Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[McBell]

One reason to believe is so many fulfilled prophecies.

again?

I really wish people would stop being lazy, get up off their arses and bring something that has not already been refuted to death to the table.

At this point the "fulfilled prophesies" is not even beating a dead horse.
More like beating the fossil of the horse.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Teosinte! I've seen it. It doesn't look like the corn I know. In comparison, it looks like something is wrong.

We have a restaurant where I live called Teocintle Maiz. Most dishes include a bit of charred corn like the dish shown here:

if you need to learn the material before you accept or reject it.

Not so. I accept the physics that got man to the moon and back, but don't understand it. I also accept that eyes evolved without studying the proposed pathways except in the main. Why? Because they exist and we have no other explanation for that. You might guess that a god had a part in that, but it's just a guess. It appears that no gods are needed, just natural selection applied to genetic variation in living populations over time.

The existence of plants and animals period is evidence of God.

No, it is evidence that plants and animals exist. Nothing qualifies as evidence for a god. Nothing. If it did, all critical thinkers would be theists.

It is your job to prove what you are telling me is true.

What he's likely telling you, and what I am telling you, is that nature appears to be up to the task without gods, which is correct. If it weren't, you could falsify it. He also believes in the supernatural, but as I understand him, is not claiming to have evidence for a god or its hand in the creation of the tree of life.

that is what I am asking from you. Support for your assertion that things came into existence to begin with via evolution.

But you have that. It's also all over the Internet, but it's not for you to understand. Assuming that you have been sincere in your interest in learning evolutionary science, you've made no progress and continue making the same mistakes. It's unreasonable to expect that to ever change. But what you don't seem to understand is that uniformed beliefs have zero persuasive power, so you telling others how the world appears to you is not useful to those who know more about it than that.

I'm rejecting evolution because all the things in this world didn't just develop from nowhere.

That's not a claim of the theory.

Also, that claim isn't credible. You reject the science because you don't understand it and it contradicts your faith.

Moreover, that's not a problem for you. Where did the god you believe in come from? Your double standards for science versus faith undermine your criticisms of the science, since they apply to your own beliefs. You reject an idea for lack of "proof" and offer an alternative with no supporting evidence. You find the world difficult to accept exists undesigned and uncreated, then propose the existence of something even less likely to exist undesigned and uncreated to account for it. Who do you think you can persuade with such objections, persuade that those are your reasons? You have no reason to believe what you believe better than that it feels good to you. And you argue against scholarship you don't understand.

I know how life originated.

No, you don't. You have a fervently held belief based in nothing more than the willingness to believe it. That's not knowledge.

I have sufficient understanding of the scriptures to understand that God created things to begin with. And I believe when others reach different conclusions it is based on ignorance.

You beliefs are based in ignorance. Nothing in scripture is evidence in support of your beliefs. Also, how much understanding does it take to understand the biblical claim of creation? The creation myth has been falsified.

My evidence is called the Bible.

The Bible is evidence of nothing more than that it was written. It's not even evidence that the writers believed what they wrote themselves much less that anything it contains is correct. That comes from evidence outside of the book.

they place their trust in some ridiculous man made theory.

The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. Your doubt is not based in reason.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My evidence is called the Bible.

The Bible is a claim. And you said that animals and plants were evidence of God. So, you still have to demonstrate that on top of demonstrating the Biblical claims.

Things somewhat evolving after creation are valid.

I don't know what "somewhat evolving" is. But you are correct differentiating the origin of life from the evolution of life.

But not to the extent of a man coming from a monkey or anything remotely like that.

The evidence supports that man evolved. For me, denying that would be false witness.

I can't prove the creation was divine, because they won't accept scriptures as proof.

How can I accept prior, unsupported claims as evidence in a discussion of science? How can anyone? You are as much admitting that you don't really have the evidence, and just accept the claims and whatever interpretation of them that you have been told.

And others can't prove things were created thru evolution.

The evidence supports that evolution. Perhaps it is just that it is an understanding difficult for those ignorant of science and the evidence that makes it so hard for them to understand.

Do you believe what the scriptures say about the creation or not?

I don't believe it literally. There are problems with it compared to the evidence. And I do not believe in the dismissal of acquired knowledge from observation as some innate flaw of humanity or some hubris. That argument applies to those claiming knowledge from the Bible too and in those personal interpretations.

