Evolution My ToE

[YoursTrue]

Do you have a logical, rational reason for that belief or is that just a warm puppy feeling?

Do you think or believe that evolution has feelings about things?

 

[YoursTrue]

https://www.google.com/search?ei=0c.........0....1.........0i71j41j0i10.S0_ImIBB-68

So whatever you wrote there, does evolution have feelings? Does it care if someone is born blind, or deaf?

 

[Audie]

I see that you cannot understand what many posters have said to you regarding "prove" and "proof" and science.

If you are incapable of understanding something so clear and simple, it is not surprising that you must turn to the simplicity of the bible rather than the complexities of science.

I does though demonstrate that in failing to grasp
something at the same time so simple and so
basic to science he kills any credibility he might
have in debating science or, for that matter, the
bible.

Words but no actual understanding.

I wish he would try a bit harder, give us an
actual challenge. Its no fun to debate a naif.

Are ya listenin' billy chridtian?

 

[Audie]

So whatever you wrote there, does evolution have feelings? Does it care if someone is born blind, or deaf?

Follow the freakin link. I am trying to educate you.
The word "recognizance"!!!!!

Your q is as meaningless as "does gravity care if
you fall".

There are evolutionary consequences, to a
lack of fitness. Is that something else you
did not know?

 

[ecco]

Why?

Because you have been a believer for a long time.

 

[ecco]

I pick and choose religious beliefs based on my own recognizance as well as learning.

As I said: Like most believers, you must pick and choose, pick and choose and make up stories to try to make your bible stories have some resemblance to reality.

 

[YoursTrue]

I see that you cannot understand what many posters have said to you regarding "prove" and "proof" and science.

If you are incapable of understanding something so clear and simple, it is not surprising that you must turn to the simplicity of the bible rather than the complexities of science.

Naturally science can be complex. Notice the following from berkeley.edu -- "Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them."
Thus, according to this, science accepts or rejects ideas based on evidence -- and does not prove or disprove these. So, according to the article, the concept of real, absolute proof is not really ("particularly," as said in the article) scientific.

 

[YoursTrue]

Because you have been a believer for a long time.

That is correct. But I was agnostic, followed by being an atheist for another long time before this.

 

[Bear Wild]

So as I've been looking at theories and scientific reasoning, is it true that nothing is proven in science?

Proof is a mathematical property or logic property not applicable to scientific reasoning. Use the appropriate terminology that applies and science is based upon evidence which supports a theory leave proof to mathematics and logic where it belongs. Evolution has amazingly extensive evidence for a scientific theory and no other explanation has any significant evidence of any meaning.

 

[Audie]

That is correct. But I was agnostic, followed by being an atheist for another long time before this.

No you were not ever able to achieve
actual atheism. Or you would not have backslid.

You may well have achieved denial for a
while but the gravity well of early
indoctrination is what pulls back all
those who claim to have been atheist
and then regress.

Its ok, it is human nature.

But dont deceive yourself, and dont think you
can deceive us; you were never atheist,
And you do not know how an atheist (or
a scientist) thinks. That is also ok, as long
as you do not act as if you know things you
do not know.

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution described in one dictionary as follows:
"descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations"
Now, describe the process, please, if you will, with evidentiary findings.

 

[YoursTrue]

No you were not ever able to achieve
actual atheism. Or you would not have backslid.

You may well have achieved denial for a
while but the gravity well of early
indoctrination is what pulls back all
those who claim to have been atheist
and then regress.

Its ok, it is human nature.

But dont deceive yourself, and dont think you
can deceive us; you were never atheist,
And you do not know how an atheist (or
a scientist) thinks. That is also ok, as long
as you do not act as if you know things you
do not know.

What you say is not true. You say it's human nature for someone to fall back to a belief in God. As I said, I did not consider much in my younger adult years as to whether God exists, it was a muddle in my mind. And I did believe in, or go along with (maybe better phrase) the idea of evolution. Then after examining various religions, and seeing the world around me, and the confusion, I decided and said to others that I do not believe in God.
Did you ever wonder if there is a God, or were you always an atheist? I know of children (I was a teacher in a secular school system) who affirmed they did not believe in God, so I have heard personally that some children do not believe in God. I heard your views and I do not agree with the concept of evolution. Now tell me, do you know if Darwinian evolution is being taught currently?

