Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
    It is partly code, but that's not all it does, it's also the switches and how it works is based on shape and location, not just the "code".
    You misunderstand. No one is claiming that all that matters is the ATCG order. If shape and location matter to the system, then that get's modeled, too.

    But I was trying to help your case by sticking to the simpler example. If you really want to add more complication to the system, it's your rope.

    And the nifty thing is, to model mutation+natural selection, we don't even need to model the ATCG code and/or all its other chemical factors. To model mutation+natural selection, we just need to know that random happens and then it get's filtered. What we are trying to find out when we model DNA is just how the random works so it can be filtered. When we stick with the simple ATCG code, there is no way to get a simulator to work with what we know about the code. And ATCG code is the best case scenario - when we start adding epigenetic factors, it makes things worse for the hope that random mutation+natural selection can make common descent work. If you thought mutating ATCG to create new features was hard, just wait until you try "mutating" epigenetic factors to get those changes! The best you can hope for is to declare yourself correct, fire anyone that questions your dogma, and hope the system stays in the realm of black box magic.

    A mechanical switch is either on or off.
    It's actually not. This is a good example that when we model things we aren't concerned with how we'd like things to be, but with the way the system works including all externalities that can affect the model. When we model a mechanical switch we have to be concerned with shape and location as they affect, in turn, elasticity and momentum. So your insistence that DNA is code+magic is unfounded.

    A DNA switch is not just on or off and it may interact with other proteins that may modulate the action of the switch protein, depending on the situation.

    What really makes the difference is how often a protein interacts with DNA, these are molecules that jump around. If it's attached to DNA 60% of the time, maybe that's one level of on, then 40%, 20% etc. Then maybe it interacts with two other proteins 10 and 5% of the time. But for every DNA switch you'd have to find ALL of that out before you could even model a single cell and *then* try to model mutation and selection with multiple iterations of said cell.

    Which is why I said it would be easier to model the chemical basis of proteins and DNA, then you wouldn't have to know everything beforehand because the model would act the way a real cell does automatically.
    You realize that you are just making the impossible more impossible? When we first saw DNA it would have been nice if ATCG order was all there was to it. But now we know the code is a lot more complicated than that. Epigenetic factors is one thing that's driving scientists, without religious or political bias, away from Neo-Darwinism because changing ATCG is easy compared to changing epigenetic factors to improve fitness, and the irony is that the reason to look outside changing DNA was because improving fitness by mutations to ATCG was looking more and more impossible without magic.

    Anything you use to model evolution is going to have to have some kind of selection criteria. I'm guessing you will complain this is a "goal" no matter what.
    Quite wrong. The question would only be how the model achieves the goal, not that there is a goal. In Ev there was a search algorithm that was buried in the code with no claim that it was there (please note that no one is accusing the coders with malicious intent). That algorithm had properties that were far more generous than what we understand mutating ATCG can do to make new features in successive generations.

    And I think the reason there is no new attempt to simulate mutation+natural selection is for two reasons. The first is that there are more (not that there are a lot of) scientists that are allowed to look at simulation code and announce its flaws wherein in the past they would have been fired for questioning something that made common descent look good. Secondly is the epigenetic factors that are making random mutation+natural selection look even more unworkable than it was to begin with and trying to imagine something that could be coded that worked can't even be wildly speculated on. But perhaps you know of a new attempt.

    Yes, he's only looking at microevolutionary change. The evidence for common descent is already well supported by fossils and DNA.
    Lenski's findings are that the majority of fitness improvements come from breaking things, not making things. That's why if his work is applied to common descent it fails to show common descent works because common descent requires more things to be made than broken to work.

    Common descent is devastated by fossils. The more we find out the quicker we realize that timeframes for evolution to happen are getting squished impossibly small. Soft tissue in fossils makes the long timeframes scientists claim for common descent make them look like clowns. Fossil plants going through many layers of sediment has anyone skeptical of geological age claims see the emperor has no cloths. And fossil transitions, especially the Cambrian Explosion, should make anyone skeptical that fossils have anything good to show for common descent since it shows common descent to fail every prediction it has ever made. And there are other things about fossils that show a lot more that common descent is highly improbable but these few ought to be enough.

