Creationism and Evolution. Conflict or reconciliation.

[YoursTrue]

What constitutes 'evidence' for alien visitations? We say 'there's no evidence' but we can
track objects which can travel at mach 24,right angle turns and move to instantaneous
speed ON RADAR. So nothing we know of in the physical world behaves like that - and
furthermore some of these tracked objects have reacted to observers, as if they are
conscious of us. I take that as 'evidence' of something extraterrestrial.

It's kind of like (the theory of) evolution. Connecting circumstances with contrived dots.

 

[PruePhillip]

It's kind of like (the theory of) evolution. Connecting circumstances with contrived dots.

It's more about making the best fit with what you have got.
And maybe gravity, evolution, quantum physics, paleolithic history
and the like ARE connecting dots (and there's plenty of naysayers
for all of these) but these connected dots are the best we have,
make the best explanations and give good predictions.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's more about making the best fit with what you have got.
And maybe gravity, evolution, quantum physics, paleolithic history
and the like ARE connecting dots (and there's plenty of naysayers
for all of these) but these connected dots are the best we have,
make the best explanations and give good predictions.

So sorry, but it does not "prove" the theory of evolution as generally conceived. And, as I have been saying on another thread, so far it seems that viruses (dead or alive, lol) stay viruses. This, like humans, does not mean viruses cannot change shape, and possibly color. (I don't know if they have colors.)

 

[PruePhillip]

So sorry, but it does not "prove" the theory of evolution as generally conceived. And, as I have been saying on another thread, so far it seems that viruses (dead or alive, lol) stay viruses. This, like humans, does not mean viruses cannot change shape, and possibly color. (I don't know if they have colors.)

Virus' are smaller than waves of light, so they have no color.
Incidentally, we sometimes say light is a wave, sometimes a particle.
And we really HAVE NO IDEA WHAT GRAVITY IS.
And we understand that quantum theory is missing something, but
this theory gives us super super super accurate predictions.
And current Darwinian evolution theory can't explain some weird
things (like how humans have changed over the past thousand
years) but like the other theories, it does a pretty good job.

My favorite story was about the creature called Tiktaalik - biologists
found late walking fish and early amphibians but no intermediate form.
Only one geological formation had fossils from this particular time
370 million years ago - in the arctic of Canada. So they helicoptered
there and found their catch.
Its fish characteristics include scales, fins, and gills, and its tetrapod
characteristics include a neck, ribs capable of bearing weight, a flat
head, dorsally positioned eyes, a fin skeleton, and ear notches

Good science is about making predictions.

 

[YoursTrue]

Virus' are smaller than waves of light, so they have no color.
Incidentally, we sometimes say light is a wave, sometimes a particle.
And we really HAVE NO IDEA WHAT GRAVITY IS.
And we understand that quantum theory is missing something, but
this theory gives us super super super accurate predictions.
And current Darwinian evolution theory can't explain some weird
things (like how humans have changed over the past thousand
years) but like the other theories, it does a pretty good job.

My favorite story was about the creature called Tiktaalik - biologists
found late walking fish and early amphibians but no intermediate form.
Only one geological formation had fossils from this particular time
370 million years ago - in the arctic of Canada. So they helicoptered
there and found their catch.
Its fish characteristics include scales, fins, and gills, and its tetrapod
characteristics include a neck, ribs capable of bearing weight, a flat
head, dorsally positioned eyes, a fin skeleton, and ear notches

Good science is about making predictions.
View attachment 49181

There are different viruses. But they are still viruses. And, because I'm not a biologist expert in these schools of thought or experimentation, I am not going to say any more now. Have a good night, it's been nice talking with many who have tried to explain and defend the current theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are different viruses. But they are still viruses. And, because I'm not a biologist expert in these schools of thought or experimentation, I am not going to say any more now. Have a good night, it's been nice talking with many who have tried to explain and defend the current theory.

And there are different apes. They are still apes. You are still an ape.

 

[We Never Know]

And there are different apes. They are still apes. You are still an ape.

Something that wasn't an ape became an ape, yet the ape will always be that something because it just added and put apes on another branch on the evolution tree.
Now we are apes but we may evolve into something that in a sense isn't an ape adding another branch on the tree but going back on the branches of the evolution tree we will always be an ape.
Instead of just claiming we are apes and always will be apes, maybe try explaining it a little clearer. That's just a suggestion.

Edit and add.

