Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
hewy

Getting To Grips With Common Design

Recommended Posts

In some sense, LP, I agree with you here; it is a very malleable theory. But, I think the reason for that is that there are so many unknowns .... mainly because much of it happened in the very, very distant past (according to the theory). And, these unknowns gives them the flexibility to redraw the "curve" through the data points when new unexpected data comes in. That's just the way it is.

 

Let me clarify that there is nothing wrong with a theory having malleability to it.

 

The big problem comes when evolutionists turn around and publicly sell these things as confirmatory evidence. i.e. Evolutionists inform the public that X is evidence for evolution. But the truth is that Not-X would not be used as evidence against evolution.

 

That is an extremely disingenuous way to sell a theory and this pattern is rampant throughout the evolution industry's public relations front. (and also internally within the reasoning of the evolutionary community)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'they proposed that' - 'the generally accepted hypothesis is' - 'Hawking postulates that' - all these phrases just mean scientists don't know but because something appears to be so it must be so but what appears to be so to a human may not at all be what is so to God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'they proposed that' - 'the generally accepted hypothesis is' - 'Hawking postulates that' - all these phrases just mean scientists don't know but because something appears to be so it must be so but what appears to be so to a human may not at all be what is so to God?

 

To be honest, I don't think that many of these scientists are concerned with how things appear to a god. There's no way to test such things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big problem comes when evolutionists turn around and publicly sell these things as confirmatory evidence. i.e. Evolutionists inform the public that X is evidence for evolution. But the truth is that Not-X would not be used as evidence against evolution.

 

That is an extremely disingenuous way to sell a theory and this pattern is rampant throughout the evolution industry's public relations front. (and also internally within the reasoning of the evolutionary community)

This illustrates exactly why I consider "answered prayers" to be a poor evidence for the existance of God. If x (answered prayer) is proof of God, then why isn't "not-x" (unanswered prayer) proof of no God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lifepsyop:

 

"If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me." Psalm 66:18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm sure lots of people .... again

 

Again, WHO made the prediction...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go doesn't always answer prayers because quite often the prayer has the power to get the request themselves or alternatively God might decide that their need is best met by no direct response.

 

This would explain the many devout God believers who died on the cross/fires/arenas and who may have prayed for aid - God possibly thought that the best solution would be to exchange their human body and life for a guaranteed life in the new order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As God put enmity between Adam and Eve and the serpents and also made many plants put out thorns and poisons and made the animals/birds either carnivorous or scared of humans we have to accept that this deep remodelling of mental and physical attributes really did need some fundamental reworking of whatever makes all living things the way they are.

 

So adding or subtracting chromosomes or tinkering with the DNA spiral would be easy for God and Jesus as they created all life in the beginning and all the modified lifeforms from lowest bacterias up to Adam and Eve would then find their physical forms altering along with their mental processes so the previously tame and friendly dinosaurs and lions would now not only be mutually antagonistic but also see Adam and Eve as prey - and Adam and Eve would now find a new sensation in their lives: fear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Again, WHO made the prediction...

 

Now, you're just being obstinate (which is not surprising). Anyway, I provide a couple of links in my response to LP (post #49).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now, you're just being obstinate (which is not surprising). Anyway, I provide a couple of links in my response to LP (post #49).

 

No, I am asking you to support your claims that fused chromosomes was predicted BEFORE it was discovered. As far as I have seen you've refused multiple times to support this claim.

 

Sadly, saying 'I've posted links' isn't demonstrating WHO made these predictions you speak of. In fact one of your links proposes fusion AFTER a proposed fusion site was found... Not much a PREdiction eh ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The big problem comes when evolutionists turn around and publicly sell these things as confirmatory evidence. i.e. Evolutionists inform the public that X is evidence for evolution. But the truth is that Not-Xwould not be used as evidence against evolution.

 

 

Oh man......that's great Life. This is a perfect example of that too. Humans with 23 chromosomes and apes with 24 chromosomes is somehow a 'prediction' of evolution. However, if they BOTH had 24 chromosomes then you can bet that would ALSO be touted as proof for ape-human evolution. It's a win-win for them. How quaint!