    And, of course, we are discussing how DNA makes common descent look like a silly notion.

    Scientists compare organisms and see that larger changes are made by small adjustments in developmental genes. This is already known so I don't know why you think it is some kind of "failure".
    That was the point I was making. 'Fewer changes' is easier than 'more changes'. Easier was required to try and keep the idea of common descent alive because mutating ATCG to create features was looking harder and harder to the point of impossibility.

    But it's a double edged sword. Mutations, not to be conflated by epigenetic adjustments, are almost always very bad in HOX genes. Has a good mutation in HOX genes ever been found? Don't we know about some tiny mutations in HOX genes because of genetic disease? So how does common descent explain working HOX genes if mutating them into fruition is so precarious? Why, the fact that they exist and work is proof enough for a common descentist, the rest of us rational people prefer evidence of development. And if you want to claim that there are genes similar to HOX genes that you are going to claim mutated their way into HOX genes, you would be forgetting how precarious HOX genes are.

    I didn't see any predictions made.
    The predicted relationships between functions is a great deal more accurate than common descent predictions of what groups should be related according to function.

    Not at all. He goes through individual stages, each of which have a selective advantage. A cup shaped eye patch, a more and more constricted eyepatch, then the evolution of a transparent layer.
    That was the point. He declares the eye patch and eye are related because... reasons. Just because different eyes exist is not evidence they are related. Accepting something without evidence when there is evidence against it could rationally be called accepting magic.

    Why then do mitochondria and chloroplasts have circular DNA like bacteria? Ribosomes that are most similar to bacteria?
    A better reason for common "looks" would be a common designer. Why do you continue to insist on the philosophical idea that God would have to make each set of code (and epigenetic systems if you really want to make your life harder) unique for each original organism?

    Sure you can make the argument, but we have no reason to accept your philosophy.

    But you didn't answer the question unless you want to claim "looks" is strong evidence. The claim was "The changes required for bacteria-like organisms to become parts of cells take a lot of mutations." So the question should be what evidence you'd have that mutation+natural selection can pull off a trick like that?

    Originally posted by Yorzhik
    Again, though, endosymbiosis is a theory based mostly on looks. If it wasn't based on looks, common descentists would at least want to know a rough answer to the question of how many mutations it would take to pull off a trick like that. But they *don't even ask the question*.
    Originally posted by Alate_One
    How many? Is that really the question when plenty of organisms are able to keep chloroplasts alive for extended periods within their tissues?
    That's funny! You just got done telling me I need to accept your explanation based on "looks" and then you read how scientifically we shouldn't base things on "looks"... and you didn't go back and you didn't bat an eye. Facts be damned, you'll believe what you want to believe.

    No, that isn't the question. The question, if you bothered to read, is: "why don't common descentists even ask the question?". For any real scientists it would be an obvious question if one really believed in common descent.

    Hydroplates are a cartoon version of the flood.
    Hydroplates or not, the evidence is clear that the flood was worldwide and not long ago. Eventually you'll have to face the evidence if you want to be taken seriously.

    I guess you're not interested in that book I mentioned?
    Who said that? I look at information presented by the other side all the time. I'm always looking for the best evidence against my position but books take somewhat of a large investment. And just like you won't read every book I mention, you'll have to at least give me time to look at books you mention.
    Last edited by Yorzhik; October 29, 2019, 05:21 PM.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post
      You misunderstand. No one is claiming that all that matters is the ATCG order. If shape and location matter to the system, then that get's modeled, too.

      But I was trying to help your case by sticking to the simpler example. If you really want to add more complication to the system, it's your rope.
      It's the complexity of the system that allows it to work.

