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@JerezJulio To debunk the evolutionism mutation myth, check one of my favourite videos, which I feature on my channel: /watch?v=_s9oKio-fEU
RussianPunch 1 year ago
Comment removed
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@RussianPunch if you believe you have a Theory that can prove Divine Creations, it is not I you have to convince,
you can submit your work to Sciences academics aroudn teh world for peer review and have other scientist reproducing your result.
Until then no video about Crocoduck, Bananas or Bacteria Flagellum will prove otherwise.
Until them Evolution proven Fact, just ask the people researching Stem Cells
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@JerezJulio I have refrained from criticizing your illiteracy and ignorance concerning evolutionism, but it is time you understood that you have not made an argument in support of evolutionism. Proclamations and assertions that the materialistic philosophy of evolutionism is 'proven fact' never made it such. In fact, the imaginary part of 'evolution' called common descent is a fanciful conjecture that has never been observed, tested, and repeatedly demonstrated.
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@RussianPunch
you can wish all you want, the fact still remain. Evolution is the central Theory that explain the diversity of life on the planet.
Today the principles of Evolution are much stronger than when Darwing first proposed it, It has being confirmed independently by the Fossil record, the Flora and Fauna of insolated ecosystems, the geological column, and in a devastating way confirmed by Genetic similarity of living things and theis common ansestors.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JerezJulio Sorry, but your statements are exposing your huge gulf of ignorance separating you from reality. Scientific evidence conclusively debunks the "common descent" conjecture of neoDarwinism because speciation has strict limits to variation that are NEVER crossed (every living thing produces after its kind, just as Genesis states) the reality that every breeder of animals or plants encounters.
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@JerezJulio As such, neoDarwinism is just one popular pseudo-science requiring a great imagination and blind faith.
To your other falsehood, the actual fact is that the situation for neoDarwinism is more dire now than when first proposed because of the fossil record. The exact opposite of what you falsely proclaimed! The stark absence of IMAGINED intermediate transitional fossils from water dwelling creatures to humans has evidenced yet another devastating problem for neoDarwinism.
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@RussianPunch
Divine Creation and or Intelligence design has Zero explanation for the diversity of Life.
The only Theory that has come out of it are, IBehe Irreducible complexity, not so Irreducible after all, and Dembsky ass principle of conservation of Information, that no even him can explain.
Can you cite one Positive advancement that your theory of Creation has produced
in the last 50 years to the advancement of humanity?
JerezJulio 1 year ago
@JerezJulio It is because there is no such evidence that leading evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould was compelled to concoct the conjecture known as "punctuated equilibrium." What evolutionists hate to admit is that this leap of imagination and blind faith to account for this lacking evidence is no substitute for actual evidence, plainly speaking.
RussianPunch 1 year ago
@JerezJulio Acceptance of the common descent evolution conjecture thus explicitly violates the discipline of the scientific method, and as such fails to qualify as a true scientific hypothesis.
RussianPunch 1 year ago
I have attempted to answer you questions as best I knew how. As I said several days ago, I am done here. The debate is ended for me. I have honestly stated what I think. Call it what you like. When in doubt, I default to God as a result of my life experience. Happy Trails.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
"Dawkins and Hitchens prophets?" People who do not believe in God are His prophets? Sounds like you've been smoking some of that medical marijuana yourself.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
the natural selection that took place, in other words. how each successive organism evolved from the previous one, step by step.
Not being able to do so means there is insufficient evidence to assume live evolved from a common ancestor.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dp19032k9 "the natural selection that took place, in other words. how each successive organism evolved from the previous one, step by step."
Does this mean you would want every single generational organism?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
"I would like you to give one recent example of a peer reviewed article supporting evolution for which you can show the conclusions are unfounded because of insufficient evidence"
Any article claiming that all of life descended from a common ancestor. Sufficient evidence will be able to describe, step by step, how life evolved from the first living organism through all the successive transitions to the life we see today. This will include the mutations that occurred,
dp19032k9 1 year ago
Nothing was planned or has a purpose to it. It's all here by chance.
