1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are putting words in my mouth, I did not say that every bit of
Are you saying that every bit of evidence for evolution is faked? If not then you cannot equate the two. No single piece of scientific evidence for ID has ever been verified or stood up to public scrutiny. Any scientific hypothesis which is shown to be based entirely on fraudulent results is either discarded or left as an unproven hypothesis. At no point ...[text shortened]... s, as you claim, a pattern, then that pattern can be described mathematically or scientifically.
evidence for evolution is faked, I did not even hint to that either!
With regard to ID I am a creationist I believe God created the whole
ball of wax when it comes to the universe and all that is in it, so there
are things about ID I agree with, but over all I'd be hard pressed to
call it science too. As I said earlier unless you have eyes to see the
patterns and the 'design', so you'll be hard pressed to give someone
else eyes to see.
The debate with those that agree with ID and those that do not is
simply the perspectives that everyone brings to the table one claims
to see design the other does not, and since those that do not, do not
want to, they will not no matter what is in front of them either.
So you know I do believe life is changing “evolving”, I believe the
starting point began with the creation that God set in motion when
he made life. I do not believe life started from non-life without any
plan, purpose, or design, because I believe it is to complex. I believe
it is much easier, and more logical for life to be altered after it was
all put together than to get where we are today from scratch without
anything other than the laws currently in place, getting life started,
and adding all the various and sundry complexity to each life form
we have around us now. I believe this because it is easier to tweak
a complex system than it is to write one when getting it wrong ends
the system from functioning at all.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayJust to clarify: You are a creationist who believes in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution? Is that correct? Not trying to put words in your mouth or read your mind, but its easier to proceed if this is clear.
You are putting words in my mouth, I did not say that every bit of
evidence for evolution is faked, I did not even hint to that either!
With regard to ID I am a creationist I believe God created the whole
ball of wax when it comes to the universe and all that is in it, so there
are things about ID I agree with, but over all I'd be hard pressed to
call ...[text shortened]... an it is to write one when getting it wrong ends
the system from functioning at all.
Kelly
Also, when you state "I believe God created the whole
ball of wax when it comes to the universe and all that is in it", with regards to life itself how much life do you believe god created? Was it -The first cell, the first multi cellular organism, the first diploblastic organism, the first triploblastic organism? etc
I am just trying to ascertain what you believe god created and where you believe evolution took over.
No hidden agenda KJ, just trying to clarify your belief so no assumptions are involved.
Thank you
Originally posted by KellyJayYou said:
You are putting words in my mouth, I did not say that every bit of
evidence for evolution is faked, I did not even hint to that either!
I could say the same thing about evolutionist and even creationist
when it comes to fakers from time to time, that alone does not
discredit evolution, ID, or creation
ID proponents claim that it is a scientific theory and that it is not based on a prior belief in God but on scientific evidence.
And yet every pieces of evidence that has been presented has been shown to be faked or at the very least unverified.
So when it comes to fakers it does discredit ID as it has absolutely no scientific foundation left to stand on once the fakers are removed.
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't believe that that is the reason for you beliefs. Your beliefs are almost certainly based on the Bible.
I believe this because it is easier to tweak
a complex system than it is to write one when getting it wrong ends
the system from functioning at all.
If you did a course in evolution and were shown that evolution is perfectly possible would you accept that it actually happened?
With regards to ID, I have no problem with a theist (or anyone else for that matter) trying to find evidence that life could not have evolved without intelligent input. I do have a problem with anyone who presents faked evidence, calls it science and then tries to get it taught in the classroom.
As far as creationists are concerned I do not have a problem with you believing that God made the world 4000 years ago or whatever you believe, so long as you don't start making up false claims to try and discredit anyone who disagrees with your belief. I haven't come across a single creationist website which doesn't have a significant amount of clearly falsified information. Why should someone feel the need to lie to justify their beliefs?
Originally posted by timebombtedWould love to continue this KJ so a "bump" for you.
Just to clarify: You are a creationist who believes in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution? Is that correct? Not trying to put words in your mouth or read your mind, but its easier to proceed if this is clear.
Also, when you state "I believe God created the whole
ball of wax when it comes to the universe and all that is in it", with regards to li ...[text shortened]... den agenda KJ, just trying to clarify your belief so no assumptions are involved.
Thank you
Regards
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell like all times and about all things you are more than welcome
I don't believe that that is the reason for you beliefs. Your beliefs are almost certainly based on the Bible.
