Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dan From Smithville]

I wish I could type more as this is an interesting conversation to me but my hands are worse than normal today. Typing one handed sucks.

Hope your hands are doing better.

This may interest you. It is a recent review of camouflage from 2020. It is 15 or 20 pages and I haven't read it beyond the first page, but it sounds interesting and on point here.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/brv.12612

 

[John53]

Go back in history mate. And you ignored "four words" in your attempt. If four words is "verbiage", even 39 words you toiled to count is a tap. This is the problem with jumping to defend people just out of allegiance. Even hyper religious groups don't.

Ciao.

It was a simple question. Your personal attack in response is noted.

You may want to Google approximately.

 

[Dimi95]

Correct, we do not have evidence enough either way. In such cases the rational approach is a lack of belief.

Correct , but we found a way to divide and group a lot of information in and see what they are telling us and what we can know more from that.And we just keep finding Biblical evidence along the way that support it.

In such cases , reason for belief would be a good advice.

Rules change , you have to understand the concept of it and why i am repeating it.

Where do you think that i am wrong in what i answer you ? Honestly ?

 

[Dimi95]

Your tough and harsh reactions are offsetting. I suggest you try to be a bit more tactful, if that's within your purview. Hey, have a nice day/evening where you're at.

I don't have any tactic , sorry.

 

[YoursTrue]

I would call chance and accidental processes unthinking processes. I would go as far as saying thinking processes involve conscious intent.

Somehow, unless someone proves that "wrong," I tend to agree with you. Even when it comes to biologic processes. Just as an example, in the Miller-Urey experiment, the constituents of the experiment did not think for themselves. But they reacted. (I'll stop there...)

 

[YoursTrue]

And another worthless "So what? argument. Please try to make a valid point. I get tired of silly arguments that are refuted with a "So what?"

I'm thinking of real life. If I would hear a person like you say "so what" to a statement someone made, I would think the person saying "so what" like you do is the one that -- doesn't care -- what the other person thinks. And would walk away shrugging his shoulder. (Wanna say so what again?)

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't have any tactic , sorry.

ok, sometimes it's easier to understand what another person is saying when they are somewhat mild in their reaction or explanation, even if contesting the reply. Thanks.

 

[John53]

Hope your hands are doing better.

This may interest you. It is a recent review of camouflage from 2020. It is 15 or 20 pages and I haven't read it beyond the first page, but it sounds interesting and on point here.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/brv.12612

Hands are better today, even went for a drive with Karen and took the camera but it started raining so I got dragged through a landscaping place and two Op Shops instead. I shall read the article when I lie down for a nap in a bit.

 

[Dimi95]

ok, sometimes it's easier to understand what another person is saying when they are somewhat mild in their reaction or explanation, even if contesting the reply. Thanks.

Yes , but it is more simple to understand what another person is saying when you understand them in the way they want you to understand it because they know more about it then you and give it to you for free.I don't claim to know everything , but i have some knowledge in some fields of science.In each conversation i make a profile of the one on the other side based on his answering and i expect nothing less from the other side.

I suggest to read more about Discipline and what does it mean.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes , but it is more simple to understand what another person is saying when you understand them in the way they want you to understand it because they know more about it then you and give it to you for free.I don't claim to know everything , but i have some knowledge in some fields of science.In each conversation i make a profile of the one on the other side based on his answering and i expect nothing less from the other side.

I suggest to read more about Discipline and what does it mean.

OK, but some of us are not experts in understanding scientific jargon. But thank you anyway for your reply, appreciated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm thinking of real life. If I would hear a person like you say "so what" to a statement someone made, I would think the person saying "so what" like you do is the one that -- doesn't care -- what the other person thinks. And would walk away shrugging his shoulder. (Wanna say so what again?)

Your errors have been repeatedly explained to you. I have no need to do so again. Make better arguments.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are miracles in that category?

There is a history of claims in that category that have never been refuted

Blatant attempt at shifting the burden of proof is noted.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your ad hominem is cheap and I am not interested in discussing with people like you.

Let's be serious here...
You are not interested in discussing anything with anyone if it gets to hot under your feet.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We have many , many unexplained events.

Ignoring the fact that many of these supposed "miracles" have plenty of plausible explanations which don't involve anything supernatural....
All you have done here is just demonstrate how claims of miracles are hinged upon the argument from ignorance.

If something is unexplained, then the proper thing to say is "we don't know, let's go to work to try and find out". Not "it's a supernatural miracle performed by the specific god I happen to believe in by geographic accident!"

 

[Dimi95]

Blatant attempt at shifting the burden of proof is noted.

Why do you think that it has to do with shifting and not with correcting?
Can you explain more so i can know what to answer?

I just do not want empty accusations to be the end-product of discussions that i engage in.

These claims exist , and are studied.

Ignoring the fact that many of these supposed "miracles" have plenty of plausible explanations which don't involve anything supernatural....

We are not ignoring any plausible explenations , why do you think has anything to do with bias?
We study most of the relevant reviews , and we can see that the facts are not presented.
We have seen this simular reasoning in people who represent certain world-views.

Just see how Bart Ehrman caughts himself in a lie in his debate with Peter J.Williams about basics.

If you want any other scholar just name him and i will give you an answer.
It's not hard to answer 20 people , if the side that answers them has one number more , or maybe 4.