 

Let's also ignore the fact that the supposed fusion event came AFTER the supposed ape/human split in which case there'd be absolutely no way to prove that common ancestry had anything to do with it unless you could find some population of apes with the same fusion event. God could have created Adam and Eve with 24 chromosomes and it was then that one of them fused. Chromosomes do that you know. Chromosome fusion isn't some great miracle event. Or....and this is crazy I know.....but maybe....just maybe that fused chromosome serves a purpose in humans that it doesn't in apes. Crazy I know......

 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/youre_welcome_d089381.html

 

Oh well.....there's always rocket science!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Oh man......that's great Life. This is a perfect example of that too. Humans with 23 chromosomes and apes with 24 chromosomes is somehow a 'prediction' of evolution. However, if they BOTH had 24 chromosomes then you can bet that would ALSO be touted as proof for ape-human evolution. It's a win-win for them. How quaint!

 

 

E, this statement is incorrect. Humans with 23 chromosomes and apes with 24 chromosomes is NOT a prediction of evolution. However, a prediction of evolution was that one pair of humans was the result of the fusion of what were two separate pairs of chromosomes ..... where the two fused chromosomes are analogous to two separate chromosomes in apes.

 

And, E, you're using that "proof" word again which is not how science works. It is not proof; it is merely data that strenghthens the evolutionary model, but, on the other hand, could've falsified it .... at least for humans.

 

 

Let's also ignore the fact that the supposed fusion event came AFTER the supposed ape/human split in which case there'd be absolutely no way to prove that common ancestry had anything to do with it unless you could find some population of apes with the same fusion event. God could have created Adam and Eve with 24 chromosomes and it was then that one of them fused. Chromosomes do that you know. Chromosome fusion isn't some great miracle event. Or....and this is crazy I know.....but maybe....just maybe that fused chromosome serves a purpose in humans that it doesn't in apes. Crazy I know......

 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/youre_welcome_d089381.html

 

Oh well.....there's always rocket science!

 

 

Sure, a god could have done what you said. But, that's not science ... so, scientists aren't going to study and research that angle of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

E, this statement is incorrect. Humans with 23 chromosomes and apes with 24 chromosomes is NOT a prediction of evolution. However, a prediction of evolution was that one pair of humans was the result of the fusion of what were two separate pairs of chromosomes ..... where the two fused chromosomes are analogous to two separate chromosomes in apes.

And, E, you're using that "proof" word again which is not how science works. It is not proof; it is merely data that strenghthens the evolutionary model, but, on the other hand, could've falsified it .... at least for humans.

 

We'll just to agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

E, this statement is incorrect. Humans with 23 chromosomes and apes with 24 chromosomes is NOT a prediction of evolution. However, a prediction of evolution was that one pair of humans was the result of the fusion of what were two separate pairs of chromosomes ..... where the two fused chromosomes are analogous to two separate chromosomes in apes.

 

I'm pretty sure that is what E meant. And of course humans with 24 chromosomes would be accommodated, as well as humans with 23 chromosomes and no "fusion". It is actually very difficult to say what couldn't be accommodated by evolution in terms of human evolution, because as the differences between humans and chimpanzee grow, evolutionists can proportionally infer greater divergence times between the two groups, and then the usual rescue devices on top of that... severe incomplete lineage sorting... or proposing intense selection pressures driving an unusually high molecular rate of change and all the natural selection storytelling to go along with it. If push comes to shove, evolutionists can even infer ghost primate lineages going back millions of years earlier than what is found in fossils. Each evolutionary fairy tale is a piece of jello and can be made to fit into many different shapes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm pretty sure that is what E meant. And of course humans with 24 chromosomes would be accommodated, as well as humans with 23 chromosomes and no "fusion". It is actually very difficult to say what couldn't be accommodated by evolution in terms of human evolution, because as the differences between humans and chimpanzee grow, evolutionists can proportionally infer greater divergence times between the two groups, and then the usual rescue devices on top of that... severe incomplete lineage sorting... or proposing intense selection pressures driving an unusually high molecular rate of change and all the natural selection storytelling to go along with it. If push comes to shove, evolutionists can even infer ghost primate lineages going back millions of years earlier than what is found in fossils. Each evolutionary fairy tale is a piece of jello and can be made to fit into many different shapes.

