Irony of the evolutionary belief

[leroy]

He did address the actual point.
He did it by correcting a strawman.
Correcting strawmen is not "arguing semantics".

It's fundamentally wrong to think about any species or fossil as "half-evolved" or "not fully evolved".
It is indicative of an extreme lack of understanding of how evolution works.

There is no such thing as "not fully evolved".

Are a penguin's wings "not fully evolved"?
Is a penguin a "half evolved bird"?



Do we? I'm not sure we do. Somebody who understands evolution would never say such a thing.
And if we put his comment into context of all the other posts he made, we can be quite sure that he doesn't mean what you are implying he means.



"fanatic atheists". Lol.

As if evolution theory is exclusive to atheism.
You crack me up sometimes.

I told you @Charles Philips

Just semantics and more semantics.

"fanatic atheists". Lol.

As if evolution theory is exclusive to atheism.
You crack me up sometimes.

Treating evolution like a religious doctrine seems to be an “atheist thing”

With fully evolved feathers he means “modern like feathers” with fully evolved scales he means “modern like scales”

If you say that feathers evolved from scales, then at some point in history there would have been animals with scales transitioning in to feathers. (this is what he means with “half evolved”

I agree that his words where not 100% appropriate, but his point was clear and ignored.

Just for the record I made up the scale and feather example……………I don’t remember what he was talking about specifically

 

[leroy]

It is not semantics it is ignorance, fully evolved is not a concept in evolution.
This image is from when creationists started this nonsense.
View attachment 91136everything on earth is just as evolved as everything else.

Yes that was his point.

The fossil record is represented by the green image –(the one with the tree)…………….we find the tips of the branches but few intermediates (let a lone ancestors)

 

[YoursTrue]

It did not come from absolutely nothing from my understanding. I will admit that I am not an astrophysicist and that many if not all of the ideas are beyond me. Here is the problem, I have heard creationists say "You are claiming that the universe came from nothing" and the standard response is "No I am not" and that is eventually followed up with a demand that the creationist define "nothing" which is only reasonable since it is almost always the creationist's claim. And at that point the creationist tends to run away rather than define what they mean by "nothing".

So if you are going to make that accusation please note that I will probably ask you to define "nothing".

OK, not going to address everything in your response now, but thank you for your response. Which brings me to another idea of Dr. Hawking, the esteemed scientist that people revered -- "Hartle and Hawking claimed that if you wind the universe back to the beginning, time loses its distinct nature and effectively becomes space. With this no boundary hypothesis, the universe did not have an origin, not at least one we would ever really understand." Now THAT is something I can agree with -- that the "no boundary" hypothesis is not something we would ever understand. LOL, boy am I glad the commentator said that! Otherwise I'd have to keep going in my brain to think 'wha?' 'what does that mean? huh? what?' Next I'll be working on the multi-universe theory.

Stephen Hawking’s final, god’s-eye view of the cosmos ponders the ultimate origin of our universe

In a new book, On The Origin of Time, Belgian physicist Thomas Hertog unravels Stephen Hawking’s last theory, which focuses upon one of the biggest questions of all.

theconversation.com

The other quote is from: Stephen Hawking says nothing was around before origin of universe - Xinhua | English.news.cn.
(Enjoy, as the waitress tells me when bringing my order in a Chinese restaurant...)

 

[YoursTrue]

The Adam and Eve part are clearly mythical. As well as the genealogy of Jesus. Tell me, what difference does the genealogy of Jesus make? Why couldn't almost anyone have been the "Son of God".

You ask some very important questions, SZ. And for the sake of recognition, if a person believes in and promotes evolution as the way the human race came into being, let's say, and goes to church or another house of worship based on a purported vested interest in the Bible as foundational belief for their religion, that makes null and void everything in the Bible. I don't know how you or others size it up, but logically it does not make sense to believe both. Either one is true or the other is true.
Does it make sense that evolution by natural cause is the only way as to how life came about in the long or short run of it? While there may be and are similarities among organisms, no sir, it no longer adds up to me that evolution by "natural means" is the way life and its growth came about. Call me crazy, dumb, ignorant, mind-controlled, whatever you want, but when I look at a beautiful blue sky with puffy white clouds I think: how beautiful, and my heart is grateful to the one true God that Jesus spoke about. I personally think that hippos and crocodiles are ugly, but I'm thinking maybe one day I won't think so.
In addition, do I believe that Jesus performed miracles and was spoken about then and beyond that? Yes, you guessed correctly.

 

[McBell]

You ask some very important questions, SZ. And for the sake of recognition, if a person believes in and promotes evolution as the way the human race came into being, let's say, and goes to church or another house of worship based on a purported vested interest in the Bible as foundational belief for their religion, that makes null and void everything in the Bible.

This is nothing more than your opinion.
Which is not held by most of the world.