      Common descent is devastated by fossils. The more we find out the quicker we realize that timeframes for evolution to happen are getting squished impossibly small. Soft tissue in fossils makes the long timeframes scientists claim for common descent make them look like clowns. Fossil plants going through many layers of sediment has anyone skeptical of geological age claims see the emperor has no cloths.
      Do you really think scientists are dumb enough to think those represent ages? Or ever thought that?

      How about the fact that Flowering plants and bees appear only after a certain point in the fossil record?

      That was the point I was making. 'Fewer changes' is easier than 'more changes'. Easier was required to try and keep the idea of common descent alive because mutating ATCG to create features was looking harder and harder to the point of impossibility.
      Not even remotely accurate.

      But it's a double edged sword. Mutations, not to be conflated by epigenetic adjustments, are almost always very bad in HOX genes. Has a good mutation in HOX genes ever been found? Don't we know about some tiny mutations in HOX genes because of genetic disease? So how does common descent explain working HOX genes if mutating them into fruition is so precarious? Why, the fact that they exist and work is proof enough for a common descentist, the rest of us rational people prefer evidence of development. And if you want to claim that there are genes similar to HOX genes that you are going to claim mutated their way into HOX genes, you would be forgetting how precarious HOX genes are.
      HOX genes are old enough I am not sure we know their origin. Regardless, even if HOX genes themselves were specially created, that would still include every bilaterally symmetrical organism on earth as having a common ancestor. Clearly you don't believe in that, do you?

      That was the point. He declares the eye patch and eye are related because... reasons. Just because different eyes exist is not evidence they are related. Accepting something without evidence when there is evidence against it could rationally be called accepting magic.
      The protein (PAX6) that signals the creation of the human eye, works perfectly for creating the drosophila eye.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAX6

      That's funny! You just got done telling me I need to accept your explanation based on "looks" and then you read how scientifically we shouldn't base things on "looks"... and you didn't go back and you didn't bat an eye. Facts be damned, you'll believe what you want to believe.
      You keep insisting these parts of *function* are just "looks". It's as if any physical evidence can be just waved away, as "looks".

      "Looks" implies that it is a superficial similarity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mitochondria do not just look like bacteria, they behave like them. And even more amazingly they behave the same way in virtually every eukaryotic organism!

      Why give them a circular chromosome like bacteria? That's hardly a superficial character when the chromosome in the nucleus is linear.

      Hydroplates or not, the evidence is clear that the flood was worldwide and not long ago. Eventually you'll have to face the evidence if you want to be taken seriously.
      I think we're talking past each other at this point. I don't see any evidence for a worldwide flood.


      Who said that? I look at information presented by the other side all the time. I'm always looking for the best evidence against my position but books take somewhat of a large investment. And just like you won't read every book I mention, you'll have to at least give me time to look at books you mention.
      You just didn't mention it at all. . .
      “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



      - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
        How about the fact that Flowering plants and bees appear only after a certain point in the fossil record?


        The "fossil record" is far more representative of a global flood than a nice timeline of life "evolving" into being.
        All of my ancestors are human.
        Originally posted by Squeaky
        That explains why your an idiot.
        Originally posted by God's Truth
        Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
        Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
        (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

        1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
        (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

        Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

        Comment


        • A late one;
          So if the Pax whatever and so on is turned off in fruit flies, than they don’t have eyes...
          Animals lose anatomy over time through mutation quite often, but do you have an example where a creature has gained any anatomy that wasn’t already present in the genome?

          I mean, if evolution was the means by which single celled organisms became macro organisms, anatomy had to be gained along the way at some point...

          It seems to me animals were created with all the functional anatomy initially, and some lost anatomy along the way through mutation, and it’s impossible for an animal to gain new functional anatomy that wasn’t already written in the genome to begin with.

          This being true, it makes it hard to believe that evolution happens at all; given mutation appears to be a destructive force and never a creative force in nature.

          Not that I’m claiming to know all about DNA sequences, but the idea that new functional anatomy just springs up on its own seems a bit far fetched.

