Darwin's Illusion

[Valjean]

In intro to biology courses they will show
how the change from single cell to multi cellular life progressed, just using living species.
Our friend may not have had such a course.

Yes, this may well be the case, but even when I and others post explanations, links and videos, she either ignores them, doesn't grasp their consequences, or drops them. She then comes back with the same flawed arguments a week later.

 

[Valjean]

Evidenced? From a few cells perhaps to the so-called branches stemming from the same or maybe not the same initial cell(s)?

Sure. Why would that be hard to believe?

 

[Audie]

Yes, this may well be the case, but even when I and others post explanations, links and videos, she either ignores them, doesn't grasp their consequences, or drops them. She then comes back with the same flawed arguments a week later.

Ha. My replies are 100 percent ignored.
Guess I will cease such foolishness.

It would be terrif to come across someone
whose info receptors are not welded shut.

Maybe even one with some serious questions
AND, "Holy Grail", a person with an actual
challenge.

That's way too much to hope for,
actual diroof of ToE probably being
impossible, and if done, THE scientific
achievement of all time.

 

[Audie]

And the variations are the evolution; and the mutation and genetic change are mechanisms of evolution.

How closely have you observed the gorillas and bees, over how many generations, through how much environmental challenge?
I can put a little seed in the ground and come back in a week, and I'll see no fruit, nor will I see any the next year, or the year after. Most observable change takes more time than individual has.

You say you can observe variation, but not enough variation to produce a new species. How much variation would be needed for that?

If you acknowledge that small variations happen continually, how is it that these small changes avoid accumulating into big changes; species-level changes? Do the mutations &c. know to stop, at some point? How would that work, exactly???

Now I've posted examples of observed speciation several times, but, again, you've apparently ignored and learned nothing from them, since you continue to deny they exist.
Your belief appears unalterable by any evidence to the contrary. Doesn't that make your belief a delusion?
Cells moving to a big branch or branches? What are you talking about? It's certainly not any mechanism of evolution I've ever heard about.
Is this another example of an opinion based on false information, or on ignorance of the actual mechanisms of evolution?

Hey, without falsehoods and
mIsrepresentation, what does a poor
creationist have left?

 

[YoursTrue]

Those are facts. The word "proof" is not used in the sciences. But since you want to use it, is gravity proven?

nceOr

Since you’re a Christian, then my focused are usually about Genesis Creation. Especially since I am very familiar with Genesis, as I used to believe in the Bible for nearly 20 years.

It doesn’t matter if it is the biblical creation or creation from other religions, none of them are “science”, nor are they “historical”.

But it is funny, as I never heard of Creationism, until I joined my first Internet forum in 2003.


That just is

The operator word being that you “believe” there is “evidence” for God, but belief is not the same thing as having evidence to what you “believe” in.

Anyone can believe in what they want, but no would equate belief as evidence.

Can you or I observe God?

No, we can’t.

Can you or I “measure” God?

Or can you or I “test” God?

No, to both to these two.

Then, there are no evidence at all.

Some of us observe Him from His wondrous works, such as the heavens, and the earth itself. But much more than that, I have come to know more from my reading and examination of the Bible and being among those who worship Him. No one can give you this faith or knowledge but God by means of His Son.

 

[YoursTrue]

Since you’re a Christian, then my focused are usually about Genesis Creation. Especially since I am very familiar with Genesis, as I used to believe in the Bible for nearly 20 years.

It doesn’t matter if it is the biblical creation or creation from other religions, none of them are “science”, nor are they “historical”.

But it is funny, as I never heard of Creationism, until I joined my first Internet forum in 2003.


That just is

The operator word being that you “believe” there is “evidence” for God, but belief is not the same thing as having evidence to what you “believe” in.

Anyone can believe in what they want, but no would equate belief as evidence.

Can you or I observe God?

No, we can’t.

Can you or I “measure” God?

Or can you or I “test” God?

No, to both to these two.

Then, there are no evidence at all.

Still, not all those believing and trusting in God as Creator believe that God created the earth in seven 24-hour days. Along with that, you may apply the term ape to humans as many do, just as some say everyone believing the Bible account in Genesis are creationists. I do not agree that humans are animals. The Bible says that after God made the animals He made man.

 

[YoursTrue]

Before you blithely declare it pure speculation, I think you should consider why it's believed by those most familiar with the subject. You have some very strong opinions about a subject you've chosen to remain ignorant of. You make baseless assertions.

You're also confusing abiogenesis and evolution. "How life began" and "how it became vegetation and animals" are completely different processes, covered by completely different disciplines.

And I'm still waiting for your alternative explanation. If you have no alternative explanation, whence the objection to the scientifically evidenced one?

