Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Subduction Zone]

To argue what the bible says is true, does one have to take it literally?

This is a "that depends" question. How much are they claiming is true? There are those that insist start to finish that it all has to be literally true. But we know what problem that causes. Others focus on specific parts and that may be justifiable.

 

[YoursTrue]

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)



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...?

No, the Bible does not say HOW God created the heavens and the earth, but it does say that He made man in his image, He personally formed the first man, and then took Eve from Adam's body. And then they had children.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is a "that depends" question. How much are they claiming is true? There are those that insist start to finish that it all has to be literally true. But we know what problem that causes. Others focus on specific parts and that may be justifiable.

That is what I'm asking particularly about the history of humans as related in the Bible. Again -- if it's mythical, then NOTHING about Jesus is true. Because the genealogy leading to him is simply not true IF those named as predecessors are based on mythological figures.

 

[YoursTrue]

The theory also does not predict what the next step in human evolution will be. But again -- gorillas stay so far as gorillas, salmon stay as salmon even though they have a tough time bucking the current--and bacteria remain as bacteria even though their form can change based on various introduced circumstances, like antibiotics.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hard to be a victim when I don't believe in a god.

Not agreeing with something doesn't mean I should report it.

It's certainly not unobserved. The insults have tampered down a bit which is nice.

 

[YoursTrue]

So now -- I can only imagine some might imagine that humans will become fish again -- oh, I'm sorry -- many say humans ARE fish. But ok. Here's what I found -- quite interesting --
"Dolphins and orcas have passed the evolutionary point of no return to live on land again. Scientists have discovered that once a mammal has become fully aquatic, it passes a threshold that makes a return to terrestrial landscapes almost impossible" See? they've discovered that once a mammal has become fully aquatic, it passes a threshold -- etc. So have a good time with this. Dolphins and orcas have passed the evolutionary point of no return to live on land again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is what I'm asking particularly about the history of humans as related in the Bible. Again -- if it's mythical, then NOTHING about Jesus is true. Because the genealogy leading to him is simply not true IF those named as predecessors are based on mythological figures.

No, parts could easily be true. Why do you use black and white fallacies so often. Drop the all or nothing attitude because the only proper answer to such an attitude is that nothing in the Bible is true. I do not go that far. Why do you want to go that far?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So now -- I can only imagine some might imagine that humans will become fish again -- oh, I'm sorry -- many say humans ARE fish. But ok. Here's what I found -- quite interesting --
"Dolphins and orcas have passed the evolutionary point of no return to live on land again. Scientists have discovered that once a mammal has become fully aquatic, it passes a threshold that makes a return to terrestrial landscapes almost impossible" See? they've discovered that once a mammal has become fully aquatic, it passes a threshold -- etc. So have a good time with this. Dolphins and orcas have passed the evolutionary point of no return to live on land again.

Please note, it says "practically impossible". Now I could easily lay out a scenario that would enable dolphins to evolve for land based life again.
The problem is that the situation arising is so unlikely that it would be "practically impossible". When you read articles that you do not understand you should really ask questions first.

 

[McBell]

The insults have tampered down a bit which is nice.

And then your very next post:

So now -- I can only imagine some might imagine that humans will become fish again -- oh, I'm sorry -- many say humans ARE fish. But ok.

So no, the insults have not tampered down

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You obviously don't believe in the theory of evolution

I indeed don't "believe" it. Instead, I accept it as the best explanation that accounts for all the facts and is contradicted by none.

, so why are you trying to defend what you just proved you don't believe.

This makes no sense, off course.

Go back and read what you said, "there are no half evolved creatures".

There indeed aren't any "half evolved" creatures. There is no such thing.

That means they never evolved but they were created complete, so there you go contradicting yourself as plain as day.

Every creature is "complete". A one cellular species is "complete".
A penguin is not "half a bird" because it has wings that can't fly.
You are arguing a strawman.

The very term "evolution" tells you clearly that thigs evolved from pond scum

And that "pond scum" were "complete organisms" in their own right. They were a species.
An amoeba is "complete" organism of its own species.
So is a bacteria. So is an elephant. So is a chimp. So is homo erectus. So is a penguin. So is a dino.
There is no "half a creature".

, you're welcome to believe you came from pond scum but please don't put me in your category. I believe the first man was created complete, with no pond scum involved.

You can believe whatever nonsense you like.
You can disbelieve evolution if you like.

Your insistence on misrepresenting evolution and getting it completely wrong is just willful ignorance.
What's the point of doing that?