Sometimes it seems like you are claiming evolution to be the answer to how things were created.

I don't know why you think it seems that way. The creation of life and the evolution of life are two different things. I think that it may be that you are confusing the origin of species through evolution as creation and not applying the proper context or terminology that would ameliorate that confusion.

As if it were just a fact and not a belief.

The change in living things seen in the fossil record, genetics, physiology, geology, palenotology...is a fact. The theory is just the scientific explanation of those facts.

What's the difference in what you are doing versus what you are accusing me of doing?

I have no clear idea what you mean, but I'll make an attempt anyway.

I do what I can to avoid logical fallacies. I base my conclusions on my understanding and expertise and the use of that in evaluating actual evidence.

Personally, I do not care what a person believes, but we are not talking theology here and are discussing claims about science that are made in the public square as facts by those that often--most often-- express a high level of ignorance of science and the evidence while presenting as if they are experts whose conclusions should be swallowed whole and accepted without question.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The Bible is not evidence.
It is a compilation of claims.

again?

I really wish people would stop being lazy, get up off their arses and bring something that has not already been refuted to death to the table.

At this point the "fulfilled prophesies" is not even beating a dead horse.
More like beating the fossil of the horse.

We have a restaurant where I live called Teocintle Maiz. Most dishes include a bit of charred corn like the dish shown here:

View attachment 88336



Not so. I accept the physics that got man to the moon and back, but don't understand it. I also accept that eyes evolved without studying the proposed pathways except in the main. Why? Because they exist and we have no other explanation for that. You might guess that a god had a part in that, but it's just a guess. It appears that no gods are needed, just natural selection applied to genetic variation in living populations over time.

No, it is evidence that plants and animals exist. Nothing qualifies as evidence for a god. Nothing. If it did, all critical thinkers would be theists.

What he's likely telling you, and what I am telling you, is that nature appears to be up to the task without gods, which is correct. If it weren't, you could falsify it. He also believes in the supernatural, but as I understand him, is not claiming to have evidence for a god or its hand in the creation of the tree of life.

But you have that. It's also all over the Internet, but it's not for you to understand. Assuming that you have been sincere in your interest in learning evolutionary science, you've made no progress and continue making the same mistakes. It's unreasonable to expect that to ever change. But what you don't seem to understand is that uniformed beliefs have zero persuasive power, so you telling others how the world appears to you is not useful to those who know more about it than that.

That's not a claim of the theory.

Also, that claim isn't credible. You reject the science because you don't understand it and it contradicts your faith.

Moreover, that's not a problem for you. Where did the god you believe in come from? Your double standards for science versus faith undermine your criticisms of the science, since they apply to your own beliefs. You reject an idea for lack of "proof" and offer an alternative with no supporting evidence. You find the world difficult to accept exists undesigned and uncreated, then propose the existence of something even less likely to exist undesigned and uncreated to account for it. Who do you think you can persuade with such objections, persuade that those are your reasons? You have no reason to believe what you believe better than that it feels good to you. And you argue against scholarship you don't understand.

No, you don't. You have a fervently held belief based in nothing more than the willingness to believe it. That's not knowledge.

You beliefs are based in ignorance. Nothing in scripture is evidence in support of your beliefs. Also, how much understanding does it take to understand the biblical claim of creation? The creation myth has been falsified.

The Bible is evidence of nothing more than that it was written. It's not even evidence that the writers believed what they wrote themselves much less that anything it contains is correct. That comes from evidence outside of the book.

The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. Your doubt is not based in reason.

I've already said I can't prove what I believe and you can't prove what you believe. No need to continue to argue.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We have a restaurant where I live called Teocintle Maiz. Most dishes include a bit of charred corn like the dish shown here:

View attachment 88336



Not so. I accept the physics that got man to the moon and back, but don't understand it. I also accept that eyes evolved without studying the proposed pathways except in the main. Why? Because they exist and we have no other explanation for that. You might guess that a god had a part in that, but it's just a guess. It appears that no gods are needed, just natural selection applied to genetic variation in living populations over time.

No, it is evidence that plants and animals exist. Nothing qualifies as evidence for a god. Nothing. If it did, all critical thinkers would be theists.

