Regardless of faith: do you believe the bible is the word of god?

[crowTrobot]

I don't know buddy. It seems this "preacher" actually explained it very scientifically. I would like for you to meet the challenge of the preacher to explain this without using "theoretically", "Most likely", or other words that is based only on theory.

that's one of the lamest god-of-the-gaps dodges i've ever heard. almost everything you believe (outside of religion) is based on 'most likely' to be true because it is the theory that is best supported by evidence. that's how scientific knowledge is formed.

 

[MadeFromDust]

i didn't say it 'proves' anything, but symbiosis/mutualism is a *prediction* of the theory of evolution by environmental selection, not a conundrum for it. if true we would EXPECT to find these types of relationships in nature between different species that have evolved interacting together, each constituting part of the other's physical environment.

the video deliberately misrepresents this as a problem where one species exists as fixed (not changing) and the other enters the picture and must adapt to it, when in actuality according to the theory both species would be evolving together in tandem, building the relationship on both sides through selection of *both* species. both species are changing over time, not just one.

the trouble here is you need at least a basic understanding of what the theory actually says in order to recognize the difference between someone who knows what they are talking about (such as a working scientist) and bullshit youtube religious propaganda.

So as the man in the video puts it: what is your plausible, logical, and scientifically verifiable explanation as to how these relationships could have evolved? Sounds like wishful thinking and desperation on the part of evolutionists. Still looking like an awfully big conundrum to me.

 

[MadeFromDust]

While you're at it, can you debunk these two videos as well?

[video=youtube;40taNnr7Jww]

[video=youtube;f02g9w241XI]

 

[crowTrobot]

So as the man in the video puts it: what is your plausible, logical, and scientifically verifiable explanation as to how these relationships could have evolved? Sounds like wishful thinking and desperation on the part of evolutionists. Still looking like an awfully big conundrum to me.

you should be looking at it this way. every working scientist in the world believes in evolution. the large majority of educated people in 1st world countries believe in it. 1/2 of all christians in the USA have been compelled to incorporate it into their belief system in one way or another.

there must be something to it that is not so easily dismissed by a 5 minute youtube video.

you should at least consider the possibility that all these scientists etc. have a better understanding of the theory than you do, and symbiosis isn't actually a problem for evolution, and the video is actually just religious propaganda that you aren't able to recognize as such because you have an insufficient understanding of the theory (and/or lack of desire to think objectively about it).

 

[crowTrobot]

While you're at it, can you debunk these two videos as well?

[video=youtube;40taNnr7Jww]

[video=youtube;f02g9w241XI]

i don't have time ATM to watch 8 minute videos, but do you seriously think every scientist in the world is wrong just because a few people with religious agendas tell you they are? that would just make you gullible.

 

[MadeFromDust]

you should be looking at it this way. every working scientist in the world believes in evolution. the large majority of educated people in 1st world countries believe in it. 1/2 of all christians in the USA have been compelled to incorporate it into their belief system in one way or another.

there must be something to it that is not so easily dismissed by a 5 minute youtube video.

you should at least consider the possibility that all these scientists etc. have a better understanding of the theory than you do, and symbiosis isn't actually a problem for evolution, and the video is actually just religious propaganda that you aren't able to recognize as such because you have an insufficient understanding of the theory (and/or lack of desire to think objectively about it).

Ah, the appeal to authority/argumentum ad populum logical fallacies. Every scientist thinks so, so it must be true! By that logic, billions of Christians can’t be wrong can they? And not every scientist believes in Darwinian evolution, the more and more we learn about it the more people are seeing the massive holes that plague the theory. The videos I posted explain just a few of many problems with Darwin’s theory that continue to baffle scientists and they have not even begun to give a logical or verifiable explanations for them. Just because you say scientists have a better understanding of it and therefore it’s not a problem doesn't make it so, and they sure do a good job of hiding their so-called explanations. Sorry, but that's called wishful thinking. The fact that you write off the videos as "religious propaganda" tells me you're the one who lacks desire to think objectively about it, considering you haven't even watched them.

Science, mostly by it’s own merit, studies the material world. If creation is wrong and there is no Creator, slow processes of evolution is the only other possible way to explain life on earth. And yes many people will cling to this theory until the ship has sunk. They don’t want it to be the God of the Bible, because then they will be held accountable for their actions and have a higher authority they must account to. That’s why mankind invents religions and alternate theories/philosophies for people desperate to wipe God out of the equation so they can live by their own laws and lifestyles. It’s sad but it’s true. Mankind is evil and corrupt and always has been.

