About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[YoursTrue]

Okay. Prove it. Or are you just making more false claims that you cannot support?

Accusing scientists of "pure speculation" is a very serious charge. By doing so you took on a burden of proof.

Although I'm reading one of Stephen Hawking's books now and he said something interesting about his malady as perceived by some in religion. He said that religion has imputed evil or sin to his condition. That is sad. Because I know God did not do that to Dr. Hawking and yes, I believe many have believed that which is sad. The reason it happened is because God PERMITTED it, He did not single out Stephen Hawking for that, or cause it to happen to him.
That is the genetic situation we find ourselves in now. It is not evolution, however. Do you remember what Jesus said about the tower of Siloam when people thought they did something wrong, or bad, and that's why the tower fell on them? He refuted that idea and told his listeners they were no worse than others. Or just as bad. Luke 13 - "No, I tell you. But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam collapsed on them: Do you think that they were more sinful than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5No, I tell you. But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

 

[YoursTrue]

But that is wrong too. It gives people the wrong idea. Evolution is not about who is the biggest or the strongest. It is about who can reproduce and make sure that their offspring survive to become adults.

OK, not of the biggest or strongest, which I don't think I said. But of the "fittest."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Although I'm reading one of Stephen Hawking's books now and he said something interesting about his malady as perceived by some in religion. He said that religion has imputed evil or sin to his condition. That is sad. Because I know God did not do that to Dr. Hawking and yes, I believe many have believed that which is sad. The reason it happened is because God PERMITTED it, He did not single out Stephen Hawking for that, or cause it to happen to him.
That is the genetic situation we find ourselves in now. It is not evolution, however. Do you remember what Jesus said about the tower of Siloam when people thought they did something wrong, or bad, and that's why the tower fell on them? He refuted that idea and told his listeners they were no worse than others. Or just as bad. Luke 13 - "No, I tell you. But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam collapsed on them: Do you think that they were more sinful than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5No, I tell you. But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

If God is omnipotent and omniscient all of man's woes are his fault. If you could reason rationally you would understand this. There are Christians that do understand this so they try to blame the victim for their God's evil behavior,

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, not of the biggest or strongest, which I don't think I said. But of the "fittest."

No, the best adapted for the purpose of passing on one's genes in a particular environment. If the environment is one with very little food then efficiency is preferred over brute strength., A small organism that does not need a lot of food can do better than a large one that needs to eat quite often.

 

[YoursTrue]

If God is omnipotent and omniscient all of man's woes are his fault. If you could reason rationally you would understand this. There are Christians that do understand this so they try to blame the victim for their God's evil behavior,

I realize some do try to blame the recipient of difficulties as if genetic problems are from God as a penalty individually of some sort. Of course if a child is born with maladies because of fetal alcohol syndrome, it does not mean that God caused this. But I have come to realize they're not from God although God permits genes in their distortion to be passed on. God could have created more than Adam and Eve as far as humans go, but He did not. I believe this because this makes sense to me and that is what the Bible says.
So this does not mean the person is necessarily evil or did something wrong in what some might call a "previous life." In order to understand this better, one would have to understand that God allows these problematic passages, not that He causes them deliberately in various individuals. Let's also look at it this way -- since you believe in the process of evolution as the determining factor, things happen, right? And the prospect is death of each individual, isn't that right?

 

[YoursTrue]

If God is omnipotent and omniscient all of man's woes are his fault. If you could reason rationally you would understand this. There are Christians that do understand this so they try to blame the victim for their God's evil behavior,

Again, if a person is a drug or alcohol abuser and passes on damaged genes to his offspring, who is to blame for that? it's obvious that God ensured that Adam and Eve would die only after they sinned. But they didn't have to. It was not written as such in advance that each one would die. They chose to disobey God. I know you don't believe it but it makes sense to me now.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, the best adapted for the purpose of passing on one's genes in a particular environment. If the environment is one with very little food then efficiency is preferred over brute strength., A small organism that does not need a lot of food can do better than a large one that needs to eat quite often.

