Evolution My ToE

[SkepticThinker]

That depends on what group of murders are calling another group. There are millions of babies killed each year in the US if I recall? They fought unjust wars and untold murders.

Ah, so rather than clarifying, you're just going to change the subject?

Again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That happens to some athletes or fighters also. It sells tickets. The bible told no one to do any such evil thing.

You really need to read your Bible.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who said that in the flood, or in the Sodom event the plan was to get rid of all wickedness? I think the plan was to reduce it to more manageable levels so that man could last long enough for the plan of salvation.

It seems your god created a world that inevitably leads to wickedness (even when he tries to repeatedly fix it), and then blames us for it.
So this god is not only immoral, but inept as well. "Salvation" will be yet another attempt in a long line of failed attempts for this god to remove wickedness from the world. I'm sure he won't bungle that up too.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Whose reality? Mine? The folks in ancient history? Most people alive today on earth? Or yours?

Collective reality.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He sets slaves free. Try it.

Oops, you evaded the point again.

So we're back here again.

Now I'm going to ask you again where it says in the Bible that God thinks slavery is wrong/immoral/bad/sinful and/or made any commandments against it.

And you're going to show me nothing, because it's not there.

We've already gone over this one before, Dad.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just going by that (nature doesn't carefully decide), would you say that nature does not care? I would think someone who believes in evolution as the reason humans are alive would say that nature does not care if someone is born disabled, or someone dies.

Apparently Nature cares about as much as God(s) does.

 

[SkepticThinker]

While it may seem to some that fossils confirm the theory of evolution, so far I don't see the evidence presented here in a way showing that fossils are incontrovertible evidence of evolution. So far I have not seen from anyone here in particular, or even links some may offer, anything that demonstrates with evidence of genetic changes that there were micro genetic changes in fossils that enabled them, or led to, successive forms as claimed. So perhaps instead of telling me I'm wrong, demonstrate with reports of analysis of fossil evidence that there were micro or macro genetic changes confirming that the genes changed and new forms came about.

The evidence you seek already exists.

So instead of relying on other people to educate you, why not go and find some scientific information on the subject matter and educate yourself? That's what a person who is really interested in understanding reality would do. That's how I learned what evolution actually is, and isn't.

 

[Audie]

The evidence you seek already exists.

So instead of relying on other people to educate you, why not go and find some scientific information on the subject matter and educate yourself? That's what a person who is really interested in understanding reality would do. That's how I learned what evolution actually is, and isn't.

"Dont see"..."havent see"..."demonstrate" (for me)

Hardly the words of an interested party, of a
person curious and inclined to study.

I am curious what his interest actually is, here.
Learning isnt it. What is?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I have given my response some thought before rendering it, since it clearly needs to be thoughtfully conveyed. I am not trying to offend you or put you down. It is not personal and I think you would be a fine person to know in reality given what I have seen in here and our differences aside. However, in the case where someone is placing ideology and doctrine ahead of logic, reason and evidence, they are taking an anti-intellectual position. It is not simply a dispute over common descent that I base this on. Your particular church and many churches and religions have a history of closing the door on anything that challenges the prescribed view of the world that is founded on a dogma of believed conditions and not on observed conditions. Certainly, I do not see you as a worst case. Someone like @dad is a good example of that. He just makes up fantasy interpretations of the world, religion and science, declares them universal truths and then spends his entire presence here continually repeating that nonsense. You are here and willing to discuss, so that is a positive.

Do you really think a global flood is supported by the evidence you have presented in light of all the evidence that demonstrates there was no flood? Is a Chinese character really that compelling as evidence for a global flood? Or is it the line that your church holds and since you are a good member, you hold it too? That would be an anti-intellectual position as distasteful as that may be to you.

You are equating the reliance on dogma in religion for drawing conclusions as being on a par with intellectual challenges over explanations within science. That is a false comparison. The two are not even close, let alone equal. The sheer number, sources and diversity of ideological claims shatters that comparison without any need for continuing examples.

Much is made by creationists --way too much--of the controversies in science, and scientists, admittedly at times, can be dogmatic. As much as I may wish we all met the ideal of objectivity more closely. At least science promotes and strives for objectivity and questioning. But these controversies are based on evidence, weighing that evidence for reason, and an underlying logic. Not on some dogmatic doctrine. Scientists do not propose changes caprisciously for no good reason or based on the doctrine of some group the belong to.