What he's likely telling you, and what I am telling you, is that nature appears to be up to the task without gods, which is correct. If it weren't, you could falsify it. He also believes in the supernatural, but as I understand him, is not claiming to have evidence for a god or its hand in the creation of the tree of life.

But you have that. It's also all over the Internet, but it's not for you to understand. Assuming that you have been sincere in your interest in learning evolutionary science, you've made no progress and continue making the same mistakes. It's unreasonable to expect that to ever change. But what you don't seem to understand is that uniformed beliefs have zero persuasive power, so you telling others how the world appears to you is not useful to those who know more about it than that.

That's not a claim of the theory.

Also, that claim isn't credible. You reject the science because you don't understand it and it contradicts your faith.

Moreover, that's not a problem for you. Where did the god you believe in come from? Your double standards for science versus faith undermine your criticisms of the science, since they apply to your own beliefs. You reject an idea for lack of "proof" and offer an alternative with no supporting evidence. You find the world difficult to accept exists undesigned and uncreated, then propose the existence of something even less likely to exist undesigned and uncreated to account for it. Who do you think you can persuade with such objections, persuade that those are your reasons? You have no reason to believe what you believe better than that it feels good to you. And you argue against scholarship you don't understand.

No, you don't. You have a fervently held belief based in nothing more than the willingness to believe it. That's not knowledge.

You beliefs are based in ignorance. Nothing in scripture is evidence in support of your beliefs. Also, how much understanding does it take to understand the biblical claim of creation? The creation myth has been falsified.

The Bible is evidence of nothing more than that it was written. It's not even evidence that the writers believed what they wrote themselves much less that anything it contains is correct. That comes from evidence outside of the book.

The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. Your doubt is not based in reason.

It does look more like modern corn in that picture than what I have seen.

I've always enjoined what I call corn culture and compared it to what I call cotton culture in our South.

Both of those plants have had a significant and lasting impact on the culture of the regions where they are grown. Corn has the further distinction of having that impact in its center of origin compared to that of cotton in the US.

 

[McBell]

And others can't prove things were created thru evolution.

That is correct.
Evolution merely explains why there is all the diversity of living things.
It speak nothing as to the beginning of life.
That would be abiogenesis.

Do you believe what the scriptures say about the creation or not?

No, i do not.
Not your favored scriptures or any of the other scriptures.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've already said I can't prove what I believe and you can't prove what you believe. No need to continue to argue.

I cannot prove my beliefs either, but I can support what I know about this science we are discussing. So far, in all of these years, that support has not been demolished and continues to apply and have utility.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The Bible is a claim. And you said that animals and plants were evidence of God. So, you still have to demonstrate that on top of demonstrating the Biblical claims.

I don't know what "somewhat evolving" is. But you are correct differentiating the origin of life from the evolution of life.

The evidence supports that man evolved. For me, denying that would be false witness.

How can I accept prior, unsupported claims as evidence in a discussion of science? How can anyone? You are as much admitting that you don't really have the evidence, and just accept the claims and whatever interpretation of them that you have been told.

The evidence supports that evolution. Perhaps it is just that it is an understanding difficult for those ignorant of science and the evidence that makes it so hard for them to understand.

I don't believe it literally. There are problems with it compared to the evidence. And I do not believe in the dismissal of acquired knowledge from observation as some innate flaw of humanity or some hubris. That argument applies to those claiming knowledge from the Bible too and in those personal interpretations.

I don't know why you think it seems that way. The creation of life and the evolution of life are two different things. I think that it may be that you are confusing the origin of species through evolution as creation and not applying the proper context or terminology that would ameliorate that confusion.

The change in living things seen in the fossil record, genetics, physiology, geology, palenotology...is a fact. The theory is just the scientific explanation of those facts.

I have no clear idea what you mean, but I'll make an attempt anyway.

I do what I can to avoid logical fallacies. I base my conclusions on my understanding and expertise and the use of that in evaluating actual evidence.

Personally, I do not care what a person believes, but we are not talking theology here and are discussing claims about science that are made in the public square as facts by those that often--most often-- express a high level of ignorance of science and the evidence while presenting as if they are experts whose conclusions should be swallowed whole and accepted without question.

Man was created by God. Your evidence is wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've already said I can't prove what I believe and you can't prove what you believe. No need to continue to argue.