For example we are apes. If in 2 million years we evolve into a kangaroodogcat, we will still be an ape by going back on the branches because of the ape branches we evolved from.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Something that wasn't an ape became an ape, yet the ape will always be that something because it just added and put apes on another branch on the evolution tree.

Not true. We were once pond scum, but we are not pond scum any more.

 

[whosetosay...]

@whosetosay... , if you understood the nature of evidence you would understand that you are calling God a liar.

As I have shown that I understand and provide EVIDENCE in accordance with the bible then you have to admit defeat as you are the one lacking evidence to support you unsubstantiated claim. The bible clearly supports anything I have said so now it is your turn to show differently using something other than the bible or man made suggestions about myth. Straight talking hurts no one if they actually know why they believe what they do based on actual research. I am afraid so far you have shown no such ability. Let us hope you can understand biblical evidence takes priority over man made supposition based on no evidence.

 

[whosetosay...]

The word "myth", used anthropologically, does not mean falsehood but means a story told to teach morals and values, whether that story be what objectively happened or not. The Parable of the Prodigal Son is an example of a myth minus any indication whether there actually was a "prodigal son".

So there could not have been a prodigal son? Parable:
noun: parable; plural noun: parables

1. a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels.

Where in the bible or does Jesus say the Word of God is a myth or Moses a parable?
You cannot by any stretch of the imagination compare a parable to a myth. The fact remains that Abraham in the first book Genesis was not a myth or intended to be one as the many Jews prove today.

Today, it is literally impossible to know if Abraham, for example, was an actual person of whether he was part of a traditional Jewish folklore that was passed on orally through the ages before being submitted to the writing of Torah.

Jesus said:
King James Bible
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.


We can know and we do know that Abraham was not a myth or a story but that he was a real person. His promises from God are with us always in the world,

 

[metis]

So there could not have been a prodigal son? Parable:
noun: parable; plural noun: parables

1. a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels.

A "simple story" does not mean that it didn't actually take place. The early Church struggled with this but decided whether these parables were literal events or not was basically irrelevant.

Where in the bible or does Jesus say the Word of God is a myth or Moses a parable?
You cannot by any stretch of the imagination compare a parable to a myth. The fact remains that Abraham in the first book Genesis was not a myth or intended to be one as the many Jews prove today.

Again, you don't understand what a "parable" may or may not entail.

We can know and we do know that Abraham was not a myth or a story but that he was a real person. His promises from God are with us always in the world,

When Abraham supposedly existed as a real person [roughly just after 2000 b.c.e.], there is not one shred of evidence that the ancient Jews had developed writing. Instead, almost all theologians believe the myth was passed on orally, which is characteristics of most religions, btw. From the oral it eventually gets written, but how many changes may have occurred along the way is impossible to determine. Based on comparative religious studies, we know that the oral transmission has an advantage over the written since it can quickly adjust wording and stories so as to deal with changes.

But the question to a large extent is moot as "The myth became the reality", as theologian Joseph Campbell often stated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I have shown that I understand and provide EVIDENCE in accordance with the bible then you have to admit defeat as you are the one lacking evidence to support you unsubstantiated claim. The bible clearly supports anything I have said so now it is your turn to show differently using something other than the bible or man made suggestions about myth. Straight talking hurts no one if they actually know why they believe what they do based on actual research. I am afraid so far you have shown no such ability. Let us hope you can understand biblical evidence takes priority over man made supposition based on no evidence.

Once again, the Bible is not evidence. It does not matter if it agrees with you or not if you cannot demonstrate that it is reliable. And no one has been able to do that. Instead the more one properly studies it the less reliable it is. Your projection is rather strong here.

I do not need to show that the Bible says anything differently since I am not relying on that flawed source. I can find better ones.

 

[YoursTrue]

Something that wasn't an ape became an ape, yet the ape will always be that something because it just added and put apes on another branch on the evolution tree.
Now we are apes but we may evolve into something that in a sense isn't an ape adding another branch on the tree but going back on the branches of the evolution tree we will always be an ape.
Instead of just claiming we are apes and always will be apes, maybe try explaining it a little clearer. That's just a suggestion.

Edit and add.

For example we are apes. If in 2 million years we evolve into a kangaroodogcat, we will still be an ape by going back on the branches because of the ape branches we evolved from.