“[W]e have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

- American evolutionary biologist and Harvard professor Richard Lewontin

 

[crowTrobot]

Ah, the appeal to authority/argumentum ad populum logical fallacies.

no, appeal to your intellect that global scientific consensus might not be so easily dismissed by youtube videos, and the actual positions of science might be worth further investigation.

They don’t want it to be the God of the Bible, because then they will be held accountable for their actions

"you secretly know i'm right but you're just being stubborn". kind of a conversation stopper.

evolution is not incompatable with theism in any case. as i said 1/2 of all christians in the USA now believe in it (as "how god did it" or whatever). so there must be other valid reasons for belief in it that have nothing to do with avoiding christianity.

 

[MadeFromDust]

no, appeal to your intellect that global scientific consensus might not be so easily dismissed by youtube videos, and the actual positions of science might be worth further investigation.

It’s not about “youtube” videos, it’s about the problems they address that science cannot explain and they contradict Darwin’s theory. I could type them out and then present them to you, would that make the arguments more authentic to you?

"you secretly know i'm right but you're just being stubborn". kind of a conversation stopper.

evolution is not incompatable with theism in any case. as i said 1/2 of all christians in the USA now believe in it (as "how god did it" or whatever). so there must be other valid reasons for belief in it that have nothing to do with avoiding christianity.

Uh yeah…that’s not what I was implying at all by saying that. I just don’t believe in Darwinism, I don’t have any reason to. You seem awfully dead set on evolution being right despite contrary evidence, I’m curious, do you believe it was a guided process or happened by blind chance? And the reason a lot of Christians believe in evolution nowadays is because they are basically forced to learn about it in public schools. Ever heard of separation of church and state? Remember, they can’t let a divine foot in the door.

 

[magnifier661]

you should be looking at it this way. every working scientist in the world believes in evolution. the large majority of educated people in 1st world countries believe in it. 1/2 of all christians in the USA have been compelled to incorporate it into their belief system in one way or another.

there must be something to it that is not so easily dismissed by a 5 minute youtube video.

you should at least consider the possibility that all these scientists etc. have a better understanding of the theory than you do, and symbiosis isn't actually a problem for evolution, and the video is actually just religious propaganda that you aren't able to recognize as such because you have an insufficient understanding of the theory (and/or lack of desire to think objectively about it).

So what you really are saying is "You don't know" and are more willing to expect what others tell you?

 

[magnifier661]

that's one of the lamest god-of-the-gaps dodges i've ever heard. almost everything you believe (outside of religion) is based on 'most likely' to be true because it is the theory that is best supported by evidence. that's how scientific knowledge is formed.

So you haven't explained it and say "well the scientists told me" and then come back at me and say this? I'm not dodging anything. He is explaining the theory and is asking an evolutionist to explain how this works in evolution. There is a scientific question they want a response on. One that you have no idea, but to reply "The scientists say so, so there!" <--- LOL

 

[crowTrobot]

So you haven't explained it and say "well the scientists told me" and then come back at me and say this? I'm not dodging anything. He is explaining the theory and is asking an evolutionist to explain how this works in evolution. There is a scientific question they want a response on. One that you have no idea, but to reply "The scientists say so, so there!" <--- LOL

you said the challenge was to explain without appealing to 'theoretically' or 'most likely'. the direct implication of this challenge is that 'god did it' is the default best explanation for anything that isn't directly demonstratable. that is overtly an appeal to god-of-the-gaps.

and i did explain it. different species that interact are part of each other's physical environment. that they would in some instances adapt to each other evolving mutually beneficial relationships is exactly what you would expect if evolution by environmental selection were true. it is not a problem for the theory in any way. the video is a giant strawman.

if you want something more technical you are free to research this yourself. go to wikipedia and look up mutualism, which should link you to further sources if you want them.

 

[crowTrobot]

Uh yeah…that’s not what I was implying at all by saying that.

it's exactly what you said reduces to. you implied science is a giant conspiracy to fabricate or misrepresent evidence for evolution because they would otherwise be compelled to believe in biblical literal christianity. the theory of evolution is just a means for scientists to avoid your god. that's insane.

