If atheists get accused of taking verses out of context, how do we know fundamentalists making those accusations aren’t doing the same as well?

[Wrangler]

What about virtual particles? Those are particles that are created and destroyed before they can be detected by any sense method. Do they exist? Quantum mechanics says they do. So I think that settles it. Virtual particles that cannot be directly sensed even in principle are part of reality. And therefore a "thing" doesn't have to be directly perceivable to be real.

Here, you pivot again from only what one can experience is real to things can be real if if you can’t experience it.

The authority for this pivot is not theologians but quantum mechanics, which you no doubt capitalized to suggest greater authority than it really does. Many Patriarchs - including Me - Say God revealed Himself to us. Notice all the capitalization? So, you know what I write is Very Authoritative.

 

[FlySwatter]

No, I really do understand evolution and like many scientists, I pontificated it for decades - until I educated myself by entertaining fact-based criticism. See Is Genesis Real?

Is Genesis real in what sense? Literal sense?

Evolution is real, beyond any reasonable doubt. What Christians have to do is find ways to assimilate that truth into their belief system as Illuminator has done. Some can, some can't.

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

That’s Differentia!

Also, you pivoted from experience to thoughts.

In your posting #928 you said I need to use genus and differentia in analyzing things like thoughts and ideas:

Just to give a non-controversial application of a proper definition, which includes both a genus (integration, what it is connected with) and a Differentia (differential, how it is different that everything else that exists) is the notion of a chair.

Genus: a piece of furniture, often part of a set, such as couch, love seat, foot stool and accessories, including end and coffee tables.

Differentia: a piece of furniture primarily used for one person to sit.

So in my posting #932 I provided explicit examples of how I would do that with both love and dreams. I could do something similar with the number pi or anything else you might want to throw at me. So I think I satisfied your demand that I apply genus and differentia to things that are more abstract than a chair.

Did you just dismiss my examples as being insufficient? If so, why?

In that same posting I mentioned virtual particles, which are essential to quantum mechanics. They cannot be sensed, even in principle. And so I said:

And therefore a "thing" doesn't have to be directly perceivable to be real.

Did you consider that at all? If not, why?

In my posting #935 I mentioned the fact that our bodies are adapted to pre-process raw sensory data like photons for delivery to the brain for analysis. I also mentioned that there are illusions that can trick the mind into sensing things that don't square with independent sensory data. And I mentioned the existence of profound variations between individuals as to how those data are processed. All of these examples serve to show that what we call "perception" is tainted to some degree by the internal pre-processing built into our bodies.

You said nothing whatsoever about those observations. Do you think they're irrelevant? If so, why?

I don't feel inclined to answer any more of your questions on this topic until you answer the three questions I asked above-- in detail.

 

[Wrangler]

Evolution is real, beyond any reasonable doubt.

As I said, there is not one single instance of one kind of animal to another.

Funny how absolutely no evidence what so ever caused you to conclude ‘real, beyond any reasonable doubt’ for what you believe.

Yet, with mountains of evidence to support we believe, it’s totally unconvincing to you. Odd, huh?

 

[atpollard]

Anyone quoting a single verse has, by definition, taken it out of context. The simplest check for “context” is to actually read the “context” … you know, the other sentences in the same paragraph and the surrounding paragraphs in the same chapter. One can often find an overarching SUBJECT or progression of thoughts that illuminates the intended meaning of the sentence all too often plucked from its context to make a completely unrelated point because it contains one desired word.

 

[FlySwatter]

As I said, there is not one single instance of one kind of animal to another.

You seem confused about what evolution is. On what basis do you think it should involve one kind of animal becoming another?

It tends to manifest ass one kind of animal becoming more and more adapted to its environment leaving the less adapteeed to die off.

Even so I provided for you proof that numerous DIFFERENT animals all came from one common ancestor. They all share ethat Pentadactyl Limb.

 

[Wrangler]

You seem confused about what evolution is. On what basis do you think it should involve one kind of animal becoming another?

