God used Evolution to 'create' man

[The Barbarian]

5 minutes ago, Alive said:

That is funny...

עוֹף (ʿôp), flying creatures (H6416).

Yep.  That's why the Bible has birds and bats being of the same kind.  "Kind" isn't a taxonomic term in the Bible; it's a functional term.   It's about analogous animals, not homologies.   Hence not of any significance in evolution.

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by The Barbarian

[one.opinion]

43 minutes ago, Alive said:

I think that 'kind' is an immutable fundamental.

I just don't think "kind" is defined by the Bible like modern young earth creationists define it. Biblically, there is zero reason that kinds could not change over time. A claim otherwise requires the addition of personal interpretation, without any need from the Bible or from nature to do so.

[Alive]

36 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Yep.  That's why the Bible has birds and bats being of the same kind.  "Kind" isn't a taxonomic term in the Bible; it's a functional term.   It's about analogous animals, not homologies.   Hence not of any significance in evolution.

 

Its your story. Tell it any way you want.

I am a simple man. A bat won't become a bluebird. A bat is a rodent with appendages that function like wings. A bird is a bird that has feathers and and a unique skeletal structure.

Anyway--I am done and have no desire to debate these things.

[Alive]

26 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I just don't think "kind" is defined by the Bible like modern young earth creationists define it. Biblically, there is zero reason that kinds could not change over time. A claim otherwise requires the addition of personal interpretation, without any need from the Bible or from nature to do so.

Change yes---but change of kind? No. The Lord has locked this down. A child can understand the difference.

Gen. 1:11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout ^1avegetation, ²plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after ³their kind ⁴with seed in them”; and it was so. ¹² The earth brought forth ¹vegetation, ²plants yielding seed after ³their kind, and trees bearing fruit ⁴with seed in them, after ³their kind; and God saw that it was good.

 

Gen. 1:21 God created ^athe great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

 

Gen. 1:24   ^aThen God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after ¹their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after ¹their kind”; and it was so. ²⁵ God made the ^abeasts of the earth after ¹their kind, and the cattle after ¹their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

 

Gen. 6:20 “^aOf the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.

[The Barbarian]

52 minutes ago, Alive said:

Its your story. Tell it any way you want.

Actually, it's the Bible's story.   The Bible says bats and birds are the same kind.

52 minutes ago, Alive said:

I am a simple man. A bat won't become a bluebird.

The Bible isn't wrong.   It just uses a functional way to classify animals, not a taxonomic way.  

54 minutes ago, Alive said:

A bat is a rodent with appendages that function like wings.

No.  Bats are closer to primates then they are to rodents.

55 minutes ago, Alive said:

A bird is a bird that has feathers and and a unique skeletal structure.

Well, almost.  The pneumatized bones of birds are also found in dinosaurs from which birds evolved.

[The Barbarian]

53 minutes ago, Alive said:

 

Gen. 1:21 God created ^athe great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

And the Bible includes bats in the bird kind.   Which is one way we know that kind is a functional classification.

Edited December 19, 2019 by The Barbarian

[Uber Genius]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

The error is  like finding an arrow in a tree, and drawing a bulls-eye around it.   Staggeringly unlikely things happen all around us.  Take a deck of cards and shuffle it well.  Then deal out the cards, noting the order.    The likelihood of that is about 1.24 x 10^-68, or 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000124.     So Meyer has "proven" that evolution and shuffled decks of cards are impossible.   Does that suggest to you what's wrong with his argument?   If you predicted the order of cards in the shuffled deck, that would be one thing.   To look at it after the fact,and think it was amazing, that's the error.

 

 

Rediculous.

This post creates a false analogy ( drawing a bullseye around an arrow) in order to attack a straw man and finally are for special pleading that we can't use probability to determine the likelihood of events after they happen. 

Brandon Carter, Barrow and Tipler, Martin Reese, Fred Holye (none are theists), all presented probabilistic models similar to what Stephen Meyer produced without anyone claiming a fallacy!

those are the top minds in cosmology from 1960s-2000s. 

However, we can take issue with the word "proven."

The definitions of life in all cases above were broad, namely reproducibly, able to generate energy and expel waste. They could be even silicon, or germanium based.

The scientific epistemology is straight-forward abduction:

Either the effect (life of any kind, anywhere in our universe in the past 13.8 billion years)

is the result of :

Random chance

physical necesity

or design (intelligent agency).

This is a standard formula in science and was the same approach Charles Darwin took in developing his evolutionary inference.

But let's test your theory above. 

If applied equally it destroys all forensic science which relies on the same assumptions of determining the probability that a person would fall down 12 flights of stairs, stabbing and shooting themselves accidentally with each new flight. Bye bye court room forensic testimony because the defense attorney could alway pull your "Drawing a bullseye around an arrow analogy," to debunk forensic science.

SETI, The famous atheist Carl Sagan's baby, relied on the probability argument for the existence of life.

Finally, your fallacy destroys both Bayesian probability (established during the Scottish enlightenment, and Algorythim Specified Complexity (a new field in engineering within the last few decades).

probability works by asking if all we know about a cause and effect was the backgrown information (in this case, fine-tuned constants and quantities of initial conditions that are life permitting) given various inferences, change, necessity or agency what is the probability of life given each.

 

The chance is as stated by Alive in Meyer's reference and agreed to by most atheist cosmologists practicing in that specialization.

the necessity inference doesn't even get to the calculation phase due to the fact that there are no such constraints on the 31 anthropic factors (this number is changing up and down as we make new discoveries).

The agency inference is not "proven," but becomes the best explanation given the background information and alternative inferences. Here the posterior probabilities aren't 1 and are conditioned with current knowledge which by the nature of knowledge is always changing. 

So your hope is that a future science demonstrates necessity. Although current science does not. 

I will argue from current knowledge and say that currently the best explanation for fine-tuning in the universe, the solar system, information found in the first life is best explained by agency.

Now we could have a complete reversal in these fields or in abiotic biogenesis at least to explain the massive algorithmic complexity, but until we do I will follow the data and argue for a designer using the same method Darwin did for evolution.

[Alive]

19 minutes ago, Uber Genius said:

Rediculous.

This post creates a false analogy ( drawing a bullseye around an arrow) in order to attack a straw man and finally are for special pleading that we can't use probability to determine the likelihood of events after they happen. 

Brandon Carter, Barrow and Tipler, Martin Reese, Fred Holye (none are theists), all presented probabilistic models similar to what Stephen Meyer produced without anyone claiming a fallacy!

those are the top minds in cosmology from 1960s-2000s. 

However, we can take issue with the word "proven."

The definitions of life in all cases above were broad, namely reproducibly, able to generate energy and expel waste. They could be even silicon, or germanium based.

The scientific epistemology is straight-forward abduction:

Either the effect (life of any kind, anywhere in our universe in the past 13.8 billion years)

is the result of :

Random chance

physical necesity

or design (intelligent agency).

This is a standard formula in science and was the same approach Charles Darwin took in developing his evolutionary inference.

But let's test your theory above. 

If applied equally it destroys all forensic science which relies on the same assumptions of determining the probability that a person would fall down 12 flights of stairs, stabbing and shooting themselves accidentally with each new flight. Bye bye court room forensic testimony because the defense attorney could alway pull your "Drawing a bullseye around an arrow analogy," to debunk forensic science.

SETI, The famous atheist Carl Sagan's baby, relied on the probability argument for the existence of life.

Finally, your fallacy destroys both Bayesian probability (established during the Scottish enlightenment, and Algorythim Specified Complexity (a new field in engineering within the last few decades).

probability works by asking if all we know about a cause and effect was the backgrown information (in this case, fine-tuned constants and quantities of initial conditions that are life permitting) given various inferences, change, necessity or agency what is the probability of life given each.

 

The chance is as stated by Alive in Meyer's reference and agreed to by most atheist cosmologists practicing in that specialization.

the necessity inference doesn't even get to the calculation phase due to the fact that there are no such constraints on the 31 anthropic factors (this number is changing up and down as we make new discoveries).

The agency inference is not "proven," but becomes the best explanation given the background information and alternative inferences. Here the posterior probabilities aren't 1 and are conditioned with current knowledge which by the nature of knowledge is always changing. 

So your hope is that a future science demonstrates necessity. Although current science does not. 

I will argue from current knowledge and say that currently the best explanation for fine-tuning in the universe, the solar system, information found in the first life is best explained by agency.

Now we could have a complete reversal in these fields or in abiotic biogenesis at least to explain the massive algorithmic complexity, but until we do I will follow the data and argue for a designer using the same method Darwin did for evolution.

Thank you. I was too lazy to point out his obvious logical fallacy.

To simplify...we are compelled by honesty, to look for the 'best explanation' within a set.

THe most compelling dynamic to me is the 'information' aspect that biology presents. The nature of 'information'.  Meyers does a 'bang up' (pun intended) job of explaining this. Uncertainty reduction and specificity that is conveyed within DNA and cells. I see the Lord so wonderfully...His Signature.

I leave the 'monkey business' to others.

[omega2xx]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

And what happened was that another prediction of evolutionary theory was confirmed as dinosaur heme was shown to be more closely like bird heme than like the heme of other reptiles.

You still don't get it.  For it to support evolution the evidence must tell HOW it happened.  Close is is not evidence,  their DNA will show they are different and not  related.  Since you are unwilling to accept what genetics proves, you will be lost in science lala land forever. 

This confirms a change in classes.  

A change in class is not evolution.  You need a change in species.  You have to manipulate what happens and still can't prove evolution.

As you learned earlier, new species have been directly observed.   Even most creationist organizations now admit new species, genera, and families.

The only thing I have learned from you is that you have to manipulate the facts and still can't support evolution.  Most creation organizations do not support evolution and you have no source that verifies this.  This is just another example  of you manipulating the facts .  Thanks for making my point.

Love, peace, joy

 

 

 

[omega2xx]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I was asking @Alive. It is a video of Stephen Meyer discussing perceived faults with the theory of evolution. You may be more interested than you think.

Since he will not prove anything he says, I still consider it a waste of time.

It is evolution by the standard definition of evolution. If you don't use the same definition as the scientific community, then you can make all sorts of claims that are correct in your mind. \

It is a contrived, necessary definition.  If you use an incorrect definition, you can also make all sorts of claims that are correct in your mind.

No, evolution does not require a change in species because it is only heritable change over time. If you want to change your claim to "speciation has never been observed", then we can look at evidence for that, too.

An accurate definition requires a change  of species,.  If the offspring are the same as its parents, there is no evolution.  That is a no brainer.   The offspring having different traits, is not evolution.  That is the function of the dominant genes in its parents gene pool.  It results in different traits in the offspring, but it  Of course there is speciation, but it doe snot result  in an new species.

The following text is from this site - https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

Yes, evolution is an observed phenomenon. And yes, even speciation is an observed phenomenon. The claim that "evolution has never been observed" is just plain incorrect.

You usual example of making a statement but nit supporting it with any evidence.

When two portion of a population are no longer able to mate, that is one way for new species to develop. Yes, speciation can occur from a single mutation (if you include the gamete mistake as a single mutation). Interbreeding is not related.

There is no evidence a mutaion caused speciation and interbreeding is a factor in a species not being able o reproduce.  It is common in dogs, coming from pet mills.

The evidence is clearly verifiable. Verify - "To establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of". The evidence is absolutely verifiable. Anyone with the means to do so can go and check for themselves.

not true.  In speciation of ring species the salamanders remained salamanders and the gulls remained gulls.   

While it is true that the specific molecular changes that took place are unknown, the verifiable evidence is clear. The lizard population on the "new" island has undergone changes in a few decades that demonstrate heritable change over time (the definition of evolution).

No change of species, no evolution.  That supports "after their kind," which refutes evolution.

The evidence is clear. Hendry is simply making the point that further work is needed to address those questions of exactly how the process of phenotypic change took place.

By a standard definition, these lizards have demonstrated evolution. Only by redefining evolution can you say "evolution has not been observed".

Only by using an incorrect definition, can you say it has been observed.