I am telling you, what appears to be designed with intelligence was. God is behind it all. I am choosing to believe as I do because through faith God has allowed me to experience His presence and power.
Consider this......there is a book that claims Christ is risen from the dead, that He is the Son of God and that through Him we have eternal life. I have personally experienced His resurrection power, thus believe His Word.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
Comment removed
dp19032k9 1 year ago
One is internally generated, the other originates from outside me, from an external source.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
The placebo effect. Change your thinking and you change your mood and your emotional well being. Been there, done that through the CBT course. IT worked very well. My experience with God was nothing like that. This was an eternal being that entered me, with my permission, and filled me with His presence. I've never experienced anything like this in my life like this except for those 3 days. 15 years later I experienced something similar, but not nearly as intense. CBT is totally different.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
@dp19032k9 I think you would really benefit from talking to a Paleontologist and learning just how they actually take a partial fossil and are able to fit it into the record. It is not just one criteria, there are many and they all have to converge to the same point. It is not always possible, there are fossils which are not categorized because they are vastly incomplete and/or are in an lineage which is very full of large gaps.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "I think you would really benefit from talking to a Paleontologist and learning just how they actually take a partial fossil and are able to fit it into the record."
AS time permits I am interested in knowing about scientists ideas. However, nothing can change what has happened to me with God. That will always remain with me, as part of my experience and as part of how I view the world and the universe. It can never be changed because it was God. Not one doubt about it. Nada, zip.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
@dp19032k9 You have just admitted that there is no empirical evidence that could be presented to you which would cause you to reject scripture. You have further admitted that your reasoning is illogical, inconsistent and irrational and that your decisions are not system coherent and you are perfectly aware of all of this and content because again it allows you to affirm scripture. Only one question remains, would you want people to think this way about everything or just that book?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CliffStamp "You have just admitted that there is no empirical evidence that could be presented to you which would cause you to reject scripture"
Maybe we are making some headway now. You are absolutely correct.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "You have further admitted that your reasoning is illogical, inconsistent and irrational and that your decisions are not system coherent and you are perfectly aware of all of this and content because again it allows you to affirm scripture."
Illogical, irrational..........Is believing in a universe and life which begins and is sustained in an organized, predictable, systematic manner with no intelligence behind it whatsoever. Utterly ridiculous.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
@dp19032k9 "Is believing in a universe and life which begins and is sustained in an organized, predictable, systematic manner with no intelligence behind it whatsoever."
So you reject natural methodology as a framework for producing knowledge?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@dp19032k9 Consider this, you have a book, in order to accept it you have to ignore rational thought and empirical evidence, these things which for everything else aside from the book you not only accept but you embrace into your life and take advantage of. You have to forgo logic and reason and engage in self-contradiction to maintain the truth of the book. Does that sound like the book written by a God to bring enlightenment or a book written by a Devil to confuse?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "Consider this, you have a book, in order to accept it you have to ignore rational thought and empirical evidence,"
In order to accept evolution, you have to ignore common sense and logic. You must affirm that life began from dead compounds by chance (no intelligence behind it), that the universe began and evolved with no intelligence behind it, that order, logic, and intelligence all developed by chance and with no intelligence behind it.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
@dp19032k9 "In order to accept evolution, you have to ignore common sense and logic."