          =M=

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
            Do you really think scientists are dumb enough to think those represent ages?
            Rock layers?

            Yes.

            How about the fact that Flowering plants and bees appear only after a certain point in the fossil record?
            Asserting the truth of your ideas again?

            How about the fact — an actual fact this time — that Darwinists had to push back their belief about the latest supposed arrival of certain types of plants?

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3788615/

            Remember the point that you're trying to disguise?
            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
            E≈mc2
            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
            -Bob B.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
              How about the fact — an actual fact this time — that Darwinists had to push back their belief about the latest supposed arrival of certain types of plants?

              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3788615/

              Remember the point that you're trying to disguise?
              Not disguising anything. I think you need to look in the mirror.

              In the linked article, they found angiosperm LIKE pollen, not pollen that looks identical to any specific modern angiosperms (which are everywhere and inescapable today) or in anything close to the quantity of angiosperm pollen existing today. I just left my lab window open once in the spring and found an obvious yellow-green layer of angiosperm pollen all over our lab benches.

              Having to look extremely hard to find pollen that looks "like" modern angiosperms clearly shows the composition of plant life has changed dramatically over time. The message of all of the fossil record is dramatic differences between the living organisms in the distant past and those of today.

              Entire forests of tree Lycophytes, which don't exist anymore.



              And we don't see any modern trees growing alongside them. Almost like those modern trees didn't exist yet . . .
              “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



              - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by mtwilcox View Post
                A late one;
                So if the Pax whatever and so on is turned off in fruit flies, than they don’t have eyes...
                Animals lose anatomy over time through mutation quite often, but do you have an example where a creature has gained any anatomy that wasn’t already present in the genome?
                Would you consider a lobe finned fish walking on land "gaining anatomy"?

                If the fins evolved fingers, would that be "gaining anatomy"?

                How about Tiktaalik? It was discovered to have a pelvis after the initial description.
                “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                  Would you consider a lobe finned fish walking on land "gaining anatomy"?

                  If the fins evolved fingers, would that be "gaining anatomy"?

                  How about Tiktaalik? It was discovered to have a pelvis after the initial description.
                  Yeah, I would say fins turning into fingers would be considered “gaining anatomy”, but do you have evidence that happened?

                  Like say, a tiktaalik with fingers to compare to your tiktaalik with fins...?

                  Of course, I meant a modern observable mutation, but you knew that.

                  I know how much you evolutionists love the tiktaalik. : )

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik



                  =M=


                  ================================

                  Check out this sweet animal!!!



                  Hey! It must be a descendant of the tiktaalik!!!

                  I wonder how much longer it will take for mudskippers to evolve fingers and feet...

                  See;
                  I can write crazy evol gibberish too... doesn’t mean it’s true... lol!!!
                  Last edited by mtwilcox; October 31, 2019, 02:45 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Yorzhik
                    But I was trying to help your case by sticking to the simpler example. If you really want to add more complication to the system, it's your rope.
                    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    It's the complexity of the system that allows it to work.
                    Admitting the machinery of life isn't simple should make you question the ability of random changes to build such machinery the more complex we discover it to be. And adding epigenetic factors isn't magic that makes the system simpler, it's an added layer of complexity that should make you question random changes+natural selection.

                    Do you really think scientists are dumb enough to think those represent ages? Or ever thought that?
                    The pronoun "those" refers to what? Rock layers? You are about to mention things that appear "after a certain point in the fossil record". How is "after" determined in the fossil record if not from rock layers?

                    How about the fact that Flowering plants and bees appear only after a certain point in the fossil record?
                    You mean they only appear after a certain rock layer? How do they determine what timeframe that is?

                    Originally posted by Yorzhik
                    That was the point I was making. 'Fewer changes' is easier than 'more changes'. Easier was required to try and keep the idea of common descent alive because mutating ATCG to create features was looking harder and harder to the point of impossibility.
                    Originally posted by Alate_One
                    Not even remotely accurate.
                    The main point is completely accurate. DNA cannot mutate novel functions for itself. Adding epigenetic factors makes it more difficult to mutate novel functions for itself.