If you did a course in evolution and were shown that evolution is perfectly possible would you accept that it actually happened?
With regards to ID, I have no problem with a theist (or anyone else for that matter) trying to find evidence t ...[text shortened]... rly falsified information. Why should someone feel the need to lie to justify their beliefs?
to believe what you will. I'm sure there are more than a few
programmers here some full time and others that simply write a
script or two as the need arises like me. I can tell you that looking
at a complex program that is doing several things, it is much easier
to find an important variable or module and make a small change
than it is to write the full program. Even tweaking can cause
damage if done wrong, but backing up what you are tweaking
before you start changing it will save you hide more times than not
if you do something wrong.
“do have a problem with anyone who presents faked evidence, calls it science and then tries to get it taught in the classroom.”
I’m not sure I know anyone that wants faked evidence in a class room,
but I’m sure they are out there some where. I also have a hard time
with some things that are pasted off as science too, but that is old
ground we have covered more than once.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by timebombtedYes, I believe in micro-changes over time that can be called
Just to clarify: You are a creationist who believes in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution? Is that correct? Not trying to put words in your mouth or read your mind, but its easier to proceed if this is clear.
Also, when you state "I believe God created the whole
ball of wax when it comes to the universe and all that is in it", with regards to li ...[text shortened]... den agenda KJ, just trying to clarify your belief so no assumptions are involved.
Thank you
evolution, not macro whole sale ones that take life from something
like a single cell to where changes occur over time and we get whales,
grass, loins, butterflies, ants, eagles, armadillos and so on, all living
in niches where there is typically some balance. I do not see life in a
struggle for the fittest, but a survival of the opportunistic would be a
better way to describe what I think is going on. I’m not sure I’d say
evolution took over once life was set in motion; it was simply part of
the process. There are changes within kinds/species so we see a
variety of dogs, cats, or whatever you want to look at. We do not see
cross species mating occurring like bats mating with cats. So life has
change as it becomes specialized to the environment it finds itself
in or it dies off. I dislike the word natural selection mainly because
that implies a selection is being made by someone or thing, and no
one that accepts evolution basically buys into that, not a big deal just
a pet peeve of mine.
I believe God created everything in six days and rested from that
work so that process has been moving along since that time.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI think I understand what you are saying but fail to see the relevance.
Well like all times and about all things you are more than welcome
to believe what you will. I'm sure there are more than a few
programmers here some full time and others that simply write a
script or two as the need arises like me. I can tell you that looking
at a complex program that is doing several things, it is much easier
to find an important var ...[text shortened]... before you start changing it will save you hide more times than not
if you do something wrong.
I’m not sure I know anyone that wants faked evidence in a class room,
Now, you are either lying or haven't been keeping up with current affairs. The proponents of ID that wanted to have it taught in the class room most definitely wanted fake evidence included in the lessons and that was shown quite conclusively in a court of law.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI do not know what your talking about, I am not an ID person, and
I think I understand what you are saying but fail to see the relevance.
[b]I’m not sure I know anyone that wants faked evidence in a class room,
Now, you are either lying or haven't been keeping up with current affairs. The proponents of ID that wanted to have it taught in the class room most definitely wanted fake evidence included in the lessons and that was shown quite conclusively in a court of law.[/b]
I do not worry about ID events. So if someone wants faked info I'm
not aware of it, but argument sake, what are you talking about?
I think I have only been answering your questions so if you fail to see
any relevance maybe I didn't answer you properly?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd I have no problem with you holding that belief. But do you at least admit that you have no good scientific reason for claiming that the Theory of Evolution is incorrect? I have a problem with anyone who, holding a belief similar to yours, invents stuff in order to try and bring the Theory of Evolution into disrepute.
I believe God created everything in six days and rested from that
work so that process has been moving along since that time.
Kelly
There are changes within kinds/species so we see a variety of dogs, cats, or whatever you want to look at.
What is a 'kind'?. I have never managed to get a definition out of anyone who uses the word.
Would you accept that a lion and the common house cat have a common ancestor? If you do accept that then do you think that there is a specific barrier that stops a dog and the common house cat from having a common ancestor? Do you think that barrier is identifiable?
Or do you just think that that is not the way it happened even though it is perfectly possible within the laws of science?