LOL. From Darwins book. Have you ever read The Origin of Species? I have.

Isn’t evolution supposed to explain The Origin of Species?

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

I see you don't really understand evolution . . . hey ho

@Wrangler said:

[if] Evolution were true there would exist at least a single example of an animal evolving into another kind, like a horse to a bird, dog to a fish, bat to a worm.

I have to address this one. The reason why no one has seen an animal of one species giving birth to one of a different species is simple. Current estimates are that it would take half a million to a million years for one species to evolve into another through natural processes alone. Did you (@Wrangler) wait that long before making your above pronouncement? No, you did not.

HOWEVER-- there are ways to speed up the process. Professor Richard Lenski and colleagues of Michigan State University devised an experiment in which they were able to observe over 45,000 generations of the E. coli bacterium in a laboratory setting. The experiment was beautifully designed. It is described in detail in Richard Dawkins' book The Greatest Show on Earth, p. 116. I'm not going to try to summarize the experimental design. As Dawkins himself said, speaking of the global diversity of the E. coli genome:

Lenski and his colleagues exploited that opportunity, in a controlled way, in the lab. Their work is extremely thorough and careful in every detail. The details really contribute to the impact of the evidence for evolution that these experiments provide, and I am therefore not going to stint in explaining them.

So I recommend that you read Dawkins' explanation. The upshot of the experiment is that some strains of the bacterium developed the ability to metabolize citron over the course of the experiment. That's not an example of one species evolving into another, different species-- but it is an example of a species acquiring a completely new trait that it did not previously have through natural processes alone.

The mechanisms of evolution have most definitely been observed. Each of the following well known events can result in significant changes to an organism's genome:

• crossing over
• radiation damage, whether from radioactive elements such as Strontium present in the body, or from external sources such as cosmic rays
• dimer bonding, such as when two adjacent Thymine molecules in DNA are misinterpreted as one Thymine by the gene transcription mechanism

There are probably other mechanisms of which I am unaware. But we have observed the acquisition of new traits via natural processes alone, and we have observed known mechanisms by which DNA can itself be altered. And altered DNA means altered genes, which in turn means altered traits in the organism.

 

[Wrangler]

I have to address this one. The reason why no one has seen an animal of one species giving birth to one of a different species is simple. Current estimates are that it would take half a million to a million years for one species to evolve into another through natural processes alone. Did you (@Wrangler) wait that long before making your above pronouncement? No, you did not.

Convenient, which makes it not a scientific hypothesis since it is not testable in any practical sense. Yet, nearly universally believed with no evidence by those who demand absolute proof of God. Consider this vid

 

[Wrangler]

HOWEVER-- there are ways to speed up the process. Professor Richard Lenski and colleagues of Michigan State University devised an experiment in which they were able to observe over 45,000 generations of the E. coli bacterium in a laboratory setting.

There is no however. The experiment failed to show the basic flaw of evolution; bacteria do not "evolve" into different kinds of animals, like sting rays, birds or squirrels.

Sure, we agree that like animals will adapt to their environment and produce like offspring. Yet, they remain the same kind. So, in that limited sense, sure there is truth to evolution. It's just that LONG TIME does not explain the variation of life observed. A lot has been learned about the Complexity of the Cell since the 19th century of Darwin's day.

 

[Wrangler]

There are probably other mechanisms of which I am unaware.

Yea, at last count, I learned about 5 mechanisms.

 

[Wrangler]

Even so I provided for you proof that numerous DIFFERENT animals all came from one common ancestor. They all share ethat Pentadactyl Limb.

Oh. Sorry. I've been traveling for a week. I'll have to look at the evidence of the Pentadactyl Limb AND the different animals that "share" it.

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

Yea, at last count, I learned about 5 mechanisms.

I watched the video. It didn't address any of the points I made in my previous posting (#948). The key points of that posting were that:

a) The actual mechanisms of genetic change have been observed.
b) The acquisition of a new biological trait via natural processes has been observed.

