Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dimi95]

Again you speak whereof you know not.
You appear to be claiming to speak biblical Hebrew. Is that correct?

What i know is my own problem.
You answering like that just proves that you don't know what should be known.
If you did , you wouldn't answer like it.

I didn't refer to 2 Samuel 20 and you either haven't read or haven't understood 2 Samuel 21.

Ok , my bad.
2 Samuel 21
The whole chapter , i am waiting

You of all people should avoid attempts at condescension.

I don't mean to offend you , i apologise if i did.
I posses what is needed to talk about both Hebrew and especially Greek.

That's all blather.

To who , to you ?
Not interested in your personal understanding , i am interested in what is being backed and what not.
Untill now , i am waiting the 3rd time for 2 Samuel 21 - whole passage and you still refuse.

The question is, HOW did God create the universe, HOW did the command Light! bring the EM spectrum into being.

The same as asking me how did the Big Bang happend.

Answer ─ by a miracle.

No , i don't know.

But of course there isn't even one authenticated example of a real miracle.

How do you know ? Are you the modern Galileo?

(It reminds me how nobody ever won James Randi's prize, on offer 1964-2015, which rose to $1m at the end, for anyone who could demonstrate paranormal abilities under agreed control conditions.)

You doing your own explenations does not count.
What matters is what you can back up and that is one big POOF at the moment.
I suggest you do your own study.

It's authentically annoying when people who don't know what they're talking about pretend that a biblical reference to a day can optionally be read as meaning 'a thousand years'. The usage occurs only once in the Tanakh, with no association whatsoever to Genesis Creation, and is clearly poetic. The unknown author of 2 Peter in the NT also has zero credibility on the subject if you want to read him literally.

Another one of your salads and empty claims.

You didn't answer certain points that i mentioned , why?

 

[Dimi95]

You misunderstand. But anyway, if you can, would you be willing to give some reasons you say that you "KNOW" God exists? Thanks.

Sure , the people around me.
Miracles do happen.
If you see them and expirience them with the people around yoj , then there is no more 'believe' , you don't have to , you know.

 

[Dimi95]

So then, would you say we die by natural selection? Or would you prefer I Google it?

Death is the consequence or end result of living. Do you agree?

Death is the prize for life.
Luke 17:34

 

[Dimi95]

Well, let's go over it again. Is death the end result of living organisms?

To what purpose are these amusing question?

 

[Dimi95]

Prove it.

That's what we are hopping for , someone to prove othewise and suggest some other verifiable alternative and we will be all happy.

 

[McBell]

That's what we are hopping for , someone to prove othewise and suggest some other verifiable alternative and we will be all happy.

I am most curious how one who goes on about no video cameras will go about supporting their claim.

 

[blü 2]

2 Samuel 21

2 Samuel 21
1 Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year, and David inquired of the LORD. The LORD said, “There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house because he put the Gibeonites to death.” 2 So the king called the Gibeonites and spoke to them. (Now the Gibeonites were not of the people of Israel but of the remnant of the Amorites; although the people of Israel had sworn to spare them, Saul had tried to wipe them out in his zeal for the people of Israel and Judah.) 3 David said to the Gibeonites, “What shall I do for you? How shall I make expiation, that you may bless the heritage of the LORD?” 4 The Gibeonites said to him, “It is not a matter of silver or gold between us and Saul or his house; neither is it for us to put anyone to death in Israel.” He said, “What do you say that I should do for you?” 5 They said to the king, “The man who consumed us and planned to destroy us so that we should have no place in all the territory of Israel, 6 let seven of his sons be handed over to us, and we will impale them before the LORD at Gibeon on the mountain of the LORD.”l The king said, “I will hand them over.” 7 But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Saul’s son Jonathan, because of the oath of the LORD that was between them, between David and Jonathan son of Saul. 8 The king took the two sons of Rizpah daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Merab daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite; 9 he gave them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they impaled them on the mountain before the LORD. The seven of them perished together. They were put to death in the first days of harvest, at the beginning of barley harvest. 10 Then Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth and spread it on a rock for herself, from the beginning of harvest until rain fell on them from the heavens; she did not allow the birds of the air to come on the bodiesn by day or the wild animals by night. 11 When David was told what Rizpah daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul, had done, 12 David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of his son Jonathan from the people of Jabesh-gilead, who had stolen them from the public square of Beth-shan, where the Philistines had hung them up, on the day the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa. 13 He brought up from there the bones of Saul and the bones of his son Jonathan, and they gathered the bones of those who had been impaled. 14 They buried the bones of Saul and of his son Jonathan in the land of Benjamin in Zela, in the tomb of his father Kish; they did all that the king commanded. After that, God heeded supplications for the land.

