Creation vs evolution

[Faithofchristian]

Not time to answer in full now... but Charles Darwin did NOT write the Theory of Evolution, he wrote a book that after many years and his hypothesis being tested it has become accepted as a Theory

Look I said nothing about Charles Darwin writing anything, so where do you get that I said anything about Charles Darwin writing the Theory of Evolution.

All I said was Charles Darwin in his theory of evolution, seen how two species could haved evolved one from another.

But I said nothing, about Charles Darwin writing the theory of evolution,

 

[Faithofchristian]

And just how would you know air was in the tire if you didn't test it?

The testing is how we get to the knowing. You really have no clue what 'know' means do you?

Thats simple, but seeing you have no idea about a tire, if there is no air in the tire, then the tire would be flat indicating there's no air in it. That would be quite obvious.

So why test a tire,to see if there's air in, when in fact the tire would be flat indicating that there's no air in it.

So why test the tire to see if there's air in it, when it's quite obvious that there's no air in it. When the tire is flat.

Then on the other hand, if the tire is not flat, then that would indicate that there is air in the tire, so why test the tire,to see if there is any air in the tire, when the tire indicates that there is air in the tire, by not being flat.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Not time to answer in full now... but Charles Darwin did NOT write the Theory of Evolution, he wrote a book that after many years and his hypothesis being tested it has become accepted as a Theory

evidence...

...equations:
x=y

computer technology:
10 printf "ask your question:"
20 writef()
30 If a then b
40 Define function 30 (...if God is alknowing then he answer)
50 set 10 (Allknowing God = true)
60 printf()
70 set 60 (The allknowing god answer your question)

Ask Jeeves...

My question to you is. As to how or where do you get that God as being all knowing ?

 

[Faithofchristian]

It's hard to argue with facts like that!!

My question is, by what or where does a person get that God as being all knowing ?

 

[Darkstorn]

My question is, by what or where does a person get that God as being all knowing ?

I suppose the same way you got the idea of the OP: With confirmation bias and believing the word of another person to be infallible(the Bible.)

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Thats simple, but seeing you have no idea about a tire, if there is no air in the tire, then the tire would be flat indicating there's no air in it. That would be quite obvious.

So why test a tire,to see if there's air in, when in fact the tire would be flat indicating that there's no air in it.

So why test the tire to see if there's air in it, when it's quite obvious that there's no air in it. When the tire is flat.

Then on the other hand, if the tire is not flat, then that would indicate that there is air in the tire, so why test the tire,to see if there is any air in the tire, when the tire indicates that there is air in the tire, by not being flat.

LOL you are a hoot.

So by your analogy and "logic"(I use that word in the loosest possible context), you just know things because you know them, no mechanism for actually gaining knowledge is required.

That is in no way moronic.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I suppose the same way you got the idea of the OP: With confirmation bias and believing the word of another person to be infallible(the Bible.)

That all depends who the other person is that your referring to.

 

[Altfish]

My question is, by what or where does a person get that God as being all knowing ?

Don't ask me, god is a made up being.

 

[Altfish]

Look I said nothing about Charles Darwin writing anything, so where do you get that I said anything about Charles Darwin writing the Theory of Evolution.

All I said was Charles Darwin in his theory of evolution, seen how two species could haved evolved one from another.

But I said nothing, about Charles Darwin writing the theory of evolution,

OK, calm down.
But the Theory of Evolution is NOT Darwin's. So the statement, "Charles Darwin in his theory of evolution" is false.
Charles Darwin wrote a book called "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", it was published on 24 November 1859, it is a work of scientific literature which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology.
Other scientists then took Darwin's work, reviewed it, critiqued it, amended it, refined it and it eventually evolved (No pun intended!!) into a theory.

 

[ChristineM]

Look I said nothing about Charles Darwin writing anything, so where do you get that I said anything about Charles Darwin writing the Theory of Evolution.

All I said was Charles Darwin in his theory of evolution, seen how two species could haved evolved one from another.

But I said nothing, about Charles Darwin writing the theory of evolution,

It was not "A" theory nor "HIS" theory of evolution, it was a book describing his observations and his conclusions of those observations

And there is considerable evidence that humans evolved from ape like ancestors just as chimps and gorillas, orangutan and bonobo evolved from ape like ancestors.

The most telling evidence is DNA, which you are, no doubt, quite happy to accept as accurate when a suspect in a horrendous crime is found guilty on DNA evidence but deny its validity when that same DNA contradicts your faith.

The fossil record is another evidence, with thousands of fossils showing evolution

 

[Faithofchristian]

LOL you are a hoot.

So by your analogy and "logic"(I use that word in the loosest possible context), you just know things because you know them, no mechanism for actually gaining knowledge is required.

That is in no way moronic.

No actually, all anyone has to do, is look at their tires on their car and know if there is any air in them or not. That's totally Common Sense.

By your logic even by looking at the tire on the car, plainly shows that it's totally flat, but yet you would check it just to make sure it is totally flat, even though the evidence plainly shows it's flat.