 

[Bear Wild]

Evolution described in one dictionary as follows:
"descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations"
Now, describe the process, please, if you will, with evidentiary findings.

Which part of the process do you want the evidence for? The genetics that allows for the changes seen in evolution. The evidence for natural selection? The geological evidence that that shows the patterns of change? There is much so much evidence that you need to be much more specific in your question.

 

[YoursTrue]

Proof is a mathematical property or logic property not applicable to scientific reasoning. Use the appropriate terminology that applies and science is based upon evidence which supports a theory leave proof to mathematics and logic where it belongs. Evolution has amazingly extensive evidence for a scientific theory and no other explanation has any significant evidence of any meaning.

I do not believe that extensive evidence you say is for evolution. By the way, which definition of evolution do you go by?

 

[YoursTrue]

Which part of the process do you want the evidence for? The genetics that allows for the changes seen in evolution. The evidence for natural selection? The geological evidence that that shows the patterns of change? There is much so much evidence that you need to be much more specific in your question.

You are replying to the definition of evolution as:
"descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations"
So take any part of that you choose to and describe the process that has been observed. Thank you.

 

[Audie]

Evolution described in one dictionary as follows:
"descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations"
Now, describe the process, please, if you will, with evidentiary findings.

Ah you want a treatise.

 

[Bear Wild]

What you say is not true. You say it's human nature for someone to fall back to a belief in God. As I said, I did not consider much in my younger adult years as to whether God exists, it was a muddle in my mind. And I did believe in, or go along with (maybe better phrase) the idea of evolution. Then after examining various religions, and seeing the world around me, and the confusion, I decided and said to others that I do not believe in God.
Did you ever wonder if there is a God, or were you always an atheist? I know of children (I was a teacher in a secular school system) who affirmed they did not believe in God, so I have heard personally that some children do not believe in God. I heard your views and I do not agree with the concept of evolution. Now tell me, do you know if Darwinian evolution is being taught currently?

You do not agree with evolution because you either do not understand the evidence or you have just decided reject the evidence without reason. Either way the evidence supporting evolution still exists and not other explanation has any support other than blind faith.

 

[Bear Wild]

You are replying to the definition of evolution as:
"descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations"
So take any part of that you choose to and describe the process that has been observed. Thank you.

I am replying to your statement about the process of evolution that the definition refers to. The definition itself is only a fraction of the concept of evolution. But we can start with one of the mechanisms in which evolution theory is supported by - genetics. First are you familiar with genetics?

 

[Audie]

What you say is not true. You say it's human nature for someone to fall back to a belief in God. As I said, I did not consider much in my younger adult years as to whether God exists, it was a muddle in my mind. And I did believe in, or go along with (maybe better phrase) the idea of evolution. Then after examining various religions, and seeing the world around me, and the confusion, I decided and said to others that I do not believe in God.
Did you ever wonder if there is a God, or were you always an atheist? I know of children (I was a teacher in a secular school system) who affirmed they did not believe in God, so I have heard personally that some children do not believe in God. I heard your views and I do not agree with the concept of evolution. Now tell me, do you know if Darwinian evolution is being taught currently?

Of course it is true- see Catholic brag of "give us a child till
age five".

I am surprised at your psychological naivete.

As for belief in ToE, fine, but you did not know what
it was, you did not and do not understand it, at all,
IF YOU DID, you would not now disbelieve, and for
such vacuous reasons!

I grew up in Hong Kong with an atheist mom.
Chridtiaity is insignificant in HK, I saw it was
an exotic cult.

Ive wondered if theres a god,
but, zero evidence, so I dont believe, like
I dont believe Megalodon lives yet, somewhere.

"Darwinian" is so quaint and 19th century.
Is that even a serious question?

Oh and why is "proof" this big deal to you?
Easier to respond if one has a clue what you
are thinking.

 

[Audie]

You do not agree with evolution because you either do not understand the evidence or you have just decided reject the evidence without reason. Either way the evidence supporting evolution still exists and not other explanation has any support other than blind faith.

Both