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]The word 'kinds' like the word 'species' can carry different meanings
And I have no problem with you holding that belief. But do you at least admit that you have no good scientific reason for claiming that the Theory of Evolution is incorrect? I have a problem with anyone who, holding a belief similar to yours, invents stuff in order to try and bring the Theory of Evolution into disrepute.
[b]There are changes within kin at is not the way it happened even though it is perfectly possible within the laws of science?
for different people. As far as I'm concern 'kinds' would be the starter
life form where all the various and sundry knock offs came from.
I'm afraid that is it for me, if you are looking for me to give a more
definitive answer, I’ll bet my answer is some what disappointing too,
sorry if it is.
With regard to evolution ‘proper’ I guess I could call it, I do not
give the process of changes that much credit. I know abiogenesis
is a different subject than evolution, but I don’t believe you can
get life from non-life THEN change through baby steps to get the
variety we see today. I also don’t think there has been anything
outside of someone connecting the dots with fossils that even
remotely suggest that is how life really came into the point it is
today. At best we see change today, but as I have said here before
and I know others are tried of seeing it, you start with dogs you end
with dogs, or you start with bacteria you end with bacteria, which
does not show the change everyone claims occurred. That is only
shown to be true by the stories people place on the fossil record
where people connect the dots, you may as well site chapter and
verse for that belief.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'll let an ID person defend ID, as I said, I'm a creationist which is a
You said:
[b]I could say the same thing about evolutionist and even creationist
when it comes to fakers from time to time, that alone does not
discredit evolution, ID, or creation
ID proponents claim that it is a scientific theory and that it is not based on a prior belief in God but on scientific evidence.
And yet every pieces of evidence that ...[text shortened]... t ID as it has absolutely no scientific foundation left to stand on once the fakers are removed.[/b]
matter of faith for me. I do not see much difference between a
person who starts with design and one that does not if they both
start talking they both are defending their beliefs as far as I'm
concern. With regard to evidence, I still need some examples of
what you are talking about when it comes to it being faked.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut you haven't asked my question about cats.
At best we see change today, but as I have said here before
and I know others are tried of seeing it, you start with dogs you end
with dogs, or you start with bacteria you end with bacteria, which
does not show the change everyone claims occurred.
Besides your claim "you start with dogs you end with dogs" is false and I have shown that to be the case in previous threads on the matter and you withdrew it and came up with "you start with kind A you end with kind A".
Quite simply, a wolf is not a dog yet a wolf can breed with a dog.
The relationships between current life forms can be identified and established by techniques such as structural analysis or DNA analysis without ever referring to the fossil record or using any data from the 'ancient times' that you so mistrust. The fact that such analyses match the fossil record as well as many other records such as movements of land masses and sea levels only serves to confirm the accuracy of the different techniques and that the connecting of the dots is the correct way to do connect them.
If I give you a 100 dot dot-to-dot and a solution which gives a very detailed picture of a person, would you say that my solution is just 'connecting the dots and could easily be wrong' or wouldn't you say that the probability of me being wrong yet still coming up with such a perfect picture is highly improbable? In fact one could say that if I am wrong then it is almost a foregone conclusion that the designer of the puzzle wanted me to think I was write and intentionally made sure that my wrong solution would result in a meaningful picture.
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you throw out the multiple lines of evidence shown in this article? For what reason do you discount each?
Yes, I believe in micro-changes over time that can be called
evolution, not macro whole sale ones that take life from something
like a single cell to where changes occur over time and we get whales,
grass, loins, butterflies, ants, eagles, armadillos and so on, all living
in niches where there is typically some balance. I do not see life in a
struggle ...[text shortened]... ix days and rested from that
work so that process has been moving along since that time.
Kelly
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Originally posted by twhiteheadI believe you can breed like kinds, and some times get off spring.
But you haven't asked my question about cats.
Besides your claim "you start with dogs you end with dogs" is false and I have shown that to be the case in previous threads on the matter and you withdrew it and came up with "you start with kind A you end with kind A".
Quite simply, a wolf is not a dog yet a wolf can breed with a dog.
The relationships ...[text shortened]... d intentionally made sure that my wrong solution would result in a meaningful picture.
You have a cat breeding with a dog or bird something along those
lines and getting off spring? I may have with drawn from a thread,
some times I get into to many and lose track, I'm sorry!
I'll go back and check out your question about cats, or you can repost
it so you know for sure I have it, but right now I'm calling it a night, so
till next time! 🙂
Kelly