                    HOX genes are old enough I am not sure we know their origin.
                    So we are supposed to believe they came from an ultimate common ancestor via mutation and natural selection without evidence.

                    Regardless, even if HOX genes themselves were specially created, that would still include every bilaterally symmetrical organism on earth as having a common ancestor. Clearly you don't believe in that, do you?
                    HOX genes are that universal? Like as universal as ATP systems? Are you sure you want to believe that? Because HOX genes are even more complex than ATP systems.

                    The protein (PAX6) that signals the creation of the human eye, works perfectly for creating the drosophila eye.
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAX6
                    So are you trying to say that some other system mutated into PAX6? Unless you assume, with no evidence other than themselves, they evolved from a common ancestor this wouldn't mean anything to Dawkin's claims.

                    Do you see the problem?

                    You keep insisting these parts of *function* are just "looks". It's as if any physical evidence can be just waved away, as "looks".

                    "Looks" implies that it is a superficial similarity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mitochondria do not just look like bacteria, they behave like them. And even more amazingly they behave the same way in virtually every eukaryotic organism!

                    Why give them a circular chromosome like bacteria? That's hardly a superficial character when the chromosome in the nucleus is linear.
                    I thought "circular" referred to its looks. But if you want to go with "virtually every eukaryotic organism" has the same mitochondria, we can go down that road too.

                    I think we're talking past each other at this point. I don't see any evidence for a worldwide flood.
                    Then you aren't giving the evidence the same consideration that you give evidence for believing things like "the sun is hot relative to the earth" or "if I throw this ball into the air it will come back down".

                    If you can find one, look for a map of the major sediment layers. Then look at the world today.

                    Look at the Cumberland Basin. It's not only the polystrate fossils, but the roots common descentists claim are there are not the kind of roots that would actually be on a living plant. And then the justification for saying "they are formed by rare to infrequent brief episodes of rapid sedimentation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil has no basis in differences above or below the polystrate fossil. Then look at the shear size of the Cumberland Basin deposit and you realize the event was as big, at it's very least, to cover the entire eastern seaboard of Canada. Somehow an event like that, if that's all we could find in sediments, would have been at least noticed worldwide.
                    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

                    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post
                      Admitting the machinery of life isn't simple should make you question the ability of random changes to build such machinery the more complex we discover it to be. And adding epigenetic factors isn't magic that makes the system simpler, it's an added layer of complexity that should make you question random changes+natural selection.
                      You would think that this would at least slow them down... but no, their faith is strong.
                      All of my ancestors are human.
                      Originally posted by Squeaky
                      That explains why your an idiot.
                      Originally posted by God's Truth
                      Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                      Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                      (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                      1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                      (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                      Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                        Not disguising anything.
                        That'll explain why you're exactly addressing the challenge that was issued.

                        That wasn't even a sensible response to a tangential idea of what I said.
                        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                        E≈mc2
                        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                        -Bob B.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                          You would think that this would at least slow them down... but no, their faith is strong.
                          No skepticism? No curiosity? Did they get their natural affinity for learning as a child beat out of them by school?
                          Good things come to those who shoot straight.

                          Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post
                            No skepticism? No curiosity? Did they get their natural affinity for learning as a child beat out of them by school?
                            Probably. Wouldn't dismiss the idea, considering how bad the schools are these days at teaching anything at all...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post
                              Admitting the machinery of life isn't simple should make you question the ability of random changes to build such machinery the more complex we discover it to be. And adding epigenetic factors isn't magic that makes the system simpler, it's an added layer of complexity that should make you question random changes+natural selection.
                              I don't see any reason to say a complex system means random changes are worse than a simpler one. The complex system has a lot more redundancy and can tolerate a lot more noise and damage than a simpler one.

                              I think that's why your simplified models of DNA function don't work.

                              You mean they only appear after a certain rock layer? How do they determine what timeframe that is?
                              The simplest way is to know that the rocks on top are older than those on the bottom.