(NRSVue)[/b][/b]

 

[Dimi95]

2 Samuel 21
1 Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year, and David inquired of the LORD. The LORD said, “There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house because he put the Gibeonites to death.” 2 So the king called the Gibeonites and spoke to them. (Now the Gibeonites were not of the people of Israel but of the remnant of the Amorites; although the people of Israel had sworn to spare them, Saul had tried to wipe them out in his zeal for the people of Israel and Judah.) 3 David said to the Gibeonites, “What shall I do for you? How shall I make expiation, that you may bless the heritage of the LORD?” 4 The Gibeonites said to him, “It is not a matter of silver or gold between us and Saul or his house; neither is it for us to put anyone to death in Israel.” He said, “What do you say that I should do for you?” 5 They said to the king, “The man who consumed us and planned to destroy us so that we should have no place in all the territory of Israel, 6 let seven of his sons be handed over to us, and we will impale them before the LORD at Gibeon on the mountain of the LORD.”l The king said, “I will hand them over.” 7 But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Saul’s son Jonathan, because of the oath of the LORD that was between them, between David and Jonathan son of Saul. 8 The king took the two sons of Rizpah daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Merab daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite; 9 he gave them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they impaled them on the mountain before the LORD. The seven of them perished together. They were put to death in the first days of harvest, at the beginning of barley harvest. 10 Then Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth and spread it on a rock for herself, from the beginning of harvest until rain fell on them from the heavens; she did not allow the birds of the air to come on the bodiesn by day or the wild animals by night. 11 When David was told what Rizpah daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul, had done, 12 David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of his son Jonathan from the people of Jabesh-gilead, who had stolen them from the public square of Beth-shan, where the Philistines had hung them up, on the day the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa. 13 He brought up from there the bones of Saul and the bones of his son Jonathan, and they gathered the bones of those who had been impaled. 14 They buried the bones of Saul and of his son Jonathan in the land of Benjamin in Zela, in the tomb of his father Kish; they did all that the king commanded. After that, God heeded supplications for the land.

(NRSVue)[/b][/b]

And where does here say that God demands sacrifice?
I don't argue the famine
I am asking where does it say that God demands human sacrifice?

 

[Dimi95]

2 Samuel 21
1 Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year, and David inquired of the LORD. The LORD said, “There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house because he put the Gibeonites to death.” 2 So the king called the Gibeonites and spoke to them. (Now the Gibeonites were not of the people of Israel but of the remnant of the Amorites; although the people of Israel had sworn to spare them, Saul had tried to wipe them out in his zeal for the people of Israel and Judah.) 3 David said to the Gibeonites, “What shall I do for you? How shall I make expiation, that you may bless the heritage of the LORD?” 4 The Gibeonites said to him, “It is not a matter of silver or gold between us and Saul or his house; neither is it for us to put anyone to death in Israel.” He said, “What do you say that I should do for you?” 5 They said to the king, “The man who consumed us and planned to destroy us so that we should have no place in all the territory of Israel, 6 let seven of his sons be handed over to us, and we will impale them before the LORD at Gibeon on the mountain of the LORD.”l The king said, “I will hand them over.” 7 But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Saul’s son Jonathan, because of the oath of the LORD that was between them, between David and Jonathan son of Saul. 8 The king took the two sons of Rizpah daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Merab daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite; 9 he gave them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they impaled them on the mountain before the LORD. The seven of them perished together. They were put to death in the first days of harvest, at the beginning of barley harvest. 10 Then Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth and spread it on a rock for herself, from the beginning of harvest until rain fell on them from the heavens; she did not allow the birds of the air to come on the bodiesn by day or the wild animals by night. 11 When David was told what Rizpah daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul, had done, 12 David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of his son Jonathan from the people of Jabesh-gilead, who had stolen them from the public square of Beth-shan, where the Philistines had hung them up, on the day the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa. 13 He brought up from there the bones of Saul and the bones of his son Jonathan, and they gathered the bones of those who had been impaled. 14 They buried the bones of Saul and of his son Jonathan in the land of Benjamin in Zela, in the tomb of his father Kish; they did all that the king commanded. After that, God heeded supplications for the land.

(NRSVue)[/b][/b]

Here is something much closer , Hebrew source

2 Samuel 21 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

Still can't find where does God demand sacrifice?

 

[YoursTrue]

That's what we are hopping for , someone to prove othewise and suggest some other verifiable alternative and we will be all happy.

The proof is in the pudding. It's not there. There IS no proof, and that is solid. Nope, the pudding isn't there. Not in the beginning, and not as it is supposed to move along...Your remonstrations (and those of others) firm up the idea that it did not happen as evolutionists believe it did, Pope or no Pope agreeing to it.

