• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What? This makes no sense. Other than agriculture being a gradual process that changed with time, the reality of one does not interfere with the reality of the other.
I thought, why not check this out. It does not appear to be simultaneous. Agriculture in the Old World appears to have begun about 10,000 years before in the New World with only local signs of small scale farming. Hmm, just like as if it were a gradual process that changed with time. That sounds oddly familiar. It was around 10 to 11 thousand years ago that it became a major way of life in the fertile crescent. That was roughly when it was just beginning in the New World:

 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Again , each evidence does not have the same value.

Evolution concerns the domain of Science.
God is not locked in the realm of Science.

So 'silly' question again , as usual.
Oh really. Evidence has different value...hmmm...
 

Dimi95

Прaвославие!
That's fine if you want to end the discussion, nevertheless the situation stands. Either there is evidence of saints communicating with the living, or there is not. Orthodoxy, as you mention is not the world's only religion. Obviously some people do pray to Mary.
Orthodox is not a religion , it is a certain way of life.
Whoever prays to anyone except God is not a Christian - point!

We ask them to pray for us , as you would ask anybody to pray for you.
Or you don't ask that?


The following is from a Catholic-based website, "Why Pray to Mary? Because Jesus has given us his Blessed Mother as our great spiritual mother (Rev.12:17), a heavenly advocate who intercedes for us." So now the question is, what evidence is there that Mary hears prayers? Why Pray to Mary? | Catholic Answers
The general question remains, however. What evidence do you offer for the existence of God, since we're centering on evidence of evolution, for God-believing people, what evidence do you say there is for the existence of God?
Wo-doo websites don't matter.
What matters is official Christian doctrine.
You can't provide that , because such things in Christianity don't exist.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That's fine if you want to end the discussion, nevertheless the situation stands. Either there is evidence of saints communicating with the living, or there is not. Orthodoxy, as you mention is not the world's only religion. Obviously some people do pray to Mary.
The following is from a Catholic-based website, "Why Pray to Mary? Because Jesus has given us his Blessed Mother as our great spiritual mother (Rev.12:17), a heavenly advocate who intercedes for us." So now the question is, what evidence is there that Mary hears prayers? Why Pray to Mary? | Catholic Answers
The general question remains, however. What evidence do you offer for the existence of God, since we're centering on evidence of evolution, for God-believing people, what evidence do you say there is for the existence of God?
I am not Catholic so I could easily be wrong, but if I remember correctly one prayed to Mary to intervene and make your case for you to Jesus. She was not the granter of the prayer, she was the facilitator of the prayer.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
There is nothing to explain about the "in-betweens" because there is nothing to show as evidence as if they mutated from non-tetrapod vertebrates and early tetrapods in the small changes necessary. There are no fossils demonstrating the exact mutated elements from one to another.
 

Dimi95

Прaвославие!
I am not Catholic so I could easily be wrong, but if I remember correctly one prayed to Mary to intervene and make your case for you to Jesus. She was not the granter of the prayer, she was the facilitator of the prayer.
This is false , no one should even pray to anybody except God.

We ask you,Theothokos...(God-bearer,not Mother)
That is how the prayer starts.

I mean anybody can say what they want , but what here matters is Christian doctrine.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
"Steps" are not gradual. Each new step is a new species.
This seems like semantic games to avoid admitting that you accept the gradual change explained by the theory of evolution.

Show us the evidence that each change was a speciation event.
Think "punctuated equilibrium" if that helps.
Another area of biology that seems to escape your understanding. The periods of between stasis events occurred through gradual change.

You are using a mode of evolution to reject the theory of evolution. How remarkable.
They had no understanding of "Evolution" whether it exists or not.
I don't know why anyone would expect a people of 14,000 years ago would have that knowledge. They didn't need it.
They understood "Change in Species" that says life changes as a result of behavior at bottlenecks.
Not at all. Speciation doesn't occur at bottlenecks and there is no evidence that it is the result of behavior. Behaviors are traits that may provide fitness advantages and be preserved by selection, but there is no behavior pushing for speciation. This is all stuff you believer whatever personal reason and have decided it is fact. There is nothing to support your belief here.
That they succeeded is prima facie evidence they were correct.
Success doesn't eliminate the mechanism or show that the development of agriculture wasn't a gradual process.
You are defining science wrong because you don't understand metaphysics.
From the evidence, you have no real understanding of science and I'm pretty sure of metaphysics either.
Bees and beavers have no "notions". They do not experience their own thought.
I can't find any reason this makes any sense at all.
Perhaps you're beginning to read my posts.
I don't have any reason to believe that people don't read your posts, considering that you are challenged on your empty claims consistently and you consistently run from that challenge only to return later and make the same empty claims delivered as if it is revealed truth.
From your perspective they have always been highly bizarre.
I think that is a common perspective and one that you seem to want to cultivate. I suspect that you consider yourself a rebel and a heretic with special knowledge that others don't have and don't have your omniscience to see.
...and you believe Latin derives from proto-Latin because you can't imagine language like a waggle dance.
I'm very confident that your knowledge of bee communication begins and ends with awareness of the bee waggle dance. After that, knowledge of bees probably falls completely apart I would bet.