 

[magnifier661]

So you believe that two species that require each other in order to survived symbiotically evolved over billions of years through gradually? And this gradual evolution was able to design complex multi symbiotic relations within a complex organism like man? So man, since we can relate to the same organism, was able to survive without a circuitry system, or maybe nervious system until all other symbiotic relations caught up with each other? That makes total logical sense! Lol

 

[magnifier661]

it's exactly what you said reduces to. you implied science is a giant conspiracy to fabricate or misrepresent evidence for evolution because they would otherwise be compelled to believe in biblical literal christianity. the theory of evolution is just a means for scientists to avoid your god. that's insane.

I don't see this as a conspiracy. I see it as neglect of scientific investigation. If they can't explain, they theorize. As theory is needed to give direction on further investigation; one cannot think its responsible to use theory as a most than likely factual statement. It was explained that gravity is "theory" yet we all know it exists. This is true, but enough scientific evidence supports this theory.

So you can label us as thick headed conspiracy theorist. I am just questioning the scientific theory as you are questioning the biblical theory. What I find funny is that you aren't explaining things like you understand them. You are explaining what others try to explain.

I am looking at both sides and try to understand it in my mind. I maybe wrong, but it's my individual thinking. Something you clearly aren't doing.

I remember on another thread you said you know the bible because your father was a pastor. Then you claim you know this because your scientists already proved it. But you haven't really questioned them. You are taking their word for it.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

This is a very enjoyable thread and I've been following it since Mags first started it. Just a couple of questions, isn't Creationism just as much of a theory as Evolution? And isn't the only way to prove either theory is to take multiple trips in a time machine to various points back in time?

 

[crowTrobot]

So you believe that two species that require each other in order to survived symbiotically evolved over billions of years through gradually?

not billions of years obviously, but over thousands or millions yes. it goes much further than that - entire ecosystems that evolved together are full of countless evolved interdependencies. it's exactly what you expect if the theory were true, given that any two (or more) species that interact are just part of each other's environment.

And this gradual evolution was able to design complex multi symbiotic relations within a complex organism like man?

design is an anthropocentric term, doesn't apply.

man, since we can relate to the same organism, was able to survive without a circuitry system, or maybe nervious system until all other symbiotic relations caught up with each other?

this is the straw man the video was hung up on. symbiotic relationships evolve in tandem with the physical evolution of both species. nothing has to catch up.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Isn't getting a flu shot proof that you believe in some sort of evolution?

 

[MadeFromDust]

not billions of years obviously, but over thousands or millions yes. it goes much further than that - entire ecosystems that evolved together are full of countless evolved interdependencies. it's exactly what you expect if the theory were true, given that any two (or more) species that interact are just part of each other's environment.



design is an anthropocentric term, doesn't apply.



this is the straw man the video was hung up on. symbiotic relationships evolve in tandem with the physical evolution of both species. nothing has to catch up.

lol, and your proof (or even evidence) of any of this is...? I can make up theories too.

 

[magnifier661]

This is a very enjoyable thread and I've been following it since Mags first started it. Just a couple of questions, isn't Creationism just as much of a theory as Evolution? And isn't the only way to prove either theory is to take multiple trips in a time machine to various points back in time?

You are right Sly! But the distinction between the two is Creationists believe in this theory through "Faith"; while the evolutionists want scientific proof. We are trying to find proof through modern technology and using modern science for "relative thinking" just like many scientists; but... We are just using this to help better understand why or how. Science must have factual data and requires comprehensive "scientific methods" to clearly explain the theory. And my impression is they haven't responsibly proven this theory, while still claiming this is theoretically correct. It's a guess without irrefutable proof.

So when we question symbiotic relations, missing links that haven't been found, mathematical improbabilities on population, and buried dead that haven't supported the theory of man existing for over 200,000 years; it's just as they require us to provide factual data of a supernatural.

But if you click the link I posted on Bible history; It seems that has been overlooked. I ask it again.

If the Dead Sea Scrolls; which were carbon dated to be written around 40-85 BC spoke of complete civilizations thousands of years before they were written, thousands of miles from that location; how did they accomplish this without modern archeological methods and equipment? How is it even possible; when we haven't broke the ice on archeology less than 150 years ago? Don't you find that strange?

 

[MadeFromDust]

it's exactly what you said reduces to. you implied science is a giant conspiracy to fabricate or misrepresent evidence for evolution because they would otherwise be compelled to believe in biblical literal christianity. the theory of evolution is just a means for scientists to avoid your god. that's insane.