I don't know how you or others size it up, but logically it does not make sense to believe both. Either one is true or the other is true.

ONLY if one Believe the Bible has to taken literally.
Which not everyone does.
In fact, it appears that most people do not believe the Bible has to taken literally.

Does it make sense that evolution by natural cause is the only way as to how life came about in the long or short run of it?

Makes more sense the "GodDidIt" and running tail tucked from al the evidence that shows a deity is not required.
Of course, the a deity is not required does not mean a deity was not involved.
Just that if a deity was involved, they did so in a manner that does not reveal its involvement.

While there may be and are similarities among organisms, no sir, it no longer adds up to me that evolution by "natural means" is the way life and its growth came about. Call me crazy, dumb, ignorant, mind-controlled, whatever you want, but when I look at a beautiful blue sky with puffy white clouds I think: how beautiful, and my heart is grateful to the one true God that Jesus spoke about. I personally think that hippos and crocodiles are ugly, but I'm thinking maybe one day I won't think so.

The whole issue here is simply you.

"it does not add up to me"​

"my heart is grateful"​

"I personally think"​

"I'm thinking maybe one day I wont think so"​

Since science is not concerned with any ones personal feelings..
And I mean any ones, not yours, not mine, not theirs...

In addition, do I believe that Jesus performed miracles and was spoken about then and beyond that? Yes, you guessed correctly.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with science...

 

[Dimi95]

Does it make sense that evolution by natural cause is the only way as to how life came about in the long or short run of it?

1 Corinthians 15:46
'The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.'

 

[walt]

With a billion people probably per day drinking coffee, that's a lot of people wanting the same very thing, why can't any one of them get the smallest step, to happen all by itself - sugar in their coffee?

In order to believe in evolution you have to believe steps happen all by themselves, in nature billions of things happened all by themselves - because In nature, God creates every step to happen, we just don't see everything, God's ways are invisible!

But here is how we prove something - why? Because when we do something it is not invisible!
God's ways are invisible, but our ways are not invisible, in your whole entire life personally, has any step doing any project have you experienced a step happening all by itself, when you draw picture, paint a picture, work on a trade, assemble something, build something, make a cake.

People have designed robotics to build automobiles, and all kinds of things get done all by themselves, but is that really true? Someone designed the robotics, someone made every part of the robotics and put it all together, after all the robotics are complete electricity has to be supplied for all the robotics to operate. So really none of the robotics happens all by itself, design is involved, the making of each part is involved, assembly is involved, and maintenance is involved and electricity.

Everything in nature happens because God, in an invisible way has designed and made each part, assembled each part and does all the maintenance for each part, but it is all invisible to the human eye.

How do we know God's ways are invisible? I could answer this question in another post.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is nothing more than your opinion.
Which is not held by most of the world.


ONLY if one Believe the Bible has to taken literally.
Which not everyone does.
In fact, it appears that most people do not believe the Bible has to taken literally.


Makes more sense the "GodDidIt" and running tail tucked from al the evidence that shows a deity is not required.
Of course, the a deity is not required does not mean a deity was not involved.
Just that if a deity was involved, they did so in a manner that does not reveal its involvement.


The whole issue here is simply you.

"it does not add up to me"​

"my heart is grateful"​

"I personally think"​

"I'm thinking maybe one day I wont think so"​

Since science is not concerned with any ones personal feelings..
And I mean any ones, not yours, not mine, not theirs...


Which has absolutely nothing to do with science...

Since science "changes" its conclusions or posits based on opinion or evidence as analyzed by experts, that is ongoing. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. And I am thankful for that. Otherwise, it would be many more pages than a person could read in a lifetime. Amidst constant changes.

 

[YoursTrue]

1 Corinthians 15:46
'The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.'

That has to be taken in context. Meantime, how do you understand the following: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

 

[YoursTrue]

This is nothing more than your opinion.
Which is not held by most of the world.


ONLY if one Believe the Bible has to taken literally.
Which not everyone does.
In fact, it appears that most people do not believe the Bible has to taken literally.


Makes more sense the "GodDidIt" and running tail tucked from al the evidence that shows a deity is not required.
Of course, the a deity is not required does not mean a deity was not involved.
Just that if a deity was involved, they did so in a manner that does not reveal its involvement.


The whole issue here is simply you.

"it does not add up to me"​

"my heart is grateful"​

"I personally think"​

"I'm thinking maybe one day I wont think so"​

Since science is not concerned with any ones personal feelings..
And I mean any ones, not yours, not mine, not theirs...


Which has absolutely nothing to do with science...

There are some things even science cannot explain.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is nothing more than your opinion.
Which is not held by most of the world.


ONLY if one Believe the Bible has to taken literally.
Which not everyone does.
In fact, it appears that most people do not believe the Bible has to taken literally.