I'm not confusing abiogenesis with evolution. You simply cannot have evolution with abiogenesis, is that true? In other words, growth of life (evolution perhaps?) cannot proceed without a beginning from -- somewhere, isn't that right?

 

[YoursTrue]

You keep forgetting. You are still an ape. You are still a monkey. Or are you trying to claim that you are not human? That bees remain bees does not help you since the theory of evolution predicts that.

And why the false accusations? Since when was that allowed in Christanity?

I don't use your definitions. But thanks anyway for your input.

 

[Subduction Zone]

nceOr

Some of us observe Him from His wondrous works, such as the heavens, and the earth itself. But much more than that, I have come to know more from my reading and examination of the Bible and being among those who worship Him. No one can give you this faith or knowledge but God by means of His Son.

That is no more evidence for your God than it is evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Ramen)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't use your definitions. But thanks anyway for your input.

It does not matter. When you are having a scientific discussion you need to use proper terminology. I know, you hate the fact that you are a monkey. For some reason you seem to think that it disproves the Christian God. It does not. Too bad that you do not understand the Adam and Eve myth. It portrays God's failure.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. There is overwhelming evidence that a few cells, reproducing with variation, in changing environments, over millions of generations, can produce many and varied forms. The handful of mechanisms by which this evolution proceeds are well known and easily observed.
Your skepticism is based on ignorance of the subject and personal incredulity.

Can you please offer at least a link to the evidence you say is overwhelming in your first sentence? Thank you. ("a few cells, reproducing with variation, in changing environments, over millions of generations," etc. Thank you again. Remember I said evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

It does not matter. When you are having a scientific discussion you need to use proper terminology. I know, you hate the fact that you are a monkey. For some reason you seem to think that it disproves the Christian God. It does not. Too bad that you do not understand the Adam and Eve myth. It portrays God's failure.

I'm asking questions, not necessarily adhering to your terminology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not confusing abiogenesis with evolution. You simply cannot have evolution with abiogenesis, is that true? In other words, growth of life (evolution perhaps?) cannot proceed without a beginning from -- somewhere, isn't that right?

Yes, you are still confused. Evolution depends upon a start to life, but then so do your myths. Abiogenesis is merely the most likely cause to the first cell. But it could have even been magically poofed into existence. Abiogenesis explains how life could have arisen without magic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm asking questions, not necessarily adhering to your terminology.

Go ahead and ask your questions. I do not see why you object to proper terminology.

 

[YoursTrue]

It does not matter. When you are having a scientific discussion you need to use proper terminology. I know, you hate the fact that you are a monkey. For some reason you seem to think that it disproves the Christian God. It does not. Too bad that you do not understand the Adam and Eve myth. It portrays God's failure.

You may consider humans monkeys. I do not except perhaps in illustrative ways.

 

[YoursTrue]

Go ahead and ask your questions. I do not see why you object to proper terminology.

It's proper terminology for you and others that agree with you. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, you are still confused. Evolution depends upon a start to life, but then so do your myths. Abiogenesis is merely the most likely cause to the first cell. But it could have even been magically poofed into existence. Abiogenesis explains how life could have arisen without magic.

I have asked the questions I wanted to ask, thank you for the discussion.

 

[YoursTrue]

It does not matter. When you are having a scientific discussion you need to use proper terminology. I know, you hate the fact that you are a monkey. For some reason you seem to think that it disproves the Christian God. It does not. Too bad that you do not understand the Adam and Eve myth. It portrays God's failure.

I have asked the questions I wanted to ask, thank you for offering explanations you and others may consider true and valid. Thank you again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's proper terminology for you and others that agree with you. Thank you for the discussion.

For you too. Like it or not it has been supported by massive evidence. If you cannot refute it then it stands. When it comes to evidence the standard is not what would convince a science denying person that is all but illiterate in the sciences. The standard is if it convinces other experts in the field.

I have asked the questions I wanted to ask, thank you for the discussion.

I have asked the questions I wanted to ask, thank you for offering explanations you and others may consider true and valid. Thank you again.

Now it looks as if you are merely trolling. One is not supposed to do that here. It is also not very Christian of you.

 

[YoursTrue]

For you too. Like it or not it has been supported by massive evidence. If you cannot refute it then it stands. When it comes to evidence the standard is not what would convince a science denying person that is all but illiterate in the sciences. The standard is if it convinces other experts in the field.





Now it looks as if you are merely trolling. One is not supposed to do that here. It is also not very Christian of you.

lol, you generally have accusations to make about me and Christianity, and again, I thank you for the conversations because they have truly helped me to understand more. So thanks again, be well. I am simply telling you that not only do I not agree with the terminology you prefer using insofar as humans being animals and monkeys (and others like using), but discussing what I have discussed with you and others has truly helped me understand more. And so I thank you. Since you consider me trolling, I will now look forward to not answering you. Thanks again.