You are entitled to your own beliefs, but you are not entitled to being dishonest.
Fine if you wish to disbelieve evolution, but why insist on misrepresenting it? Why insist on arguing strawmen?

Could it perhaps be because you have no real argument against the actual theory?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your opinion is only based on an unproven theory. I have a theory that Elvis is still alive, someone found his DNA at Epstein's Fantasy Island Resort. Would you allow me to run with that theory?

You might want to read this webpage. It's only about a dozen sentences. It shouldn't take you much more then 1 minute. So in less then 2 minutes, you can prevent yourself from saying such stupid things in the future again:

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

notjustatheory.com

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, you haven't defended the charges brought against evolutionists by the great man Ray Comfort. He was asking for evidence of a transitional fossil. He wasn't asking for one which was merely adaption to it environment, as your trying to shoehorn in.

Tiktaalik. Explain why it doesn't qualify in your opinion. Don't just handwave.

We need to see a fossil or a transient creature, you know like a pig with wings. Some believe pigs will fly, right

A pig with wings would disprove evolution. So would a crockoduck.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, you're trying to push a theory as a settled science and that's never gonna pass muster among intelligent people

Again

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

notjustatheory.com

Here are some other theories that are settled science:
- theory of relativity
- plate tectonic theory
- germ theory of desease
- heliocentric theory
- atomic theory
- ...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can't show you anything while you think you know it all, only an open minded person can be shown stuff

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But again -- gorillas stay so far as gorillas, salmon stay as salmon even though they have a tough time bucking the current--and bacteria remain as bacteria even though their form can change based on various introduced circumstances, like antibiotics.

Again with this nonsense.

Irony of the evolutionary belief

One week ago I would have believed you...... But I was told by you atheist friends that testimonies are not evidence..... So apparently there is no evidence that you have written any papers I am not, nor have I ever been an atheist. But I do appreciate their honesty, knowledge and insight...

www.religiousforums.com

Seriously........................................ When will you ever learn?
Why do you insist on being wrong?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Really? These are my words “while the exact maths are obviously impossible to determine with 100% accuracy, many estimates have been done, showing that BB are much, much, much more likely that FT universes,”

Does this sound like someone who is claiming that the math is written in stone?



Yes low entropy is one of the many FT values in question

Do you grant or reject Penrose’s point? That a big universe with low entropy like our universe, is much much more unlikely than a single galaxy or a single solar system-

If not why not?



Jajaja yea sure.

So do you agree with the conclusion? ¿ that the BB paradox refutes any chance hypothesis?

If yes I will proceed in supported the rest of my claims………………..if not, why not?

No I don't agree with the conclusion.
As I said, I read the original text. While the physics is way over my head, the calculation doesn't seem to be about what you claim it is about.

Instead, it calculates all the potential quantum states of all particles in the universe.
It does not calculate all the potential universes with different constants, which is what you seem to be pretending it is.

In fact, when I googled it, one of the very first links was about how cdesign proponentsists are completely misrepresenting Penrose while using that calculation in their silly FT design arguments.....

And as said already, in the original text itself, FT isn't even mentioned. At all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sound like you are saying, “let’s wait until that observation is made, so I can think in an excuse for rejecting design”

No.
I just don't see the point in discussing silly hypothetical what-if's.
They won't get us anywhere.

Let's discuss real evidence instead.
Got any?

All I want to know if there is any observation that would convince that the universe was design.

That would entirely depend on the hypothesis and if it has objectively testable predictions.
So far, all I'm seeing are ad-hoc rationalizations which are themselves rooted in arguments from ignorance, incredulity, special pleading,...

A good place to start, would be my thread on how to detect design.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I told you @Charles Philips

Just semantics and more semantics.

No. Corrections of strawmen.
And as @Charles Philips later replies have shown, we were demonstrably correct in identifying these as strawmen.

He wasn't using a figure of speech like you assumed he was. He means it literally.

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

Nobody here, except creationists, is doing that.

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

Read his replies. He most definitely does not. As we all (except you) expected.

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”

Nope. It's not what he means at all. Again, read his replies.

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

His point was absolutely not ignored. Instead his point was corrected.
And instead of acknowledging his mistake, he not only doubled but tripled down on his strawman.
And only further confirmed that we were right in our interpretation while you are wrong.

You also have problems with acknowledging when you are incorrect, as the past has shown. I don't expect it to be different this time around.

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

I do remember. I actually read the posts and replies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes that was his point.

It definitly was not his point. Read his posts.

 

[danieldemol]

giving the fact that Adam was the first human being?

That's not a fact in my view.