 

[Dimi95]

The proof is in the pudding. It's not there. There IS no proof, and that is solid.

Those who actually do applied science think otherwise.
And you are not among then

Nope, the pudding isn't there. Not in the beginning, and not as it is supposed to move along...Your remonstrations (and those of others) firm up the idea that it did not happen as evolutionists believe it did, Pope or no Pope agreeing to it.

Good , you said my demonstrations and those of others Firm up that it did not happen.
Explain how is that so.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And there's the problem in a nutshell.

You are correct. This is an example of one of the problems in the nutshell.

I posted 11 responses to your posts and you ignored 99% of that and seem to have run from it. All you seem to be able to do is quote me out of context and completely misrepresent me.

All thought, all ideas are individual.

So what. That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Straw men aren't going to cause the quasi-religious, pseudoscientific claims you routinely post suddenly turn into facts.

Every scientists has his own unique models even if he doesn't know it. Since modern science is Observation > Experiment any human being can do it. Committees don't think and don't make observations or think of experiments.

Knowing what has come before is handy for metaphysicians though.

None of this makes any sense as a response to the content you mined that quote of mine from. When a scientist begins to study and research a subject, they review the literature to learn what other scientists have done in the same or related areas of study. I know you are probably completely unaware of the idea of reading prior art, but that is what scientists do.

So much for you dissecting everything that comes your way. Unless your secret definition of dissecting is "run like hell from questions and valid points".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm referring to the average Joe who came from a failed educational system and accepts whatever science is being foisted on him this week. They had bad science classes they didn't understand and think scientists are all geniuses. Most of these individuals think they do understand science and Peers are its priests. They believe Evolution is settled science and anyone who doesn't accept it is a fool, flat earther, or fundamentalist.

So these are imaginary people in contrived situations that you don't really know about from experience or have any evidence for and merely say this as part of your meandering ramble against the science that refutes 99.9% of your claims?

My take is that you see any science that challenges or refutes what you personally believe is bad science. Further, it seems to me that they only thing you consider good science is stuff that you seem to be making up and presenting as if you are omniscient and know it without the bother of evidence or reason.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm one man working alone and don't know anything.

It think that this statement you are making will find the highest level of agreement that you have ever had on this forum or any other from what I've read.

It is our job to prove or disprove God after providing a definition. I'm not even working on it and have several other avenues of research. All I can do is keep an eye open.

Good luck.

I don't know. I see no reason a Creator has to be sentient or have a sentience we'd recognize as such. There are no rules for discovering reality other than to invent experiment to show it.

You don't even seem to need experiment or observation and just stopped at the invent part from all I have seen.

Certainly it's possible that a "big bang" created the universe and could be confused as God or have been caused by God. Perhaps this universe was created and a tiny bit of matter from another dimension was intentionally allowed into it through a point.

It's above my pay grade to have all the answers or even any answers at all.

It is too bad you don't see science in the same light. It would remove a lot of empty claims from the debate.

Our science must reduce things to experiment.

Or observation of the natural world.

Some things like "mechanics" are easily reduced to experiment and some things are impossible. The problem arises when we extrapolate experiment to apply to all things. It does but that doesn't mean our specific extrapolations are legitimate.

I have no idea what you intend this to mean. I speculate that you really don't either.

At the risk of picking nit our science due to its nature requires an Observer. As such we are a part of reality and of our experiments. Consciousness is someday going to be the New Frontier but this day could be a long time away.

It requires that something be observed too. But it does not follow that natural systems are under the control of a consciousness. You have to have evidence for that and no one has provided any.

 

[cladking]

Further, it seems to me that they only thing you consider good science...

The only thing I consider "good science" is experiment and hypotheses borne out by experiment.

I'm not much of a fan of any paradigms even my own.

I believe Darwin's paradigm could not be more wrong.

 

[Jimmy]

Again you speak whereof you know not.
You appear to be claiming to speak biblical Hebrew. Is that correct?

I didn't refer to 2 Samuel 20 and you either haven't read or haven't understood 2 Samuel 21.

You of all people should avoid attempts at condescension.

That's all blather. The question is, HOW did God create the universe, HOW did the command Light! bring the EM spectrum into being.

Answer ─ by a miracle. But of course there isn't even one authenticated example of a real miracle. (It reminds me how nobody ever won James Randi's prize, on offer 1964-2015, which rose to $1m at the end, for anyone who could demonstrate paranormal abilities under agreed control conditions.)