Most of science is not based on common sense and classical logic, by the same reasoning you would reject quantum theory, relativity, all of statistical mechanics, etc. (i.e. all of our fundamental understanding).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
Seems to me too much has been inferred from insufficient information. Creates flawed thinking and wrong conclusions. Not a good way to carry on a profession, in my opinion. No one was there in real time to witness what happened. Plus intelligence is purposely filtered out of the equation. Doesn't add up to me.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
@dp19032k9 It is extremely complicated to classify fossils yes, that is why placement us uncertain and it the linage can shift around. There is uncertainty in all of science, this is actually one of the most basic laws of science that no observations are absolute. However in the fossil record it is like trying to assemble one puzzle without a picture when all the puzzles in the world have been mixed together. Of course the more it gets filled in the easier it is to fill it in.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
To me the evidence isn't black and white, but very, very gray. So, why are most scientists in the evolutioinary camp? Seems like there is tunnel vision. And there is a lot of assumption going on. Fossils are fossils, not living things. I'm not convinced you can take from them as much as has been inferred from them. And apparrently paleontologists and molecular biologists are at odds at times as to which fossils belong to a phyla or whatever the classification is.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
@dp19032k9 Most scientists accept evolution because it is simply taught, it is only the very few primary researches who are actively involved in refining the theory. Note that evolution is now undergoing a secondary synthesis to take into account new observations, such as non-dnainheritance, it is not a static theory which has remained unchanged for 150 years. Natural selection is even argued by some to be not the dominant force of selection (instead genetic drift is suggested).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So, things aren't black and white. There are situations where I would not need a lot of evidence, if any at all in the case I just cited, to believe something to be true. Because of my personal experience, I don't require Pullinger healing someone in front of me. I believe what I am seeing in the documentary. It's happening in real time, plus there are witnesses, multiple witnesses who were healed. That's enough for me because of what I know of God.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
@dp19032k9 If we met tomorrow and I told you I could lay hands and heal through divine will, and then demonstrated it right in front of you on someone in a wheelchair nearby and they got up and walked, would you really then believe me without any further evidence simply because that could be true if God was real?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CliffStamp "If we met tomorrow and I told you I could lay hands and heal through divine will, and then demonstrated it right in front of you on someone in a wheelchair nearby and they got up and walked,"
If it could be verified that the person was disabled and could not walk, then yes, I would probably believe that.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
@dp19032k9 Excellent now how do you know the guy who claimed to have pain actually had pain, and that it was in fact removed - he simply noted it.
Second, why do you think that all of these claims of miracles disappear when they are empirically tested to remove the placebo effect and only show up as anecdotal claims?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "Excellent now how do you know the guy who claimed to have pain actually had pain, and that it was in fact removed - he simply noted it.
Second, why do you think that all of these claims of miracles disappear when they are empirically tested to remove the placebo effect"
His family was in the interview as well. They noted a change in behavior, better functioning. It did not take away the pain as much as it helped him function inspite of it.
I don't see it as a miracle, but help
dp19032k9 1 year ago
@dp19032k9 Yes, and all of those claims, by himself and the family are perfectly explained by the placebo effect, so again do you deny the existence of the placebo effect, and why do none of those claims continue when controls are use to remove the placebo effect (double blind trials for example).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
So, things aren't black and white. There are situations where I would not need a lot of evidence, if any at all in the case I just cited, to believe something to be true. Because of my personal experience, I don't require Pullinger healing someone in front of me. I believe what I am seeing in the documentary. It's happening in real time, plus there are witnesses, multiple witnesses who were healed. That's enough for me because of what I know of God.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
I'm watching "Marijuana USA" on CNBC. I just heard of a patient with severe pain (not sure what his ailment is) say that smoking marijuana helps him a lot in dealing with the pain. Then they interview a someone who I assume is a sccientist who says there is no empirical evidence through double blind trials that marijuana is any different than placebo. Who do I believe? The guy with the pain.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
@dp19032k9 To be clear, an individual states that a particular action has medical benefit and you believe him. A scientist researches, published in peer reviewed journals, this is repeated and verified - but you reject that. What exact is the standard of evidence that you are using to accept the first claim and reject the second conclusion?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "To be clear, an individual states that a particular action has medical benefit and you believe him. A scientist researches, published in peer reviewed journals, this is repeated and verified - but you reject that. What exact is the standard of evidence that you are using to accept the first claim and reject the second conclusion?"