Not true. We were once pond scum, but we are not pond scum any more.

hmmm very nice. AND I agree. Although we still go back to dust when we die. (As cows and gorillas do.) And Maimonides did state and believe in a resurrection. If the Jews did not have a nation eventually, and write and preserve the writings by means of God's spirit to preserve them, it would be impossible to understand these things.

 

[YoursTrue]

A "simple story" does not mean that it didn't actually take place. The early Church struggled with this but decided whether these parables were literal events or not was basically irrelevant.

Again, you don't understand what a "parable" may or may not entail.

When Abraham supposedly existed as a real person [roughly just after 2000 b.c.e.], there is not one shred of evidence that the ancient Jews had developed writing. Instead, almost all theologians believe the myth was passed on orally, which is characteristics of most religions, btw. From the oral it eventually gets written, but how many changes may have occurred along the way is impossible to determine. Based on comparative religious studies, we know that the oral transmission has an advantage over the written since it can quickly adjust wording and stories so as to deal with changes.

But the question to a large extent is moot as "The myth became the reality", as theologian Joseph Campbell often stated.

For some, myth does become reality, I agree. But Jesus often spoke by means of illustrations or parables. Not myths. There is a difference. I checked, and the Bible does not speak of myths insofar as I have found, in a favorable way. Certainly people are influenced by their own inclination or surrounding situations as to what to believe. Jesus was put to the test many times.

 

[YoursTrue]

Something that wasn't an ape became an ape, yet the ape will always be that something because it just added and put apes on another branch on the evolution tree.
Now we are apes but we may evolve into something that in a sense isn't an ape adding another branch on the tree but going back on the branches of the evolution tree we will always be an ape.
Instead of just claiming we are apes and always will be apes, maybe try explaining it a little clearer. That's just a suggestion.

Edit and add.

For example we are apes. If in 2 million years we evolve into a kangaroodogcat, we will still be an ape by going back on the branches because of the ape branches we evolved from.

So...it is said we (humans) evolved from fish. Does that mean we are fish? (I don't think so. But that's my uneducated way of looking at it, I suppose.) Oh yes, and even if our embryos look like fish, have eyes that roll around, etc. It doesn't fit in the capacity of evolution by adaptation/necessity.

 

[We Never Know]

Just becau

So...it is said we (humans) evolved from fish. Does that mean we are fish? (I don't think so. But that's my uneducated way of looking at it, I suppose.)

We are part of everything that came before us on the evolution tree/branches all the way back to when life started. .

 

[Subduction Zone]

So...it is said we (humans) evolved from fish. Does that mean we are fish? (I don't think so. But that's my uneducated way of looking at it, I suppose.) Oh yes, and even if our embryos look like fish, have eyes that roll around, etc. It doesn't fit in the capacity of evolution by adaptation/necessity.

It depends upon how one defines "fish".

If one follows cladistics, then yes, we are fish. But then so is every other vertebrate. Today the term "fish" tends to mean vertebrates that never left the water. One needs to know that if one uses that definition that "fish" are not a monophyletic group.

 

[metis]

For some, myth does become reality, I agree. But Jesus often spoke by means of illustrations or parables. Not myths.

A "parable" is one type of "myth".

Again, "myth" in this context does not mean nor imply falsehood.

 

[YoursTrue]

A "parable" is one type of "myth".

It is?

Again, "myth" in this context does not mean nor imply falsehood.

Myth does not have a real good connotation here at Titus 1:13,14: "This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sternly, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of men who have rejected the truth. 15To the pure, all things are pure; but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure. Indeed, both their minds and their consciences are defiled."
(hmmm...)

 

[rational experiences]

Science says when earth owned higher radiating mass gases burning only large celled bodies lived. Cold blooded versus high radiating heavens. Balance of life.

Ice cooled the mass of radiating gases. Small celled life then lived.

Status blood warm heavens colder the balances.

So said cooling cold introduced bio cell changes of large bodied bio creatures into small celled bio creatures.

Owning no status UFO or aliens or Phi crop circles.

If humans self aware say I will name self a geologist human and archaeologist human to prove we returned owning natural life on earth owning cooler gas mass then we did.

Proving by machine parts designed by ancient human scientists that they had burnt all life to death on God earth theirselves.

So that science a human possessed thinking status could not achieve it again.

Teaching it as human brother satanism.

Satan was my brother. A human brother is a human brother.

Teaching spiritual CH Rist gas support thinking versus CH Rist gases removed by anti UFO status.

Human sciences.

For in human life reality it is why it was taught for human life continuance.