There is no reason to think that Latin or any other language just appeared out of no where and Latin speaking parents started having children that spoke English, French, Italian, Spanish, and so forth. The evidence indicates gradual change over time. Just like in biology for biological features.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Orthodox is not a religion , it is a certain way of life.
Whoever prays to anyone except God is not a Christian - point!

We ask them to pray for us , as you would ask anybody to pray for you.
Or you don't ask that?



Wo-doo websites don't matter.
What matters is official Christian doctrine.
You can't provide that , because such things in Christianity don't exist.
So then what about Catholics who pray to Mary, are you saying they are not Christian? But along with that -- what evidence do you have for God's existence?
 

Dimi95

Прaвославие!
There is nothing to explain about the "in-betweens" because there is nothing to show as evidence as if they mutated from non-tetrapod vertebrates and early tetrapods in the small changes necessary. There are no fossils demonstrating the exact mutated elements from one to another.
No , still wrong.

We don't know how many fossils are out there and what we will find , but even leaving that aside there is plenty of evidence that support the otherwise of what you just said.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I am not Catholic so I could easily be wrong, but if I remember correctly one prayed to Mary to intervene and make your case for you to Jesus. She was not the granter of the prayer, she was the facilitator of the prayer.
That is what I understand now at this point. She is considered an "intercessor." I can look up more about it. The question really is one now of what is evidence in reference to those who accept the scientific definition of evolution as well as professing belief in God.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
It began slowly after the ice age but most of the progress appears to have been in the middle of the 9th millennium BC ~10500 years ago.
What evidence? Whose work are you referring to that shows this?
Sure it is. It's a genetic trait of cattle, goats, wheat, etc etc.
No it isn't. Cattle, goats and wheat are the subject of farming and didn't invent it. Of course, the artificial selection of animal and plant breeding that people carry out is a model for evolution.
Ever try farming a wild deer? Skunks? Black bears?
Why would anyone farm these animals and how do you know it hasn't been tried?
It's impossible.
Ever been to a zoo?
You see this because you believe genius powers science, there is continuous progress, and the fit survive.
No. I think @TagliatelliMonster is saying that because it is GIGO. No one is claiming that you have to be a genius to understand or carry out science. You have to understand science and what has been done before. You can't just make wild claims and consider them facts.

Natural selection and biological fitness are established facts.
Everything you believe is wrong and everything you know is built upon your beliefs.
I would say this applies to you.
Your models depend on false assumptions.
And yet you cannot describe the models, list the assumptions and show what if anything is wrong about them. Remember. We've been down this road many times. You seem to jump for cover when asked to provide your evidence and reasoning about this claim of yours.
Reality is far more complex than anyone can imagine and human knowledge far more limited.
And this means that we can't figure things out or that what we already have learned is wrong? NO!
 
Last edited:

Dimi95

Прaвославие!
So then what about Catholics who pray to Mary, are you saying they are not Christian? But along with that -- what evidence do you have for God's existence?
I did a little mistake in my sentence
"Whoever knows doctrine and traditional worship and still prays to anyone except God is not a Christian"

We discussed this among each other last weak and i was too hard and some of the wiser ones explained to me that not all people know everything from the begining and that should not be considered as sin , but as heresy.
Not all people know early traditional worship , and not all have the guides.

Everybody who accepts Jesus as Lord is a Christian.
Heresy is a different topic of discussion
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No , still wrong.

We don't know how many fossils are out there and what we will find , but even leaving that aside there is plenty of evidence that support the otherwise of what you just said.
I am sure you are correct in saying no one knows how many fossils are out there, and of course, some fossils have dissolved, but again -- there is scant (or rather, no) evidence to show the incremental mutational changes that caused fish to become land-dwelling animals.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes!!! I agree!!! It is just common sense but this common sense is the result of an analog mind observing a digital reality. We are not logical because language is not logical and because all logic is digital. All other life forms have digital existence and observe reality directly.
This seems like more nonsense claims that have nothing to do with anything. I see no sense in it. And you won't explain what you are trying to say here. Or show that it has any meaning in the conversation.
Darwin's "common sense" was based on erroneous assumptions.
And you have never once listed those assumptions or shown they are erroneous in any way. You just repeat the claim. I know this seems to be part of your belief system, but we are discussing science and evidence and reasoning are required in such discussions and debates.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I did a little mistake in my sentence
"Whoever knows doctrine and traditional worship and still prays to anyone except God is not a Christian"
Several questions attached to that -- who or what is God? And what evidence do you provide for your response?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
This seems like more nonsense claims that have nothing to do with anything. I see no sense in it. And you won't explain what you are trying to say here. Or show that it has any meaning in the conversation.

