Does evolution have a purpose?

[YoursTrue]

Which is why medical testing relies on repeated, blinded studies of thousands of patients.
Science doesn't rely on gossip or rumor. It relies on testing.

And...the blind studies don't always show the approved medications work.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And...the blind studies don't always show the approved medications work.

Any specific instances you have in mind?

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you really believe Moses wrote the Torah? Scholars don't. As a matter of fact, who or what Moses was is pretty much anyone's guess, as there are no sources for the stories outside of legend.

Moses learned about the past from other people's stories, like a game of Telephone? Would such stories be accurate, factual accounts? Would any orally transmitted stories be accurate after a thousand retellings? Family stories and stories of historical figures only a century old are often found to be inaccurate. Why would we expect completely legendary stories, from two or three thousand years ago, with zero supporting evidence, to be accurate?

I think that he wrote most of the books (now in the usual form of books) attributed to him.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you really believe Moses wrote the Torah? Scholars don't. As a matter of fact, who or what Moses was is pretty much anyone's guess, as there are no sources for the stories outside of legend.

Moses learned about the past from other people's stories, like a game of Telephone? Would such stories be accurate, factual accounts? Would any orally transmitted stories be accurate after a thousand retellings? Family stories and stories of historical figures only a century old are often found to be inaccurate. Why would we expect completely legendary stories, from two or three thousand years ago, with zero supporting evidence, to be accurate?

I have found it fascinating that some don't believe that Jesus existed either, yet do you accept that many early Christians were put to death because they followed Christ?

 

[Valjean]

And...the blind studies don't always show the approved medications work.

Which is evidence they're ineffective and some other medication should be tested.

 

[Valjean]

I think that he wrote most of the books (now in the usual form of books) attributed to him.

You think this, or feel it?
If you think it, you're claiming to have critically evaluated objective, empirical supporting evidence. Do you know of evidence I and the scholars in various fields are unaware of?

 

[Valjean]

I have found it fascinating that some don't believe that Jesus existed either, yet do you accept that many early Christians were put to death because they followed Christ?

Oh, yes. Martyrs and zealots are known from many different religions. Aztec warriors and selectees would happily dance up the steps of the pyramid to have their hearts cut out and offered to Huitzilopochtli by the priests in the temple on top.

But zeal has nothing to do with veracity, does it? So I'm not seeing your point.

 

[YoursTrue]

Which is evidence they're ineffective and some other medication should be tested.

How effective are common medications: a perspective based on meta-analyses of major drugs | BMC Medicine | Full Text
Testing does not prove effectiveness, meaning that it is prescribed knowing it may not help. Again, it's applied guesswork or research or science yet the results are certainly not certain, and -- it's not like evolution where anything can be tested or proven. An apt illustration is that a farmer knows if he crosses one type of pig with another, he's still going to get a pig. That's proof.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh, yes. Martyrs and zealots are known from many different religions. Aztec warriors and selectees would happily dance up the steps of the pyramid to have their hearts cut out and offered to Huitzilopochtli by the priests in the temple on top.

But zeal has nothing to do with veracity, does it? So I'm not seeing your point.

Yes, I know that there are other martyrs. But the fact is that many followers of Christ were killed early on because they were Christian. They were killed rather early on. I don't know who Huitzilopochtli was, do you?

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh, yes. Martyrs and zealots are known from many different religions. Aztec warriors and selectees would happily dance up the steps of the pyramid to have their hearts cut out and offered to Huitzilopochtli by the priests in the temple on top.

But zeal has nothing to do with veracity, does it? So I'm not seeing your point.

Actually, I won't attribute the belief or following of Christ by his early disciples merely as zeal. We are discussing this in a historical viewpoint. Because many, according to the Bible, turned away from him regardless, which shows that some accepted him as the Messiah during his lifetime and shortly afterwards and others did not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How effective are common medications: a perspective based on meta-analyses of major drugs | BMC Medicine | Full Text
Testing does not prove effectiveness, meaning that it is prescribed knowing it may not help. Again, it's applied guesswork or research or science yet the results are certainly not certain, and -- it's not like evolution where anything can be tested or proven. An apt illustration is that a farmer knows if he crosses one type of pig with another, he's still going to get a pig. That's proof.

I do not understand the convoluted thinking you use to arrive at conclusions that make little sense. Studies designed and analyzed using statistical techniques are wrong and you use a study designed and analyzed using the same sort of statistical techniques.

Can you Google one article that shows data on pig farmers expecting the crossing of swine breeds will result in a pig giving birth to anything other than a pig? What is it proof of? It is certainly evidence that you do not understand the subjects you dismiss out of hand for unverified ideology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How effective are common medications: a perspective based on meta-analyses of major drugs | BMC Medicine | Full Text
Testing does not prove effectiveness, meaning that it is prescribed knowing it may not help. Again, it's applied guesswork or research or science yet the results are certainly not certain, and -- it's not like evolution where anything can be tested or proven. An apt illustration is that a farmer knows if he crosses one type of pig with another, he's still going to get a pig. That's proof.

Science does not provide certainty. It does not claim proof. What proof do you offer?

 

[YoursTrue]

You think this, or feel it?
If you think it, you're claiming to have critically evaluated objective, empirical supporting evidence. Do you know of evidence I and the scholars in various fields are unaware of?

Sometimes I have no reason not to believe something. The links said to be there by evolutionists are not there as taught by scientists holding onto the theory of evolution. I have no reason to believe that there are missing links in the field of evolution that haven't been found or seen or tested. Again, it doesn't make sense to me anymore. That things just come about by means of evolution. It also does not mean that scholars are correct who say that Moses and Joshua did not write the writings historically attributed to them.
I can't speak for all the histories of the world's populations and governments and locations. Do you know of any that started a long time ago, preserved carefully the writings over many centuries about their history and then some?