                              To cross date obviously scientists use radiometric methods or using electromagnetic field reversals.

                              The main point is completely accurate. DNA cannot mutate novel functions for itself. Adding epigenetic factors makes it more difficult to mutate novel functions for itself.
                              I haven't really said anything about epigenetics up till this point so I'm not sure where you're getting it from. Epigenetics don't make new functions, pretty much by definition.

                              HOX genes are that universal? Like as universal as ATP systems? Are you sure you want to believe that? Because HOX genes are even more complex than ATP systems.
                              Depends on what one means by "ATP systems" as there are many, many ways to make ATP.

                              HOX genes are universal to all bilaterian animals, that much is a fact. They are used in slightly different ways in different organisms and show many rounds of duplication, depending on the organism.

                              Ray finned fish actually have more copies of HOX than we do. Got a good explanation for that?

                              So are you trying to say that some other system mutated into PAX6? Unless you assume, with no evidence other than themselves, they evolved from a common ancestor this wouldn't mean anything to Dawkin's claims.

                              Do you see the problem?
                              What other reasons is there for the eyemaking protein, for such radically different eye types to be cross functional? Especially when many other proteins are not.


                              I thought "circular" referred to its looks. But if you want to go with "virtually every eukaryotic organism" has the same mitochondria, we can go down that road too.
                              Circular DNA isn't just looks. It radically changes how the DNA functions and replicates. Circular DNA eliminates the end replication problem that Eukaryotic chromosomes have. Mitochondria and chloroplasts don't just look like bacteria, they still behave like bacteria.

                              Look at the Cumberland Basin. It's not only the polystrate fossils, but the roots common descentists claim are there are not the kind of roots that would actually be on a living plant. And then the justification for saying "they are formed by rare to infrequent brief episodes of rapid sedimentation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil has no basis in differences above or below the polystrate fossil. Then look at the shear size of the Cumberland Basin deposit and you realize the event was as big, at it's very least, to cover the entire eastern seaboard of Canada. Somehow an event like that, if that's all we could find in sediments, would have been at least noticed worldwide.
                              Flood layers are easily identified by graded bedding. We don't find one giant flood layer of graded bedding worldwide.

                              Yes some sediment layers were deposited rapidly, but others weren't. And many layers reflect *different* deposition conditions.

                              I can see that where I live, there are many layers of limestone (not a flood layer), which is overlain by sandstone (not a flood layer) and if you go farther south you can find the underlying eroded granite (also not a flood layer).
                              “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                              - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                                You would think that this would at least slow them down... but no, their faith is strong.
                                Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post
                                No skepticism? No curiosity? Did they get their natural affinity for learning as a child beat out of them by school?
                                Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                                Probably. Wouldn't dismiss the idea, considering how bad the schools are these days at teaching anything at all...
                                You three seriously pegged the irony meter on this one.

                                I've been bringing plenty of new information into these discussions and all you want to do is dismiss and ignore it. Skepticism isn't just rejecting what doesn't conform to a worldview, it is looking at any new information in light of all of the other information that's available.

                                One doesn't take one piece of data and throw out all the other contrary data because the other data makes you feel better.

                                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                                That'll explain why you're exactly addressing the challenge that was issued.

                                That wasn't even a sensible response to a tangential idea of what I said.
                                You claimed that the reference you posted proved that Angiosperms have been around for ages, but the problem is, you're looking at small amounts of pollen and pollen that's not a recognizable modern angiosperm.

                                If you're looking for support for the hypothesis that the earth is only 4,000 to 10,000 years old, you would expect the types of pollen in ALL sediment layers to be reasonably similar, without any major groups of plants that are alive today missing.

                                Except we don't see that at all in the rock layers all around us. When we find fossil plants they're very often of plants that don't exist anymore and the plants we see here today are not fossilized with them.

                                How else do you explain that type of data other than the composition of the plant life on earth has changed massively over time?
                                “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                                - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X