What you believe is germane to you, but not this discussion. It is what you claim that is germane to the discussion. If the basis of your claims have any solidity, then you should be able to argue for them. If not, then the only thing anyone else can do in response is point that out and dismiss them as merely the expression of someone's belief and ignorance of the subject.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

That is correct.
Evolution merely explains why there is all the diversity of living things.
It speak nothing as to the beginning of life.
That would be abiogenesis.


No, i do not.
Not your favored scriptures or any of the other scriptures.

So you believe it EXPLAINS why a tree is so diverse from a giraffe, which is so diverse from a man, which is so diverse from gold, which is so diverse from oil, which is so diverse from cotton? What egg does it try to teach, brought a tree into existence?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Man was created by God. Your evidence is wrong.

My evidence of evolution does not deny that is correct. You are essentially claiming to know how God created and there isn't anything in the Bible that explains that. You can't show that what we have learned is not fact and the Bible really is no help to anyone in attempting to do that.

 

[McBell]

Man was created by God.

And?
I mean, since you flat out said it can not be proven I have no recurse other than to ask:

So What?​

​

Your evidence is wrong.

Prove it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Man was created by God. Your evidence is wrong.

Finding natural pathways to the origin of life would not falsify the claim of God and Divine creation.

Clearly, the gap in your knowledge and experience of science is of greater impact on your reasoning than I'm willing to bet you will ever admit.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It does look more like modern corn in that picture than what I have seen.

It is modern corn. The name is a tribute.

I've already said I can't prove what I believe and you can't prove what you believe.

I can demonstrate that evolution is correct beyond reasonable doubt, but not to you. You are unprepared to understand the evidenced argument. Ignorance of the science and how the evidence supports it does not make one's lack of evidence for either naturalism or supernaturalism equivalent except to the one who lacks understanding.

Man was created by God. Your evidence is wrong.

No, his evidence is so robust that the theory is considered correct. On the other hand, you have no evidence for your god or any of your other supernatural beliefs. Moreover, the god of Abraham has been ruled out. Other gods might exist, but not that one, not the one that allegedly created the world in six days including the first two human beings. Neither of those things happened, so the god said to have done them doesn't exist.

Maybe the deist god exists and did as the deists suggest and set the universe in motion before disappeared. Nothing contradicts that claim. Of course, nothing supports it, either, but noninterventionist gods - gods that don't leave revelations, answer prayers, perform miracles, etc. - are logically possible if gods are possible at all.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

What you believe is germane to you, but not this discussion. It is what you claim that is germane to the discussion. If the basis of your claims have any solidity, then you should be able to argue for them. If not, then the only thing anyone else can do in response is point that out and dismiss them as merely the expression of someone's belief and ignorance of the subject.

You are claiming man came to be from evolution. Once again you can't prove it. You can only make wild speculations.

 

[McBell]

So you believe it EXPLAINS why a tree is so diverse from a giraffe, which is so diverse from a man, which is so diverse from gold, which is so diverse from oil, which is so diverse from cotton? What egg does it try to teach, brought a tree into existence?

yes, it does.
Please keep in mind I am talking about the actual theory of evolution.
Not any of your strawman claims of evolution.

Now as for your "evidence" the Bible...

So you believe it EXPLAINS why a tree is so diverse from a giraffe, which is so diverse from a man, which is so diverse from gold, which is so diverse from oil, which is so diverse from cotton? What egg does it try to teach, brought a tree into existence?​

 

[TrueBeliever37]

And?
I mean, since you flat out said it can not be proven I have no recurse other than to ask:

So What?​

​

Prove it.

It's your job to prove it.

 

[McBell]

You are claiming man came to be from evolution. Once again you can't prove it. You can only make wild speculations.

Assuming that you are 110% absolutely correct with the above statement...
It does not mean your "GodDidIt" wins anything by default.

 

[McBell]

It's your job to prove it.

You made the claim.
It is on you to support your claim.

That you can not support your claim is on you.
Not me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

again?

I really wish people would stop being lazy, get up off their arses and bring something that has not already been refuted to death to the table.

At this point the "fulfilled prophesies" is not even beating a dead horse.
More like beating the fossil of the horse.

The implication is always "if my interpretation of my favorite belief system is true" then it automatically refutes science by default and replaces it. Not a rational or supported conclusion.