I do think there is legitimate conspiracies from godless people to wipe God out of the equation because they hate the thought of someone ruling over them. This is very real for much of the world who have problem with authority and would rather live by their own rules, and I do think it's a driving force behind secularism. But that's not the reason I don't believe in Darwinian evolution. I don't believe in it because A) there's no proof that it can happen, B) it makes no sense, C) the evidence actually points to the contrary.

 

[magnifier661]

this is the straw man the video was hung up on. symbiotic relationships evolve in tandem with the physical evolution of both species. nothing has to catch up.

Do you even know the mathematical improbability of this taking place with millions of organisms simultaneously evolving like you speak? It is infinite. Even billions of years wouldn't allow this to happen. We are talking "gazillion of years" and even then; it's arguable.

 

[crowTrobot]

So you can label us as thick headed conspiracy theorist.

i was responding to this statement from odenroywhatever.

They (scientists) don’t want it to be the God of the Bible, because then they will be held accountable for their actions

that is absolutely positing a conspiracy.

Then you claim you know this because your scientists already proved it.

i claim the probability evolution is factual (and the earth is billions of years old) is close enough to 100% to be effectively 100% because i'm intimately familiar with the evidence from years of studying it.

when i point out scientific consensus it's because you don't seem aware of the gravity of what that means. if there was ANY significant chance evolution wasn't true and the earth wasn't billions of years old don't you think at least a few secular biologists/geologists would be writing papers about it? doesn't it mean something to you that the only people disputing these things have religious agendas?

 

[magnifier661]

Isn't getting a flu shot proof that you believe in some sort of evolution?

Yep; we call this "micro evolution". Things can adapt to their conditions and environment. Not physically evolve into another species. The "Flu" is still the "Flu"; just a different "Flu"

 

[magnifier661]

I do think there is legitimate conspiracies from godless people to wipe God out of the equation because they hate the thought of someone ruling over them. This is very real for much of the world who have problem with authority and would rather live by their own rules, and I do think it's a driving force behind secularism. But that's not the reason I don't believe in Darwinian evolution. I don't believe in it because A) there's no proof that it can happen, B) it makes no sense, C) the evidence actually points to the contrary.

It's funny that Creationists are grouped as "conspiracy theorists" that want to disprove Science. I embrace science and I am asking questions on that science. It has nothing to do with God right now; yet it seems Crow think it is.

 

[crowTrobot]

lol, and your proof (or even evidence) of any of this is...? I can make up theories too.

symbiotic relationships ARE the evidence (for evolution). they are a prediction that emerges naturally from the theory.

 

[magnifier661]

I do think there is legitimate conspiracies from godless people to wipe God out of the equation because they hate the thought of someone ruling over them. This is very real for much of the world who have problem with authority and would rather live by their own rules, and I do think it's a driving force behind secularism. But that's not the reason I don't believe in Darwinian evolution. I don't believe in it because A) there's no proof that it can happen, B) it makes no sense, C) the evidence actually points to the contrary.

It's funny that Creationists are grouped as "conspiracy theorists" that want to disprove Science. I embrace science and I am asking questions on that science. It has nothing to do with God right now; yet it seems Crow think it is.

 

[crowTrobot]

Do you even know the mathematical improbability of this taking place with millions of organisms simultaneously evolving like you speak? It is infinite. Even billions of years wouldn't allow this to happen. We are talking "gazillion of years" and even then; it's arguable.

here you're just displaying a total lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution is or what it claims. suggest you study that first THEN look at evidence. otherwise you won't be able to tell propaganda from fact.

 

[TripTango]

This is a very enjoyable thread and I've been following it since Mags first started it. Just a couple of questions, isn't Creationism just as much of a theory as Evolution? And isn't the only way to prove either theory is to take multiple trips in a time machine to various points back in time?

It depends on what you mean by "theory". If you just mean in the casual, everyday sense (like as in "an idea that someone believes") then sure. Every idea is a theory by that criteria.

But if you mean in the scientific sense, then no -- they are in totally different ballparks. They really aren't even playing the same game.

 

[MadeFromDust]

symbiotic relationships ARE the evidence (for evolution). they are a prediction that emerges naturally from the theory.

Again, what do you base this on?

 

[MadeFromDust]

Yep; we call this "micro evolution". Things can adapt to their conditions and environment. Not physically evolve into another species. The "Flu" is still the "Flu"; just a different "Flu"

I don't even like the term "micro evolution", I prefer "speciation". There's no evidence whatsoever for Darwinian evolution.