It's authentically annoying when people who don't know what they're talking about pretend that a biblical reference to a day can optionally be read as meaning 'a thousand years'. The usage occurs only once in the Tanakh, with no association whatsoever to Genesis Creation, and is clearly poetic. The unknown author of 2 Peter in the NT also has zero credibility on the subject if you want to read him literally.

Wanna see a miracle? Look around, and not with just your eyes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Tiny little changes caused by survival of the fittest resulting in speciation is attractive and central to the scientism arguments.

Right here in this one sentence anyone can see that you haven't got a clue about evolution or what we have learned from studying it. You can purposefully use an antiquated, limited description or call it natural selection, but in either case, it is not the cause of the change that occurs with evolution.

It is attractive because it removes everything we have no understanding of from the equation.

No it doesn't. Your means to deflect it, secret definitions, closed-minded approach to the views of others and belief you know everything is what removes understanding from the equation.

Why understand individuals or consciousness if they can be canceled out of both sides of the equation?

No idea. Really don't care to know. I can't see it would be of any value to know what you are trying to say here.

Why define "fitness" if it can just be defined as the cause of speciation?

You are defining it that way in some semantic summersault. But it is not defined that way in biology. Fitness doesn't cause speciation. Fitness is a measure of the reproductive success of a phenotype or genotype. It is selected by environmental conditions. Do you have any secrete definitions for other words. Just asking so we can skip what you claim about those too.

Who needs God at all if there's a well understood mechanism for life to arise and flourish? When you have all the answers there is no need for outside agents or unknowns.

That seems to describe you as much or more than anyone here.

Certainly mutations can lead to speciation but we know it occurs without mutation as well through observation and experiment.

What other ways do you imagine it occurs?

People just want simple answers.

I know some people. They do to the point of concocting their own answers and falling in love with them no matter how empty those ideas really are.

I'm inclined to believe answers are far more complex than even reality itself.

If by complex, you mean valid, supported and rational answers compared to stuff someone just makes up and repeats as if revealed truth, then yes, I would say they are more complex.

 

[YoursTrue]

The only thing I consider "good science" is experiment and hypotheses borne out by experiment.

I'm not much of a fan of any paradigms even my own.

I believe Darwin's paradigm could not be more wrong.

Sorry but I could not reach you by mail here, so I am giving a link to what I consider a most fascinating article about -- giraffes -- hope you enjoy it. The Giraffe’s Short Neck: Why Evolutionary Thought Needs a Holistic Foundation — The Nature Institute

 

[cladking]

It is too bad you don't see science in the same light. It would remove a lot of empty claims from the debate.

I have never said any prevailing paradigm today can not be correct. Darwin could be exactly right for all I know. But, again, I believe he ids wrong because of bad assumptions and I believe all experiment and observation are consistent wit an entirely different paradigm. Just because I might be wrong is not an argument or evidence that I am wrong.

Or observation of the natural world.

Observation plays a crucial role in science. That's why I reduce modern science to "Observation > Experiment" instead of just "Experiment". BUT the observer should be aware he sees what he expects instead of what exists and that he always reasons in circles. These things are shown in experiment and ALL EXPERIMENT applies to all reality and all OBSERVERS all the time.

People are going to have to get used to a lot of new ideas if we are ever going to get passed the Unified Field Theorem. The observer is part of reality and sees the reality he expects.

Consciousness matters and it's a highly complex world.

I believe some of these ideas are natural to all other species. We are the odd man out because we use symbolic, analog, and abstract language. We simply don't think like any other kind of consciousness.

 

[YoursTrue]

Right here in this one sentence anyone can see that you haven't got a clue about evolution or what we have learned from studying it. You can purposefully use an antiquated, limited description or call it natural selection, but in either case, it is not the cause of the change that occurs with evolution.

No it doesn't. Your means to deflect it, secret definitions, closed-minded approach to the views of others and belief you know everything is what removes understanding from the equation.

No idea. Really don't care to know. I can't see it would be of any value to know what you are trying to say here.

You are defining it that way in some semantic summersault. But it is not defined that way in biology. Fitness doesn't cause speciation. Fitness is a measure of the reproductive success of a phenotype or genotype. It is selected by environmental conditions. Do you have any secrete definitions for other words. Just asking so we can skip what you claim about those too.

That seems to describe you as much or more than anyone here.

What other ways do you imagine it occurs?

I know some people. They do to the point of concocting their own answers and falling in love with them no matter how empty those ideas really are.

If by complex, you mean valid, supported and rational answers compared to stuff someone just makes up and repeats as if revealed truth, then yes, I would say they are more complex.

I was re-reading some stuff that Bertrand Russell spoke of a while back. When I was an atheist he bolstered up my feelings pro-atheistic, but many of his statements now to me are slanted for sure.