The experiment also showed that the new metabolic pathway was acquired in two steps. The first step was taken by a single lineage of the test bacteria about 20,000 generations into the experiment. And the second step was taken about 10,000 generations later. That is, the first of the two genetic changes that ultimately resulted in the acquisition of the ability to digest citrate languished, useless and irrelevant, for about 10,000 generations before the second change allowed both features to be used together to digest citrate. The video said that biological systems like vision require multiple components, and that it would be impossible for all of those elements to evolve separately. The Lenski experiment shows that that assumption is false.

Apparently you think that there is some law or rule that prevents an accumulation of such changes from resulting in a new species that cannot reproduce with its progenitor:

The experiment failed to show the basic flaw of evolution; bacteria do not "evolve" into different kinds of animals, like sting rays, birds or squirrels.

What exactly is that law and how would you test for it? Can you cite a specific experiment that demonstrates the reality of that law? If not, then the law you propose is hypothetical. On the other hand the proposition of evolution is the following:

a) We have evidence of a 3.5 billion year history of life on earth.
b) Over that time we see massive changes in the types of organisms present on the planet-- beginning with single celled archaeans, followed by bacteria, then single celled eukaryotes, then more complex forms of life, first in the oceans, then on land.
c) All life forms on earth employ the same mechanisms (DNA/RNA) for transmitting genetic traits.
d) We have directly observed natural processes that can result in changes to the genetic code in living organisms.
e) We have directly observed the acquisition of a new biological mechanism in a single celled creature by natural processes alone.
f) Therefore genetic changes across all species and all time are explainable by natural processes alone.

The final statement (f) is an inference at this point, as no experiment has explicitly demonstrated a new species arising from another. We can argue about whether that is a reasonable inference, but the lack of evidence on this point does not prove that evolution is completely false. It only proves that this particular aspect of evolution has not been definitively proved. Personally, I'm willing to give it more time. The Lenski experiment represents a huge stride forward. I'm not willing to speculate on what future experiments and observations might discover.

@Illuminator has adopted the view that God created the mechanisms of evolution and set them in motion. I'm OK with that interpretation, so long as it doesn't serve to upend the facts observed by science. I presented, in posting #873, a table showing that the story of creation in the Bible has absolutely no correlation to the facts as established by science. So you have to start with that. Whatever science cannot specifically rule out you are, in my view, free to elaborate with divine intervention.

The position of the Discovery Institute is that an Intelligent Designer has personally directed all genetic change over time by an unknown and undetectable mechanism. Well, the "Intelligent" part of that position has definitely been ruled out. The major extinction events of life on earth are as follows:

Years ago	Event
2.5 - 2.0 billion	The Great Oxygenation Event. Photosynthetic organisms produced oxygen as a waste product. As the oxygen content of the oceans increased, organisms that consumed Hydrogen Sulfide would have been killed off.
550 - 540 million	Ediacaran extinction. All of the Ediacaran species became extinct, perhaps because they were out-competed by newer forms of life.
445 - 443 million	Late Ordovician Extinction (Himantian event). Gondwanaland was covered in ice for 1 million years. 85% of all species and 30% of all families of animals went extinct due to plunging temperatures.
372 - 370 million	Late Devonian Extinction (Kellwasser event). 19% of marine families and 50% of marine genera were wiped out. The cause of this event is still debated.
358 - 357 million	Late Devonian Extinction (Kellwasser event). 19% of marine families and 50% of marine genera were wiped out. The cause of this event is still debated.
252 million	Permian Extinction. Up to 95% of all species were wiped out. The lava flows that resulted in the Siberian Traps produced immense amounts of poisonous gasses, as well as massive amounts of carbon dioxide and acid rain with a PH of 2. Global temperatures averaged about 97 degrees F.
201 million	Late Triassic Extinction. 22% of marine families, 53% of genera, and 76 - 84% of marine species went extinct. Many terrestrial plants and animals also went extinct. The Central Atlantic Magmatic Province indicates that about 11 million square kilometers of lava were belched forth at this time.
65 million	Late Cretaceous Extinction. A comet smashed into the Yucatan peninsula and wiped out 30% of all animal families, including all of the dinosaurs except birds.