 

Well, LP, with one entire pair of chromosomes missing and all else being equal, it would most certainly be a head scratcher. think.gifClearly, it's a hypothetical situation, but I really don't know what the scientists would do. I don't know if any of the solutions you pose above would help explain the missing chromosome pair ... at least, not without some potential major contradictions elsewhere. But, one thing I will say ..... they (the scientists) would probably NOT give up and just conclude that it was the result of divine creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, LP, with one entire pair of chromosomes missing and all else being equal, it would most certainly be a head scratcher. think.gif

 

SN, what isn't a head scratcher with evolution? For goodness sake, you believe fish turned into people...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

SN, what isn't a head scratcher with evolution? For goodness sake, you believe fish turned into people...

 

I believe it is currently the best scientific explanation, e.g., that "fish turned into people" (over millions and millions of years), based on the evidence at hand. But, it's not a fact and I am open to it being wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it is currently the best scientific explanation, e.g., that "fish turned into people" (over millions and millions of years), based on the evidence at hand. But, it's not a fact and I am open to it being wrong.

 

We're all entitled to our beliefs. However, assertions that such a thing is "the best scientific explanation based on evidence", unfortunately, ring rather hollow when one is constantly unable to demonstrate as such. For this reason I tend to doubt that evidence is really your motivation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We're all entitled to our beliefs. However, assertions that such a thing is "the best scientific explanation based on evidence", unfortunately, ring rather hollow when one is constantly unable to demonstrate as such. For this reason I tend to doubt that evidence is really your motivation.

 

Now that is the ultimate head scratcher ;)

 

When evolutionists claim evolution (common descent, fish to humans) is "the best scientific explanation based on the evidence" and yet are not able to give evidence for it when asked to do so... See below for one example.

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=6139&page=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We're all entitled to our beliefs. However, assertions that such a thing is "the best scientific explanation based on evidence", unfortunately, ring rather hollow when one is constantly unable to demonstrate as such.

 

Give me an alternative scientific explanation and let's compare ....

 

For this reason I tend to doubt that evidence is really your motivation.

 

Motivation .... motivation for what, LP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now that is the ultimate head scratcher wink.png

 

When evolutionists claim evolution (common descent, fish to humans) is "the best scientific explanation based on the evidence" and yet are not able to give evidence for it when asked to do so... See below for one example.

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=6139&page=1

 

You were provided with two good examples in that thread, gilbo ...

 

Also, you asked for experimental evidence .... as in running an experiment to show the ToE. As far as just evidence goes, the fossil record combined with the geologic record is plenty of strong evidence, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You were provided with two good examples in that thread, gilbo ...

 

Also, you asked for experimental evidence .... as in running an experiment to show the ToE. As far as just evidence goes, the fossil record combined with the geologic record is plenty of strong evidence, IMHO.

 

 

Are after-the-fact observations of something an experiment?.... If not then its not what I was asking for..... think.gif

 

Therefore the "two good examples" aren't good at all since they aren't the experimental evidence which was asked for... Just more assumption based opinions, which aren't evidence of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Are after-the-fact observations of something an experiment?.... If not then its not what I was asking for..... think.gif

 

Therefore the "two good examples" aren't good at all since they aren't the experimental evidence which was asked for... Just more assumption based opinions, which aren't evidence of anything.

 

Oh, I beg to differ. Both were solid predictions based on the evolutionary (ToE) model that held true to form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh, I beg to differ. Both were solid predictions based on the evolutionary (ToE) model that held true to form.

 

For goodness sakes Norman... Firstly as you said I was asking for experimental evidence... When you observe something AFTER THE FACT it isn't an experiment... duh!

 

Or can I now claim that because I assume God as a cause for something observed, then there is experimental evidence for God? Because if you are going to claim the examples given were experimental then you are allowing me to make a similar argument for God... Perhaps consider the consequences of your ideas before you state them...

 

 

 

Also when you observe something AFTER THE FACT it isn't a PREdiction, because you would need someone to PREDICT the occurrence BEFORE it was observed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms