For Christians (or anyone else) who deny Darwinian evolution.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, we could certainly bring some integrity to it if we could get clarification on the common statements we see.  It might, for example..be true that "one kind never turns into another kind" - but we won't know that until we have a clear understanding of what a "kind" is, of what's being said. It may even be that this objection to evolutionary biology is agreement with evolutionary biology.

-and wouldn't that be nice to know? I think that such a realization would be particularly useful to believers, since there would be no need to argue against scientific facts, in that case, to maintain the integrity of their beliefs. Call me a godless heathen, but I'm entirely certain that if there were a god,if that were a fact...there wouldn't be any requirement to argue against any other facts. If god exists, it's true that god exists -and- that the sun rises in the east.

Maybe I'm just being silly, though, taking the god hypothesis too seriously.........

(I've suggested the same in other threads, even recently, that swirl around the ID or creationist argument...mentioning that it might be more useful to talk about artificial selection than "intelligent design")

[RoadRunner79]

I didn't have time to watch the video....

Do they have new facts concerning the evolution of the eye;  or did they just shine up some old "just so" stories?
My favorite part of the old show, was when with some nifty slight of hand, they pull some lenses, some cones, and other stuff out of thin air (abracadabra style) when they think no one is looking.  I'm always curious if this is the case, then why don't we see this kind of stuff popping up all over the place? It seems only to be where and when needed (which doesn't sound very random or unintentional to me).

My favorite part is how you guys would have to actually witness the evolution of the human eye from start to finish with your own two in order to satisfy your incredulity of the process, yet you'll accept the claim that a person came back from the dead based on nothing but a book of magic stories written by unverifiable sources two-thousand years ago.  This hypocrisy is unmatched.

That doesn't represent my position at all; I'm curious where you got that from?

From our previous conversations (concerning testimony, it sounds much more like your position, where I would have no epistemological obligation to accept the testimony of these "scientists" and could just dismiss their claims and observations as stories without evidence. Would this not be correct?

Also I don't see where the hypocrisy is on my part either. I fairly certain you misunderstand and are not accurately representing my position, which results in the perceived contradiction.

I mean, if we just said, 'God did evolution with his inexplicable god-powers,' instead of, ya know, learning about it via evidence and observation, would that make it more palatable to you?  Because, that seems to be a perfectly satisfactory explaination for all your other beliefs.

There you go.... talking for me again! My views of the various claims made under the term evolution are based on observations and evidence both personal and the testimony of others. My theological views have very little to do with it.

---

I didn't have time to watch the video....

Do they have new facts concerning the evolution of the eye;  or did they just shine up some old "just so" stories?
My favorite part of the old show, was when with some nifty slight of hand, they pull some lenses, some cones, and other stuff out of thin air (abracadabra style) when they think no one is looking.  I'm always curious if this is the case, then why don't we see this kind of stuff popping up all over the place? It seems only to be where and when needed (which doesn't sound very random or unintentional to me).

To my great surprise I find myself intrigued by one of your posts. Could you give me a link or some sort of a clue as to what you're talking about.

This was mostly my opinion of previous arguments I have heard on the subject.  But what in particular peaked your interest?

[LadyForCamus]

My favorite part is how you guys would have to actually witness the evolution of the human eye from start to finish with your own two in order to satisfy your incredulity of the process, yet you'll accept the claim that a person came back from the dead based on nothing but a book of magic stories written by unverifiable sources two-thousand years ago.  This hypocrisy is unmatched.

That doesn't represent my position at all.

Of course it doesn't.  If I had a dollar for every time you cried strawman...  Do you ever wonder how it is you manage to be misrepresented so much around here? How about this: correct me.  Plainly state your position and we can go from there.  And spoiler alert, if all you're going to do is equivocate scientific evidence with testimony, we can just stop here.  I'm even tempted to insert Cyberman's little algorithm here.

I mean, if we just said, 'God did evolution with his inexplicable god-powers,' instead of, ya know, learning about it via evidence and observation, would that make it more palatable to you?  Because, that seems to be a perfectly satisfactory explaination for all your other beliefs.

My views of the various claims made under the term evolution are based on observations and evidence both personal and the testimony of others.  My theological views have very little to do with it.

lol, that's exactly my point, RR. Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

[RoadRunner79]

That doesn't represent my position at all.

Of course it doesn't.  If I had a dollar for every time you cried strawman...  Do you ever wonder how it is you manage to be misrepresented so much around here?  How about this: correct me.  Plainly state your position and we can go from there.  And spoiler alert, if all you're going to do is equivocate scientific evidence with testimony, we can just stop here.  I'm even tempted to insert Cyberman's little algorithm here.

I mean, if we just said, 'God did evolution with his inexplicable god-powers,' instead of, ya know, learning about it via evidence and observation, would that make it more palatable to you?  Because, that seems to be a perfectly satisfactory explaination for all your other beliefs.

I did correct you.... "that doesn't represent my position"  I said.  If you require more detail then I state specifically that  I don't think that I need to see every step personally.  I don't even think that testimonial evidence of others needs to be of every detail.   However when it is mostly "just so" stories, then I stop to question.   And I only pointed out that it seems to be your position to be able to automatically reject testimony because you seem to be concerned with hypocrisy  (some of the claims that go under evolution certainly are not mundane).  

My views of the various claims made under the term evolution are based on observations and evidence both personal and the testimony of others.  My theological views have very little to do with it.

lol, that's exactly my point, RR.  Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

My suspicion is that what I said above, doesn't match your suspicions.  Which I think goes well to your previous question of why I may be misunderstood so much.   My guess is lack of listening and reasoning skills,  that there is an issue here, where people don't really discuss, but it's more about sophism and preconceived prejudices.  There is far too much how can I twist what you said, to suit my argument, and ignore the rest.

[The Grand Nudger]

That must be it, if nobody gets you, the problem must be with everyone else and how they're a bunch of dishonest assholes with unspecified prejudices. 

Here, allow me to make a suggestion..and follow it up with a question.  It seems to me that you don't doubt evolutionary biology, or even speciation.  You just think that some, or most of it (though not all, I doubt you believe that god is painting the individual plumage patterns on every single bird) is attributable to artificial selection.  Would that be accurate?  

If it is, might your position on the matter be more thoroughly and competently argued by referring to that artificial selection, and how you can distinguish it from natural selection...than by arguing against the theory that explains how both work?

(hey, also, if you're the kind that believes in kinds...what are the chances you might handle that list I posted?)

[RoadRunner79]

Here, allow me to make a suggestion..and follow it up with a question.  It seems to me that you don't doubt evolutionary biology, or even speciation.  You just think that some,  or most of it (though not all, I doubt you believe that god is painting the individual plumage patterns on every single bird) is attributable to artificial selection.  Would that be accurate?  

If it is, might your position on the matter be more thoroughly and competently argued by referring to that artificial selection, and how you can distinguish it from natural selection...than by arguing against the theory that explains how both work?

(hey, also, if you're the kind that believes in kinds...what are the chances you might handle that list I posted?)

Well, I don't have too much issue with the topic of natural selection.  Other than I think that some have a somewhat idealized vision of it, where every slight advantage is selected and magnified. The reality of it is more complicated; but that is a discussion concerning population genetics and a little off topic.  It would seem that your use of the phrase artificial selection would be more in relation to means by which novel functions or systems come about and whatever is being proposed under an evolutionary standpoint.

If someone is asking me, if I believe in evolution; I'm going to ask two questions in return.   What specifically, are you asking me to agree to;  and, why do you think I should believe that?
As to your question, I do believe in many of the tenets of intelligent design,   and I also believe that there are natural processes at work.

[LadyForCamus]

Here, allow me to make a suggestion..and follow it up with a question.  It seems to me that you don't doubt evolutionary biology, or even speciation.  You just think that some,  or most of it (though not all, I doubt you believe that god is painting the individual plumage patterns on every single bird) is attributable to artificial selection.  Would that be accurate?  

If it is, might your position on the matter be more thoroughly and competently argued by referring to that artificial selection, and how you can distinguish it from natural selection...than by arguing against the theory that explains how both work?

(hey, also, if you're the kind that believes in kinds...what are the chances you might handle that list I posted?)

@RR

This is what I mean by 'your position'.  (you said it better than I was going to, Khem, so thank you.)  

Telling me all the little things that bug you about the theory of evolution is not stating a position on the subject of diversity of life on earth.  So, care to take another crack at it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, I don't have too much issue with the topic of natural selection.  Other than I think that some have a somewhat idealized vision of it, where every slight advantage is selected and magnified. The reality of it is more complicated; but that is a discussion concerning population genetics and a little off topic.  It would seem that your use of the phrase artificial selection would be more in relation to means by which novel functions or systems come about and whatever is being proposed under an evolutionary standpoint.

Sure.  So, how about it?  Do you think those novel functions or systems arose through a process of artificial selection?  If so, why do you think that...if not, how do you think they arose?

If someone is asking me, if I believe in evolution; I'm going to ask two questions in return.   What specifically, are you asking me to agree to;  and, why do you think I should believe that?

No, I'm just asking you the questions up above, there's no need to qualify questions with questions until the end of days...lol.

As to your question, I do believe in many of the tenets of intelligent design,   and I also believe that there are natural processes at work.

Artificial selection, a more accurate and specific term for "intelligent design" -is- a natural process.  There's no reason to make a distinction. I get that you believe a supernatural agent performed said selection, but that doesn't change the selection itself. If a god existed, and if a god selected for specific structures or even forms..then evolutionary biology explains the mechanics by which it was done. That part we can see in the fossil record, in living representatives, and in the genetics that link it all together. That part doesn't change regardless of who or what dunnit.

Artificial as in artifice. As in artifact. Not as in "non natural" or "fake". Sometimes I wonder if that's a stumbling block. Thoughts?

Is one of those tenets of ID that you believe in "kinds", can I get a kind classification?  I've always wondered exactly what IDers and creationists mean by kinds. Bonus if, in that classification, you indicate which organisms you think arose through artificial selection and which arose through natural selection.

[Cod]

Cod is now going to ask you specifically; Do you agree that over millions of years, evolution is responsible for changes in characteristics of biological populations.

Why do I believe you should you believe that? Because evolution is a fact and a theory.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That it works is a fact.

How it works is a well-defined theory.

Ever believers shouldn't have trouble understanding that.