I was just seeing that in that a courageous researcher was examining wilderness and recognized that entire ecosystems are being removed and destroyed because the wildlife is changing there. While is it fascinating and somewhat sad, I believe that God will make everything straight and will not allow the earth to fizzle away or be destroyed by man. He says so in the book of Revelation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I realize some do try to blame the recipient of difficulties as if genetic problems are from God as a penalty individually of some sort. Of course if a child is born with maladies because of fetal alcohol syndrome, it does not mean that God caused this. But I have come to realize they're not from God although God permits genes in their distortion to be passed on. God could have created more than Adam and Eve as far as humans go, but He did not. I believe this because this makes sense to me and that is what the Bible says.
So this does not mean the person is necessarily evil or did something wrong in what some might call a "previous life." In order to understand this better, one would have to understand that God allows these problematic passages, not that He causes them deliberately in various individuals. Let's also look at it this way -- since you believe in the process of evolution as the determining factor, things happen, right? And the prospect is death of each individual, isn't that right?

The problem with the Garden of Eden myth is that if one understands it it is all God's fault. But you cannot afford to understand it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, if a person is a drug or alcohol abuser and passes on damaged genes to his offspring, who is to blame for that? it's obvious that God ensured that Adam and Eve would die only after they sinned. But they didn't have to. It was not written as such in advance that each one would die. They chose to disobey God. I know you don't believe it but it makes sense to me now.

God made them too weak and then when his own creation tempted them he blamed them for his poor design An adult should not do that.. A God that is supposedly omniscient would know why his design was doomed to fail. God obviously did not want perfection and then punished Adam and Eve for not being perfectt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was just seeing that in that a courageous researcher was examining wilderness and recognized that entire ecosystems are being removed and destroyed because the wildlife is changing there. While is it fascinating and somewhat sad, I believe that God will make everything straight and will not allow the earth to fizzle away or be destroyed by man. He says so in the book of Revelation.

Wishful thinking. And God does not "say" anything in the Bible. The Bible is a work of man.

 

[Apostle John]

Sorry, but that did not do that. The civilizations in the New World did not occur until long after the land bridge was gone. The Old World civilizations could not have started the New World civilizations.

Why do you think that multiple places where civilization began is not possible?

Because the time difference proposed of tens of thousands of years between having language and then starting to write and record things makes it a ridiculous proposition.

 

[Apostle John]

So you do not understand the concept of evidence.

Please tell us why it is not evidence.

I already did. Why don’t you tell me why it is evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because the time difference proposed of tens of thousands of years between having language and then starting to write and record things makes it a ridiculous proposition.

That is just another unevidenced claim. Do you have anything at all besides your uneducated opinion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already did. Why don’t you tell me why it is evidence.

No. You did not. Just admit that you have nothing and I will gladly tell you why it is evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That’s similar to the other ‘photo’. If it isn’t an optical illusion, it could have been made by God. It provides no evidence of two rocks colliding and then fusing.

Except that that is the conclusion most people would come to looking at that NASA image. It serves as evidence in support of that opinion for all of them. Other possibilities are less likely, including the one you suggest. Notice that the image is sufficient evidence for you to believe that an intelligent designer could have done that, but not a collision. For that, you call it "no evidence."

If you and Bill Nye remain atheist until ‘fate allows’ and you are then confronted with the fact that the Lord Jesus exists, this will be evidence too late to benefit from.

Yes, it might be, but that's still not a reason to act on the possibility.

Why don’t you tell me why it is evidence.

