Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

You are accepting planetary movement and position based on evidence. No one has proof for it.

No proof? I know enough geometry to know that the Bible only supports a Flat Earth. I guess I will have to go with the claims that the Earth is Flat.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you can figure out how those bodies rotate then you can tell us. How does the change in the seasons show that we rotate around the Sun?

I think that you are willing to accept the claims of scientist when it comes to science that does not threaten your personal religious beliefs.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course you are not willing to explain the theory that "Lucy" types evolved to be -- eventually -- homo sapiens. Brains got bigger, etc. OK, at this point yes, it's a joke to say that. So, unignorant opinion is that "Lucy" preceded and grew more or less (evolved) to be what? homo sapien? I'm sure you will say yes, definitely, without doubt, Lucy preceded and grew to be bigger and -- more intelligent.

Lucy did not, but the species change over time. Have you not looked at the ones in between? If I gave you a series of skulls would you be able to say "this one is an ape, but this is not" and why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1.

And that Earth was Flat.

Words in a book with not even "no proof", which means that by your standards you should not accept it, but even worse, no evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It seems relevant moreso than Lucy growing to be homo sapien.

You'd have to explain how Lucy is not evidence for human evolution, but eclipses are evidence for planetary movement. Among the fossils of Lucy's geological age, there are no contemporary ape fossils or Homo sapien fossils known. There are none of those found in strata of a similar dating/age, for instance. That tells us something. The morphology of the bones indicates a relationship. We have evidence of a relationship with contemporary hominids. This isn't a deep dive, but the theory of evolution explains it.

 

[YoursTrue]

No proof? I know enough geometry to know that the Bible only supports a Flat Earth. I guess I will have to go with the claims that the Earth is Flat.

That is nonsense, I was going to say baloney, but I'm sure you claim to have the evidence, the "proof" of what you say. How sad. You can stick to what you want, and will stick to it despite logical evidence showing nothing but skeletons as if they mean a skeleton must have evolved from other species not according to the realm of that particular skull.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1.

It doesn't say how and it definitely doesn't say not by natural means that one day scientists will try and discover even though a lot of people will deny it out of confusion over how to worship and believe in God.

 

[YoursTrue]

And that Earth was Flat.

Words in a book with not even "no proof", which means that by your standards you should not accept it, but even worse, no evidence.

You can say whatever you want, just as some say they have seen aliens at the Pentagon. (have a good one...bye for now...enjoy...)

 

[YoursTrue]

It doesn't say how and it definitely doesn't say not by natural means that one day scientists will try and discover even though a lot of people will deny it out of confusion over how to worship and believe in God.

You are correct in that it does not say how. The Bible was not written as a scientific handbook. I'll go into this later hopefully.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is nonsense, I was going to say baloney, but I'm sure you claim to have the evidence, the "proof" of what you say. How sad. You can stick to what you want, and will stick to it despite logical evidence showing nothing but skeletons as if they mean a skeleton must have evolved from other species not according to the realm of that particular skull.

The Bible only supports a Flat Earth. I am serious about that. I can quote quite a few Flat Earth verses for you, from both the Old and New Testament.

I have doubts about your level of education of geometry, but I will gladly explain how various verses support a flat Earth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is nonsense, I was going to say baloney, but I'm sure you claim to have the evidence, the "proof" of what you say. How sad. You can stick to what you want, and will stick to it despite logical evidence showing nothing but skeletons as if they mean a skeleton must have evolved from other species not according to the realm of that particular skull.

He's not wrong. The text of the Bible describing the Earth indicates that it was viewed as flat. The descriptions fit a flat Earth worldview.

The Bible was written by a people that didn't get out much. It wasn't written by globe trotting jet setters that hopped from continent to continent getting a good idea of how big the planet is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are correct in that it does not say how. The Bible was not written as a scientific handbook. I'll go into this later hopefully.

No worries. I know it is not a science book. That it might contain some alignment with or reference to easily observed facts and some historical validity, doesn't make it a text book on history and science. It isn't supposed to be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can say whatever you want, just as some say they have seen aliens at the Pentagon. (have a good one...bye for now...enjoy...)

No credible person has claimed to see aliens at the Pentagon. You make some extreme left turns at times. Can you please try to keep on topic?

You are cherry picking what you want to believe from the Bible. Don't worry, all Christians do that. The problem is can you justify what you choose to believe and what not to believe?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No worries. I know it is not a science book. That it might contain some alignment with or reference to easily observed facts and some historical validity, doesn't make it a text book on history and science. It isn't supposed to be.

And please note, I never claimed that the Flat Earth verses disproves the God of the Bible. It only tells us of what the writers of the Bible knew.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And please note, I never claimed that the Flat Earth verses disproves the God of the Bible. It only tells us of what the writers of the Bible knew.

Well, I knew we both agreed on that.

This is another instance of "if one thing in the Bible isn't an absolute, then the whole thing falls apart" mentality. The basis of the theology remains regardless of the fact that the writers weren't omniscient.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

(1) I don't see the evidence
(2) I see there are cells called prokaryotes and eukaryotes
(3) I see fossils
(4) i see certain populations have been extinguished

Here is some evidence of evolution. I know a lot of it will be of the kind where one animal doesn't change into another, but that isn't expected.

All the breeds of animals that humans have for food and companionship. The different breeds of dogs, cats, rabbits, pigs, cattle, goats, sheep, etc. All developed by artificial selection to fix traits that make them useful or interesting to us.

The same for plants. Corn, cotton, soybean, wheat, rice, fruit and vegetables all bred for traits that are pleasing to use using artificial selection techniques that mimic natural selection.

The evolution of resistant populations of bacteria, insects, weeds, nematodes, and a few other pests to our efforts to control them chemically.

The similar genomes found in the Great Apes, that includes us.

The fossils for different lines of organism that show change over time.

I'm just giving a general listing, but these phenomena do represent evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

It doesn't say how and it definitely doesn't say not by natural means that one day scientists will try and discover even though a lot of people will deny it out of confusion over how to worship and believe in God.

Some of us have come to conclusions. I was just reading about the general theory of relativity and I must confess I don't understand 99.9% of it because (1) of the language (the terminology), and (2) the remarkable descriptions of it, and (3) how scientists know or posit things as if they know. So, on that level, I give up. I appreciated a statement by one science writer (Davies) describing his journey that when he was learning, he couldn't understand something that was taught and so put it in the "don't understand" pocket. That is how it is with me and the theory of relativity. Relating to gravity. As far as evolution, again -- I see no evidentiary proof (yes, I'm using the word proof here in reasonable context) of a 'Lucy' growing (evolving) to become a homo sapien.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here's a review of the evidence of the evolution of predator/prey interaction.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...tor-Prey-Interactions-Theory-and-Evidence.pdf

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Some of us have come to conclusions. I was just reading about the general theory of relativity and I must confess I don't understand 99.9% of it because (1) of the language (the terminology), and (2) the remarkable descriptions of it, and (3) how scientists know or posit things as if they know. So, on that level, I give up. I appreciated a statement by one science writer (Davies) describing his journey that when he was learning, he couldn't understand something that was taught and so put it in the "don't understand" pocket. That is how it is with me and the theory of relativity. Relating to gravity. As far as evolution, again -- I see no evidentiary proof (yes, I'm using the word proof here in reasonable context) of a 'Lucy' growing (evolving) to become a homo sapien.

Lucy would be just one step along the path and not a map showing the entire journey.

I'm not a mathematician or a physicist, but have a very general understanding of relativity. Relatively speaking.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here's a review of sympatric speciation with reference to evidence.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...ted_experiment_milestone&origin=journalDetail