If the Designer were so intelligent why did he/she find it necessary to wipe out huge numbers of species, again and again? That just doesn't sound very intelligent.

So okay, the scientific theory of evolution has not been 1000% confirmed in experiment. But the story of creation in the Bible definitely has been thoroughly and exhaustively refuted. And the notion of an Intelligent Designer has been ruled out. The simplest remaining explanation that is consonant with all observed facts is evolution.

 

[Wrangler]

Apparently you think that there is some law or rule that prevents an accumulation of such changes from resulting in a new species that cannot reproduce with its progenitor:

Well, that is a big Strawman. The evolutionists are in denial of the implications of what has been learned about the complexity of the cell and DNA.

Your arguments amount to a grad student making a small observation, then extrapolating to infinity.

I watched the video. It didn't address any of the points I made in my previous posting

That doesn’t make the points in the vid invalid.

No one is denying that there is change over time WITHIN a kind of animal. It’s just that evolutionists want to play the grad student, embracing LONG TIME as an article of faith - in contradiction to the evidence learned in the last few decades.

Imagine LONG TIME not explaining all the diversity of life we observe.

Having said all that, I may have missed it traveling, but 2 points I don’t recall you responding to not related to evolution.

1. My post on the proof that the human body was made by God.

2. Your explanation for why the Natural World obeys mathematical law.

Thanks.

 

[Wrangler]

I presented, in posting #873, a table showing that the story of creation in the Bible has absolutely no correlation to the facts as established by science.

You IDOL is revealed.

"Science" has been wrong so many times in my life that I cannot even keep count. Fortunately, you can read about it's many errors here.
These are science’s Top 10 erroneous results. I recall off the top of my head.

1. Wrong on 1970's global cooling.
2. DDT
3. Ozone thinning
4. Running out of oil
5. Wrong on 1990's global warming.
6. Damage of aerosols
7. Danger of cholestoral and fat.
8. Safe is cigarettes
9. Safe is high fructose corn syrup
10. Healthy is heating a lot of bread (food pyramid)
11. There are more than 2 genders
12. COVID. The CDC was wrong at every step of the way, shamelessly proclaiming "the science has changed."

The last one, was a spectacular world wide failure of science, clearly shown to be bought and paid like politicians to "find evidence" for whoever is pays the piper.

 

[Wrangler]

The position of the Discovery Institute is that an Intelligent Designer has personally directed all genetic change over time by an unknown and undetectable mechanism. Well, the "Intelligent" part of that position has definitely been ruled out. The major extinction events of life on earth are as follows:

Years ago	Event
2.5 - 2.0 billion

Definitely not ruled out. You cannot explain how information got into DNA or even how life began, which is outside the theory of evolution.

Regarding your dependence on LONG TIME, it is a paradigm I doubt you even considered questioning. The basic failure of proponents of LONG TIME is to deny their linearity assumption. It is just that, an assumption. Stating such LONG TIME as facts is understandable given the importance to Atheists to come up with any explanation - no matter how desperate the rationalization is - other than a Biblical one.

I think you've been on these boards long enough to detect the double standard Atheists have of accepting something with no evidence - like evolution - but demand a deliberately set impossible to meet standard for proving the existence of God. LONG TIME and evolution must be taken as articles of faith. I hope you see that.

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

Well, that is a big Strawman. The evolutionists are in denial of the implications of what has been learned about the complexity of the cell and DNA.


{Remainder removed to save space}

You:

That doesn’t make the points in the vid invalid.

In my previous posting (#953) I said the following:

The video said that biological systems like vision require multiple components, and that it would be impossible for all of those elements to evolve separately. The Lenski experiment shows that that assumption is false.

You:

It’s just that evolutionists want to play the grad student, embracing LONG TIME as an article of faith - in contradiction to the evidence learned in the last few decades.