Scientists constantly challenge the conclusions of science. That is practically the job description. Science is forced by its own structure and ethics to deal with even the most bizarre and poorly founded claims. Just the existence of alternative claims is not evidence of a weakness in established claims or that there is a controversy or where one does exist it is to the extent of significance that detractors hope for. But even in dealing with radical or weak claims, knowledge can be discovered. Often, it is in division that science is moved forward.

Even though a position placing religious dogma over true learning is truly an anti-intellectual position, I do not wish to imply that I think that is all that you, personally, are about. I find that you are an interesting and engaging presence here and much of what you have posted has pressed me to look deeper and understand better. Even material and positions I disagree with. I hope that this post reflects the thought I put into it in recognition of that and does not inspire you to close a door. I truly believe that you can accept science and maintain your belief in God without the human imposed restrictions. Personally, I don't see that you can't be a good Jehovah's Witness even if you were to accept the theory of common descent. It is not as if any Christian truly understands God enough to make declarations about Him.

I certainly appreciate your post. You display a genuineness that isn't found in many opposing replies.

I will get around to responding soon, but I too need to give it a lot of thought. Right now, l have many responsibilities that unfortunately need my attention . So I ask for your patience, please.

Take care.

 

[dad]

Actually it is the reverse. You are so narrow minded dependent on a book limited to what is written only. It takes an open mind to understand the natural world for what it is.

What it is is part of the picture. If you were open-minded you would know that.

Expanding your understanding to seeing beyond the limited human experience. The result is complete awe and respect to the natural world with no dependence on magical thinking and limited stories.

I have no awe at lies and fables. The only dismay is how people could waste so much time om dreaming up whoppers.

 

[dad]

So you do not live in the natural world? That's right you are trapped in your fantasy world.

Man lives in this temporary physical world. All Throughout history men have seen miracles and things that require more.

 

[dad]

Ah, so rather than clarifying, you're just going to change the subject?

Again.

Murders are murders.

 

[dad]

You really need to read your Bible.

I did, and it says Jesus sets us free. Do you admit you are a slave?

 

[dad]

It seems your god created a world that inevitably leads to wickedness (even when he tries to repeatedly fix it), and then blames us for it.
So this god is not only immoral, but inept as well. "Salvation" will be yet another attempt in a long line of failed attempts for this god to remove wickedness from the world. I'm sure he won't bungle that up too.

He bet His life on it.

 

[dad]

Collective reality.

I am not in your collective.

 

[dad]

Oops, you evaded the point again.

So we're back here again.

Now I'm going to ask you again where it says in the Bible that God thinks slavery is wrong/immoral/bad/sinful and/or made any commandments against it.

And you're going to show me nothing, because it's not there.

We've already gone over this one before, Dad.

All men are slaves. He sets us free. Whether you work at Walmart, or a sweatshop, or the military, or etc. The slave owners were just as much slaves as the slaves! It was their slavery to Satan and sin that caused the owners to have slaves in the first place. They needed to be freed as much (at least) as their slaves.

 

[dad]

The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are scientific theories. How can they care about anything? This sentence doesn't care if I I live or die. The Bible is a book. It is incapable of human emotion and thought. It cannot care about anything or anyone. What does that say about the human condition? Nothing.

The bible is alive and infused with the life of God. He cares. It is capable of changing people. The reason the Bible exists is that He cares.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oops, you evaded the point again.

So we're back here again.

Now I'm going to ask you again where it says in the Bible that God thinks slavery is wrong/immoral/bad/sinful and/or made any commandments against it.

And you're going to show me nothing, because it's not there.

We've already gone over this one before, Dad.

Good luck getting a straight, rational answer from this guy. No one has yet.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You really need to read your Bible.

He doesn't just read it, he adds to it. You should see his claims about magical transforming animals and crazy cat/dogs that appeared after the mythical flood of Genesis. Nothing about that in the Bible. Not on the Cartoon Network either.

 

[nPeace]

I certainly appreciate your post. You display a genuineness that isn't found in many opposing replies.

I will get around to responding soon, but I too need to give it a lot of thought. Right now, l have many responsibilities that unfortunately need my attention . So I ask for your patience, please.

Take care.

I had to read the post you were responding to.
It's one thing to say what science does. It's another, to not acknowledge what science does not do, but what scientists say, and do.
Science doesn't say or do, what scientists say, or do, when it isn't based on proper methods of science, rather than beliefs.
That's the way this situation looks to me.