I asked my wife who she would believe, explaining what I had just watched on CNBC. She also said the guy with the pain.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
@CliffStamp His family was on also and said that he, the husband, was able to do more things with his kids, etc. I simply believe him based upon what I observed. I'm really getting tired of your questions. I am a human being and believe things based on what I believe to be true. I am not black and white. Some things I may require evidence, some things I may not. Depends on the circumstance.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
@dp19032k9 What you are describing is the placebo effect. Do you believe this does not exist?
Would you want medical research to proceed using the same system of logic you are using to infer that man had discovered a medical treatment for pain?
Would you use such treatment for disease if necessary if a doctor's only proof was he had one patient who would testify he was so cured?
Knowing of course there was absolutely no empirical evidence at all (no clinical trials) besides that claim?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CliffStamp "What you are describing is the placebo effect. Do you believe this does not exist?
Would you want medical research to proceed using the same system of logic you are using to infer that man had discovered a medical treatment for pain?"
I know it exists, I have experienced it
No, I would want medical research to do what it is doing now.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
@dp19032k9 Now how can you want medical research to continue using the current methodology and yet at the same time note that it produces false information and you would instead believe claims from people as truth? You are then advocating a methodology which you describe as inferior and which produces false information.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "Now how can you want medical research to continue using the current methodology and yet at the same time note that it produces false information and you would instead believe claims from people as truth? You are then advocating a methodology which you describe as inferior and which produces false information. "
My choice, my decision. None of us are perfectly logical and that seems what you desire, perfect logic and perfection, black and white. People are not that way.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CliffStamp "Would you use such treatment for disease if necessary if a doctor's only proof was he had one patient who would testify he was so cured?"
The man was not cured, it simply helped him deal with the pain. Someone is prescribing it, so some doctors are using it as treatment. I am not a doctor. Would never be in that situation.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
Ok, I'm getting it now, I think. You see me wanting more evidence for evolution, but don't see me wanting the same concerning spiritual matters? Is that it?
If I hadn't had the life experience that I have had, I would be more accepting of the evidence for evolution. But, based on what has happened to me, I know there is more to it than just evolution. And I'm in doubt about macroevolution because of my personal experiences. God says one thing in scripture and evolution says there is no God.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
@dp19032k9 Is there any empirical evidence which could be presented that you would accept as proof of evolution, or would you reject anything simply because of your personal experience in God?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "Is there any empirical evidence which could be presented that you would accept as proof of evolution, or would you reject anything simply because of your personal experience in God?"
The personal experience is the primary factor. As a result of that, if in doubt, I default to what God says. It also works against the evidence for most scientists to not have a faith in God. There is a bias there, in my opinion, Dawkins being the best example. Maybe some things have been "cooked".
dp19032k9 1 year ago
@dp19032k9 So there is no empirical evidence that could be presented that you would accept as supporting evolution because of the personal experience you have had with God, which you have noted that no one can falsify and that you can not even falsify if someone claims to have a different personal experience than you?
What would you do if another God manifested itself and told you that the first experience you had was the Devil, what would you believe then?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp There is some evidence that appears to support evolution, but macroevolution I really don't know. But what is behind it? Did an intelligence establish it or is it simply dumb mother nature? I don't buy dumb with no organization or intelligence. Goes against reason and logic. What confuses me is how it fits in with the creation story. Since it doesn't impact my earthly lot, or my eternal destiny if I choose to wait on an explanation from God, that's what I'll do.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
@dp19032k9 The current theory of evolution has nothing behind it if you mean something directing it to create a specific goal, it is all just random chance. Directed evolution such as selective breeding takes place along the same general pathways but since it is not random anymore it is orders of magnitude faster.
There is a huge body of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, again, what would you actually want to see in order to for you to accept it?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CliffStamp "it is all just random chance."
I disagree. There is an intelligence behind the creation of the world and of life. There is an assumption it is all just random chance. I believe the assumption to be invalid.
dp19032k9 1 year ago
@dp19032k9 There is no assumption that it is random chance, the null hypothesis exists as non-correlation, correlation is the assumption to be tested. In any experiment when data is gathered, the test is always is what is seen signi