Okay, I have no idea what you mean by "embracing LONG TIME as an article of faith." Do you mean that the 3.5 billion year timeline of life on earth as developed by science is invalid? Or that evidence obtained in the last few decades has shown that the history of life spans a vastly shorter period of time? Or are you thinking of the portion of the video that stated that it would take vastly longer than the known age of the universe for a protein of any practical utility to evolve-- and that therefore appeals to a long time are meaningless?
If it's the latter, then I will simply state that there are at present no scientific theories of the origins of life. Evolution is a theory of the origin of species, but not of life itself. There are plenty of hypotheses concerning the origin of life, and some of them are being actively tested. Perhaps some day we'll have definitive answers to some or all of the following questions:

• How did the process of DNA/RNA encoding arise? And which came first, DNA or RNA? And why?
• Are the DNA/RNA mechanisms common to all life on earth the only possible way that biological traits could be transmitted?
• How did the first proteins originate? Or the first cells?
• Is our universe constituted in such a way as to favor life, and is life therefore common throughout the universe? And if so, does all life use the same DNA/RNA coding as is found on earth?

But for now these questions are beyond our grasp. That shouldn't be particularly surprising. Einstein predicted gravity waves in 1915-- and it wasn't until 100 years later that physics developed the technology to detect them.
If you wish to ascribe our lack of answers to the questions I've listed above to divine intervention, I'm okay with that. Again, my position is that whatever science cannot rule out can be ascribed to divine intervention. BUT-- as I showed in my previous posting the many mass extinctions documented throughout the history of life prove conclusively that the design of biological mechanisms could not have been intelligent.

You wanted a response to your proof that the human body was made by God. Your claim is that the fact that humans are the only species that need to wear clothes is proof of that. One could also cite the ability of humans to use language, to create and use complex tools, to create art, and to develop abstract mathematics. How would that prove beyond a shadow of doubt that God must have created humans? Are you suggesting that such abilities are not associated with genetic traits but must instead be directly implanted in humans by divine intervention? As you no doubt know there is extensive medical information that directly associates physical structures in the brain with specific mental capabilities. And there is also evidence that some physical structures in the brain are directly related to genetic traits. So I would say that the known structure of biological genetics is sufficient to explain all human traits-- including mental capabilities. Again, this gets back to Whitehead's refusal to countenance bifurcations of nature. Mental abilities are directly related to physical structures in the brain, which are in turn directly related to genetic structures. The only caveat to this is that the brain is highly plastic and it actually evolves throughout a person's life. But that very plasticity is also embedded in our genetic heritage.

You wanted my explanation for why the Natural World obeys mathematical laws. Here's my response: #914

 

[Wrangler]

The video said that biological systems like vision require multiple components, and that it would be impossible for all of those elements to evolve separately. The Lenski experiment shows that that assumption is false.

Did The Lenski experiment produce eyes from a life form that did not have eyes?

 

[Wrangler]

You wanted a response to your proof that the human body was made by God. Your claim is that the fact that humans are the only species that need to wear clothes is proof of that. One could also cite the ability of humans to use language, to create and use complex tools, to create art, and to develop abstract mathematics. How would that prove beyond a shadow of doubt that God must have created humans?

Agh. Now the standard is beyond a shadow of doubt. See how you move the goal post?

I think you owe it to yourself to understand how all these are evidence that God created man in even if in some shadow of doubt.

You are skipping over it. Ponder it for a moment. How does humans as the only species that need to wear clothes constitute evidence that man was created by God?

 

[Wrangler]

You wanted my explanation for why the Natural World obeys mathematical laws. Here's my response: #914

Excellent question. Einstein once said "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." If you wish to take that as a point of departure for a belief in God, I certainly have no objection. I'm not trying to convert anyone on this forum to atheism.

So, you have no answer why the Natural World obeys mathematical laws. Profound.

You say you are not trying to convert anyone on this forum to atheism? LOL what in the world is all these postings about science including evolution?