It's just a matter of analysis , it's the same in History as it is in Biology , Math , Physics etc.Everyone who does it leaves their belief behind.

And the thing is that we don't have to do anything , because they themselfs demonstrate their weird understandings.
This is done many times , i am just not going to repeat myself.
You decide on your own if they are not of importance.
But if you find one that studied them and rejects them and says otherwise and his study is well reviewed then let me know

If you have no knowledge , or or think they are not of importance , you have to prove why , and not just naming them by saying "plenty".

Good that i mentioned "plenty" , how many do you mean is plenty against many,many milions?
If you think that means milions in the form of evidence , then you will be wrong to think that anyone can study so much material in the first place.

We have demonstrated many times that these kind of people are known to mislead certain thinkers , and not focus on what History is telling.

All you have done here is just demonstrate how claims of miracles are hinged upon the argument from ignorance.

I want to know the reason why you say of ignorance.

If something is unexplained, then the proper thing to say is "we don't know, let's go to work to try and find out".

And that is exactly what is done in History just as it is in Math , Physics , Biology etc.
It is so much of information , you can't just dismiss them like you did when you assumed the ignorance.

Not "it's a supernatural miracle performed by the specific god I happen to believe in by geographic accident!"

Nobody belives in specific God by geographic accident.That is well noted in the Gospel of John 1.

I am glad for Ehrman that he understands how the Gospel of John represents the divinity of Christ.


Miracle is a potentially misleading term for people in the West. It is colored by the eighteenth century debate on whether miracle, defined as an infraction of natural law, is possible.
But a biblical miracle requires no violation of nature.
A miracle is simply a strikingly surprising event that is beyond normal human ability.

A. E. Harvey:
"Miiracle working is attested of Jesus with a high degree of historical certainty. Though it was popularly believed in the twentieth century that there were a large number of miracle-workers and magicians at the time of Jesus, there is virtually no evidence for this assertion. In the period from 200 BC to 200 AD the number of miracles recorded which are even remotely comparable to Jesus’ miracles is quite small. In Judaism, there are two miracle workers besides Jesus: Honi the Rain maker or Hanina Ben Dosa.
Jesus operated under constraints that conform to no other pattern in the ancient world."

John P. Meier has made a 200-page rigorous investigation using
-five primary criteria
-five secondary criteria
That provides strong evidence for the historicity of Jesus' miracles in the second volume of his series "A Marginal Jew: Mentor, message, and miracles".
I am just going to reference what is of inportance:
"The historical fact that Jesus performed extraordinary deeds deemed by himself and others to be miracles is supported most impressively … The miracle traditions about Jesus' public ministry are already so widely attested in various sources and literary forms by the end of the first Christian generation that total fabrication by the early church is, practically speaking, impossible."
Other literary sources from the second and third generation and among them is also Josephus - only confirm this impression … the tradition of Jesus' miracles is more firmly supported by the criteria of historicity than are a number of other well known and often readily accepted traditions about his life and ministry."(p.650)

Graham Twelftree provides an detailed analysis of the miracles of Jesus in "Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study."

According to Twelftree, about 40% of Jesus' miracles are historically provable; the rest don't contain enough detail to judge.Arguments against it have included a supposed 'contradiction in geography'.
Matthew says '… (Jesus) arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes…' but Mark says, '… they arrived in the region of the Gerasenes.' Luke says, 'They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, across the lake from Galilee.The location is actually the same location.The gospel writers simply identify the same area using different criteria:
-Matthew references the main town in the region, and the other two reference the local village.

We find many things that many people say to be wrong.

Let's continue

N.T. Wright:
"…we must be clear that Jesus' contemporaries, both those who became his followers and those who were determined not to become his followers, certainly regarded him as possessed of remarkable powers."

And ofc , this is just a drop of water in the ocean.
And does not say much , but it tells something.

That we can't dismiss it like that.

You said :
"Not "it's a supernatural miracle performed by the specific god I happen to believe in by geographic accident!"

I never assumed this , i said only that miracles should not be rejected on empty statements.

And we can continue this elsewhere , sorry for going out of the topic.

 

[McBell]

Sides are taken, lines are drawn. A man was executed by state decree in the U.S. recently EVEN THOUGH the evidence apparently showed he was NOT GUILTY...yes -- people are drawn to sides, aren't they? g'night now...

Is this you saying you have not seen one?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hands are better today, even went for a drive with Karen and took the camera but it started raining so I got dragged through a landscaping place and two Op Shops instead. I shall read the article when I lie down for a nap in a bit.

I found another paper that may be of greater interest to you.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...al-mimicry-A-unified-conceptual-framework.pdf

It discusses avian vocal mimicry and the evolution of the trait.

 

[John53]

I found another paper that may be of greater interest to you.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...al-mimicry-A-unified-conceptual-framework.pdf

It discusses avian vocal mimicry and the evolution of the trait.

I've started reading it, it's going to take a while.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've started reading it, it's going to take a while.

I know. It's a fairly long paper. Scientific papers outside my field, I usually read the abstract, introduction/literature reviews and then go to the results and conclusions. If I need to know the details of the methodology, I can always review it later. It isn't likely that I would be familiar with any specialized methods anyway. Review papers, like this one, are the ones you have to go through in detail, start to finish.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've started reading it, it's going to take a while.

If we can get them finished soon, we can pick up a discussion on them maybe. There appear to be some interesting points to learn. Nothing like the language of beavers, but what is.