 

[rational experiences]

When humans as humans natural look at a theist I realise your thinking is fake.

As a human rational is natural first owning seeing as just the human.

Life by light consciousness exists first. No lying allowed.

Yet you theist think and think and thinking theory about thinking thinking.

How you as just a human knew how to theory nuclear destruction. Is the first observed nuclear cause. Non presence no light in creative mass itself caused by the scientist a human.

So you think a cold visionary human explanation about how you would rebuild and put back the evil radiation black mass sludge you caused as that human.

Abstractly.

And lie as just a handful of man thinking's.

For logically how you egotists a human believes your bio mind construct thinks on behalf of non existence first is ludicrous. Building your human construct based on utter nonsense.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, I know that there are other martyrs. But the fact is that many followers of Christ were killed early on because they were Christian. They were killed rather early on. I don't know who Huitzilopochtli was, do you?

Yes. I've read a lot about the Aztecs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sometimes I have no reason not to believe something. The links said to be there by evolutionists are not there as taught by scientists holding onto the theory of evolution. I have no reason to believe that there are missing links in the field of evolution that haven't been found or seen or tested. Again, it doesn't make sense to me anymore. That things just come about by means of evolution. It also does not mean that scholars are correct who say that Moses and Joshua did not write the writings historically attributed to them.
I can't speak for all the histories of the world's populations and governments and locations. Do you know of any that started a long time ago, preserved carefully the writings over many centuries about their history and then some?

As always, no amount of evidence and reason would convince you or lead you to cease your automatic denial in support of what you want to be the truth.

It is not an attack to conclude from your own words that you never had a sound grasp of the theory of evolution or biology in general.

 

[Valjean]

Sometimes I have no reason not to believe something. The links said to be there by evolutionists are not there as taught by scientists holding onto the theory of evolution.

They aren't? The 'evolutionists' are making them up? Links, please.

I have no reason to believe that there are missing links in the field of evolution that haven't been found or seen or tested.

Yes, you do. Fossils are being found every day. Do you think all the paleontologists, archæologists and other fossil hunters have retired?
Just read some articles in scientific journals. There are new finds all the time, and each transitional fossil is a 'link' that's no longer missing.

Again, it doesn't make sense to me anymore. That things just come about by means of evolution.

It never did make sense to you. You just began questioning it when you adopted an alternative mythology.
Why do you think palæontologists, geneticists, atomic scientists &al, all come to the same conclusion -- that evolution did and does happen? Are they all deluded? Are they uninformed?
And why do you believe it didn't happen -- because it clashes with the traditional narrative in an ancient anthology of religious writings, with no empirical supporting evidence? Do you really believe organisms magically popping into existence is a reasonable and likely alternative?

It also does not mean that scholars are correct who say that Moses and Joshua did not write the writings historically attributed to them.

Might they have a reason to come to that conclusion? Like no evidence of authorship? Like no claim of authorship for hundreds of years, till the books become part of a religious canon, then suddenly...poof! an author appears?

I can't speak for all the histories of the world's populations and governments and locations. Do you know of any that started a long time ago, preserved carefully the writings over many centuries about their history and then some?

Why yes, I do.

 

[YoursTrue]

They aren't? The 'evolutionists' are making them up? Links, please.
Yes, you do. Fossils are being found every day. Do you think all the paleontologists, archæologists and other fossil hunters have retired?
Just read some articles in scientific journals. There are new finds all the time, and each transitional fossil is a 'link' that's no longer missing.
It never did make sense to you. You just began questioning it when you adopted an alternative mythology.
Why do you think palæontologists, geneticists, atomic scientists &al, all come to the same conclusion -- that evolution did and does happen? Are they all deluded?
And why do you believe it didn't happen -- because it clashes with the traditional narrative in an ancient anthology of religious writings, with no empirical supporting evidence? Do you really believe organisms magically popping into existence is a reasonable and likely alternative?
Might they have a reason to come to that conclusion? Like no evidence of authorship? Like no claim of authorship for hundreds of years, till the books become part of a religious canon, then suddenly...poof! an author appears?
Why yes, I do.

Actually, most of them I would say (the evolutionists) went along with Darwin because of his posit that chimpanzees and gorillas kind of looked like humans, more or less. And the same with other types of beings, they resembled each other, therefore...they "evolved" from somewhere as from a common ancestor, he and they all figured. I find it very strange that with all the many fossils found, the human, chimpanzee, bonobo and gorilla, etc. 'Common Ancestor' they all supposedly came from has not been found. Hmm, I wonder. But anyway -- be that as it may -- I'll leave it there for the moment. (I don't like long posts for the most part, although I was reading an older issue of National Geographic and might like to comment on it.)

 

[YoursTrue]

They aren't? The 'evolutionists' are making them up? Links, please.

I don't say they make a practice of making the fossils up. I'm sure they don't. What to do make up, however, is the conjecture (idea) of what they represent by way of getting there, physically and biologically, of course.

 

[YoursTrue]

They aren't? The 'evolutionists' are making them up? Links, please.
Yes, you do. Fossils are being found every day. Do you think all the paleontologists, archæologists and other fossil hunters have retired?
Just read some articles in scientific journals. There are new finds all the time, and each transitional fossil is a 'link' that's no longer missing.

A link...: I was just reading an article in National Geographic from a few years ago about a new type of human-looking gorilla looking thing. (Yes, thing. Like King Kong was a thing.) Said the article (they put flesh on the fossil in the picture) the being had a "tiny brain." But lol it resembled homo habilis, long arms, short legs. I have a tendency to laugh easily -- so glad I'm not in class now, unless the instructor has a real good sense of humor.