If I look at my tire and it's sitting on the ground being totally flat. I wouldn't have to check to see if it's flat, the evidence would plainly tell me its totally flat, by the tire of my car setting on the ground.

But I guess in your case, you can't tell whether or not if a tire is flat or not. You would have to check to make sure it is flat.

Do you also check your tires to make they do have air in them, since you can't tell if there flat or not ?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Don't ask me, god is a made up being.

So you say, which doesn't account to much.

 

[Faithofchristian]

OK, calm down.
But the Theory of Evolution is NOT Darwin's. So the statement, "Charles Darwin in his theory of evolution" is false.
Charles Darwin wrote a book called "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", it was published on 24 November 1859, it is a work of scientific literature which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology.
Other scientists then took Darwin's work, reviewed it, critiqued it, amended it, refined it and it eventually evolved (No pun intended!!) into a theory.

Yeah, I know all about Charles Darwin books, as I have read them all.

That's absolutely right, scientist deleted and added to Charles Darwin's writings, so now you don't know exactly what Charles Darwin really did write.
Hey thanks for information I'll check to see just how much those scientist change and compare to the books of Charles Darwin .
Its amazing how people go into someone else's writings and change things, and that people will have no idea what they did change. If they don't have the books to compare to see just what scientist did change.

So you wouldn't have no idea what was changed and what wasn't changed.

 

[Polymath257]

Thats simple, but seeing you have no idea about a tire, if there is no air in the tire, then the tire would be flat indicating there's no air in it. That would be quite obvious.

So why test a tire,to see if there's air in, when in fact the tire would be flat indicating that there's no air in it.

So why test the tire to see if there's air in it, when it's quite obvious that there's no air in it. When the tire is flat.

Then on the other hand, if the tire is not flat, then that would indicate that there is air in the tire, so why test the tire,to see if there is any air in the tire, when the tire indicates that there is air in the tire, by not being flat.

Looking at the tire *is* a form of testing.

And, of course, a tire can be low on air and we *test* it using a tire gauge to see how low it is.

The point is that observation is a form of testing.

 

[ChristineM]

Thats simple, but seeing you have no idea about a tire, if there is no air in the tire, then the tire would be flat indicating there's no air in it. That would be quite obvious.

So why test a tire,to see if there's air in, when in fact the tire would be flat indicating that there's no air in it.

So why test the tire to see if there's air in it, when it's quite obvious that there's no air in it. When the tire is flat.

Then on the other hand, if the tire is not flat, then that would indicate that there is air in the tire, so why test the tire,to see if there is any air in the tire, when the tire indicates that there is air in the tire, by not being flat.

The tyre would only be flat at the bottom...

The tyre could be over or under inflated thus causing a danger to the driver, passengers other road users and pedestrians.

Dont know about you but i test the pressure and visually examine my tyres every week.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Yeah, I know all
Charles Darwin books, as I have read them all.

That's absolutely right, scientist deleted and added to Charles Darwin's writings, so now you don't know exactly what Charles Darwin really did write.

Looking at the tire *is* a form of testing.

And, of course, a tire can be low on air and we *test* it using a tire gauge to see how low it is.

The point is that observation is a form of testing.

So explain how looking at a tire is a form of testing.
I would like for you to try and pull that one over on a automobile mechanic.ROFL

So I suppose when you walk into let's say, Discount Tires, and they ask how do you check your tires, and you tell them, by looking at them.ROFL

 

[Polymath257]

So explain how looking at a tire is a form of testing.
I would like for you to try and pull that one over on a automobile mechanic.ROFL

ALL observation is a form of testing. You are *checking* to see what the situation is. When you look at the tire, you are *testing* to see whether it is flat or not.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The tyre would only be flat at the bottom...

The tyre could be over or under inflated thus causing a danger to the driver, passengers other road users and pedestrians.

Dont know about you but i test the pressure and visually examine my tyres every week.

If a tire is sitting totally on the ground, that is evidence it's flat.with not enough air to drive on.unless you want to damage the whole braking system under the car by driving on a flat tire.

 

[ChristineM]

Yeah, I know all about Charles Darwin books, as I have read them all.

That's absolutely right, scientist deleted and added to Charles Darwin's writings, so now you don't know exactly what Charles Darwin really did write.

.

Could you please provide an list of edits to The Origin of Species.

Sure the study of evolution has advanced in the last 160 years but as far as i am aware, the sacrilege you claim hasn't occured.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

No actually, all anyone has to do, is look at their tires on their car and know if there is any air in them or not. That's totally Common Sense.

By your logic even by looking at the tire on the car, plainly shows that it's totally flat, but yet you would check it just to make sure it is totally flat, even though the evidence plainly shows it's flat.

If I look at my tire and it's sitting on the ground being totally flat. I wouldn't have to check to see if it's flat, the evidence would plainly tell me its totally flat, by the tire of my car setting on the ground.

But I guess in your case, you can't tell whether or not if a tire is flat or not. You would have to check to make sure it is flat.

Do you also check your tires to make they do have air in them, since you can't tell if there flat or not ?

Your analogy Kung Fu is truely at white belt level.

Be well, my simple friend.