Evidence is the noun form of the adjective evident, meaning evident to the senses. Any sensation you become aware of is evidence that something is or may be happening near you - any sight, sound, smell, feel, etc.. The next thing the mind does, using remembered associations, is to flesh the bare apprehension out by deciding what it is evidence of - whatever possibility is now more or less likely - and this is followed by how we feel about it (happy, frightened, surprised, etc..). So, sensory awareness -> cognitive evaluation -> affective evaluation. We look at that image open-mindedly and see what is most likely the result of a fusing collision. If we're committed to not seeing it, we'll see something else. These two can be called "seeing is believing" and "believing is seeing."

it must be read in a spiritual sense, not as physical exact science necessarily

I translate that to it must be read as poetry, meaning that one should feel free to bring his imagination to the task of interpreting scripture in order to reconcile its words with observation. That's what the believer is doing when he "lets the Spirit guide him." He's allowing himself to change the meanings of words ad lib.

as if genetic problems are from God

Believers don't explain why they don't hold the tri-omni deity responsible for its creation. They give it a pass (special pleading, unjustified double standard). But the skeptic understands that it too is part of reconciling faith-based belief with observed reality, but this time, not by manipulating language, but by just ignoring the elephant in the room: tri-omni means omni-responsible. It's a legal principle that if one had the opportunity to prevent a foreseeable disaster and didn't act, he can be held liable for negligence at a minimum. Being a deity doesn't excuse one from moral judgment, obviously, given how many people call it good and loving.

 

[Audie]

Except that that is the conclusion most people would come to looking at that NASA image. It serves as evidence in support of that opinion for all of them. Other possibilities are less likely, including the one you suggest. Notice that the image is sufficient evidence for you to believe that an intelligent designer could have done that, but not a collision. For that, you call it "no evidence."

Yes, it might be, but that's still not a reason to act on the possibility.

Evidence is the noun form of the adjective evident, meaning evident to the senses. Any sensation you become aware of is evidence that something is or may be happening near you - any sight, sound, smell, feel, etc.. The next thing the mind does, using remembered associations, is to flesh the bare apprehension out by deciding what it is evidence of - whatever possibility is now more or less likely - and this is followed by how we feel about it (happy, frightened, surprised, etc..). So, sensory awareness -> cognitive evaluation -> affective evaluation. We look at that image open-mindedly and see what is most likely the result of a fusing collision. If we're committed to not seeing it, we'll see something else. These two can be called "seeing is believing" and "believing is seeing."

I translate that to it must be read as poetry, meaning that one should feel free to bring his imagination to the task of interpreting scripture in order to reconcile its words with observation. That's what the believer is doing when he "lets the Spirit guide him." He's allowing himself to change the meanings of words ad lib.

Believers don't explain why they don't hold the tri-omni deity responsible for its creation. They give it a pass (special pleading, unjustified double standard). But the skeptic understands that it too is part of reconciling faith-based belief with observed reality, but this time, not by manipulating language, but by just ignoring the elephant in the room: tri-omni means omni-responsible. It's a legal principle that if one had the opportunity to prevent a foreseeable disaster and didn't act, he can be held liable for negligence at a minimum. Being a deity doesn't excuse one from moral judgment, obviously, given how many people call it good and loving.

Being that kind of believer is a condition similar to battered wife syndrome.

 

[Apostle John]

No. You did not. Just admit that you have nothing and I will gladly tell you why it is evidence.

I freely admit that I have nothing to explain how that was made naturally, if it’s indeed real. I’m certain your explanation will be left field.

 

[Audie]

Yes maybe I should have said eurasia but regardless you did beautifully expose the myth of multiple cradles of civilisation, that was my original point. At least 16000 years the science you follow says the glacial bridge went. Native Americans should have had their own indistinguishable language indecipherable from any origin by the time linguists began their studies.

I don’t.

You deny stating that you are a scientist?

 

[Astrophile]

That’s similar to the other ‘photo’. If it isn’t an optical illusion, it could have been made by God. It provides no evidence of two rocks colliding and then fusing.

Anything could have been made by God, but that hypothesis doesn't explain the unusual shape of Arrokoth. The collision+fusion hypothesis offers a possible explanation, but, in my opinion, the data are insufficient to make this any more than a hypothesis.

 

[Astrophile]

Why do you keep saying "evolution of the fittest"). The actual phase was (survival of the fittest and Darwin never used that phrase. You should really drop it.

Also, in this context survival means the survival of a lineage, not of individuals.