Makes more sense the "GodDidIt" and running tail tucked from al the evidence that shows a deity is not required.
Of course, the a deity is not required does not mean a deity was not involved.
Just that if a deity was involved, they did so in a manner that does not reveal its involvement.


The whole issue here is simply you.

"it does not add up to me"​

"my heart is grateful"​

"I personally think"​

"I'm thinking maybe one day I wont think so"​

Since science is not concerned with any ones personal feelings..
And I mean any ones, not yours, not mine, not theirs...


Which has absolutely nothing to do with science...

It is not just my opinion as you purport. If a person believes in evolution, they simply cannot claim the Bible's writings as truth. The reason is, again, the history of life as we know it from plants and animals and from Adam to Jesus is not in harmony with evolution.The theory of evolution nullifies everything the Bible says from the beginning right through the last page. If you cannot see that, that's the way things are. Have a good one.

 

[leroy]

. The only thing you do well is get science wrong.

but you can´t quote any example of me being worng can you ?

"Fully evolved" means nothing.

Ohhh so you do correct mistakes when you see them (in this case a vocabulary mistake made by @Charles Philips ………….. so why are you making an arbitrary exception with me? why don’t you quote any of the alleged scientific mistakes?

 

[walt]

Cell phones use radio waves, we cannot see them they are invisible to the human eye. But we know they exist!

We cannot see evaporation.

A huge star called the Sun Has a gravitational pull on the planet Earth, that keeps it continually at a certain distance, and this distance is always perfect for life to keep existing. The Sun's Gravity has at no time failed, and this process is invisible And obviously very powerful!

Oxygen and carbon dioxide we cannot see.


I don't know if you can call it common sense or what you can call it, but through many facts we can see, we fully understand that these invisible things exist!

 

[Dimi95]

That has to be taken in context.

No it doesn't.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."(Timothy 3)

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."(John 6)

Meantime, how do you understand the following: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

As it is written and nothing more.

It says that God created the heavens and the earth , but it does not say how.

Many however bother to share unconvicing claims on 'how' God did it.
Or how the Bible tells God did , as they themselfs interprete it..

I mean , for what do we use Scripture - to find how God did it , or...?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?

Mathematics, like religion, evolves, so I guess that makes me an evolutionist.

I’m just not sure that what you describe is strange enough to be true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cell phones use radio waves, we cannot see them they are invisible to the human eye. But we know they exist!

We cannot see evaporation.

A huge star called the Sun Has a gravitational pull on the planet Earth, that keeps it continually at a certain distance, and this distance is always perfect for life to keep existing. The Sun's Gravity has at no time failed, and this process is invisible And obviously very powerful!

Oxygen and carbon dioxide we cannot see.


I don't know if you can call it common sense or what you can call it, but through many facts we can see, we fully understand that these invisible things exist!

We can confirm all of that by other means. If you are trying to compare that to a god I have to point out that there is as of yet no known way to detect a god. Your analogy fails.

 

[walt]

We can confirm all of that by other means. If you are trying to compare that to a god I have to point out that there is as of yet no known way to detect a god. Your analogy fails.

I was talking about things that are obviously invisible, we can see with the mind's eye! If you do not understand that maybe we could just read a fairy tale. LOL..

 

[leroy]

We do have them. Though the fossil bat looks very "batty" there are differences that an expert could point out to you. And no we do not "need them".(fossils)

Yes that is what I said.

. He never predicted that all transitional fossils would be found.

Granted the theory of evolution has not predictions on how many intermediate fossils should be found.

And there are quite a few factors needed for fossilization. Number one is the correct environment. In most forests even large bodies do not leave fossils behind. The smaller an organism is the faster it decays. So bats, being very small, and having lightweight bones that enable flight are going to decay very very fast. We never expected to have a good fossil record of them.

Ok but we do find some bats in the fossils record (despite all those inconveniences)

So if we have bats, (and land mammals) in the fossil record....... why don’t we have the intermediates?

This is a 80 million year gap……….where supposedly hundreds of different intermediates (and direct ancestors) lived presumably in all types of environments, in different parts of the world and had to deal with all sorts of natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, volcanos, and other events that favor fossilization)

So where are the intermediate fossils?

 

[Pogo]

Which parts do some say are mythical and which parts are not? Because -- I am going over this again -- if the Adam and Eve account is mythical and they did not exist as said, obviously the genealogy leading to Jesus and/or those before him simply cannot be accurate. So yes, it's an either/or issue.

Ah yup, which has nothing to do with whether or not is a good story and even a useful one in a teaching sense, even atheists recognize the value of the story in its mythological sense though it is just nonsense in a literal sense., (OOPS I forgot you don't know what literal means in common parlance)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was talking about things that are obviously invisible, we can see with the mind's eye! If you do not understand that maybe we could just read a fairy tale. LOL..

Yeah, that is called "make believe.