And you have never once listed those assumptions or shown they are erroneous in any way. You just repeat the claim. I know this seems to be part of your belief system, but we are discussing science and evidence and reasoning are required in such discussions and debates.
Are evidence and reasoning necessary to support belief in God?
 

Dimi95

Прaвославие!
I am sure you are correct in saying no one knows how many fossils are out there, and of course, some fossils have dissolved, but again -- there is scant (or rather, no) evidence to show the incremental mutational changes that caused fish to become land-dwelling animals.
Again there are plenty of evidence , your answer just tells that you are not informed about it.

 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I did a little mistake in my sentence
"Whoever knows doctrine and traditional worship and still prays to anyone except God is not a Christian"

We discussed this among each other last weak and i was too hard and some of the wiser ones explained to me that not all people know everything from the begining and that should not be considered as sin , but as heresy.
Not all people know early traditional worship , and not all have the guides.

Everybody who accepts Jesus as Lord is a Christian.
Heresy is a different topic of discussion
Let me try to understand this. You are saying that (1) evolution is true. (2) prayer to Mary as intercessor is ok. Do I have this right about your present beliefs?
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Absolutely and positively not in any way shape or form.
And still you describe the gradual changes of fish evolving to exploit the land in a simplified description of evolution.
I believe in evidence
You have never, I MEAN NEVER, offered any reason to agree with this.
and that the job of every individual is to assemble this evidence in meaningful patterns that make accurate predictions and create fewer anomalies.
Then take up the duty of your own words.
Darwin assembled the evidence incorrectly
No evidence of that. The way he didn't launched literally millions of research projects and millions of publications of continued research, vast discoveries and the cornerstone of modern biology.
because common sense doesn't apply to how and why species change.
Evidence does and using common sense to recognize when someone has it and someone doesn't.
Well, more accurately common sense applies to everything but it is ALWAYS dependent on proper beliefs and models. All of our beliefs are wrong.
Based on the evidence all the beliefs you claim are wrong.
Yes, species change as is apparent from the "fossil record" but just because gradual change and "survival of the fittest" are common sense doesn't mean they explain the evidence.
The aren't common sense. They are conclusions of the evidence.
The way homo omninisciencis
Not an actual species that is known to exist or has ever been described in the literature. As far as I know, you made it up and decided it was real.
thinks is not in any way natural.
How a made up species thinks is immaterial to the discsussion.
Naturally all individuals model reality itself in the brain but we must learn abstract language so we can learn anything at all so we must model what we believe. These models ideally are tied to experiment but in the real world they are tied more closely to extrapolations that might best be called "paradigms".
Whatever. Just seems like more rambling to me.
Every bit of the Theory of Evolution tied to experiment is probably mostly spot on but little of the theory is tied to experiment.
Much of it is, but it doesn't have to be. We can get data from observations of natural systems too.
It is instead tied to interpolations and extrapolations of what we believe.
NO!!!! @NO.com
Species adapt suddenly.
No. Remember, you have defined that word out of any utility and no one knows what you mean here. Change in species is demonstrated by the evidence to be gradual.
Species undergo mutation suddenly.
I'm not sure what you mean here and I'm pretty sure you don't either. Mutations occur in one generation and are passed on to the next.
Speciation occurs suddenly at bottlenecks caused by behavior of individuals.
Not at all. NO!!!! Your erroneous claim has been routinely debunked and the reality of it has been regularly explained to you.

A bottleneck is an event that radically reduces the absolute numbers of a population and often the genetic diversity of a population. But they are the same species at the beginning of the event as they are at the end. There is no behavior that has been observed to drive speciation.
The behavior is a result of learning, experience, consciousness, and genetics.
No. There is no such behavior, so it can't have any origin in anything.
Evolution big E or little e simply does not exist.
Except you claim it does as steps resulting from different fitnesses.
It is interpretation of evidence led astray by faulty premises.
Your claims about the phenomenon and the theory seem to be made up out of what you believe and not what you know.
Frankly, you seem to understand better than most.
There is no reason to come to that conclusion. Quite the opposite based on the evidence.
 
Top