Evolution My ToE

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it was written by people. I don't know of anyone who denies that.
However, the writers claim to be inspired by God, and looking at the evidence, it does evidently confirm that claim.

Since they were so terribly wrong so many times I do not see how that correlates to being "inspired by God". Are you claiming that God is incompetent? That sounds like blasphemy to me.

That's what you claim. I was hoping you would support that claim - not by repeating the claim (which does nothing), but by providing some sort of evidence that would support it.

The evidence I presented, shows that it does not fit the category of myth.

That has been done countless times. One of your problems is that you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence. You make claims that only a liar (and I do not assume that you are a liar) or one that did not understand the concept of evidence would make. And no, you did not present any such evidence. Once again, we really should discuss the nature of evidence.

But tell me, you do know that the Noah's Ark story is myth, don't you? There never was a worldwide flood. There have been countless small local floods over the history of the Earth, but nothing like in the Bible. We even know what small local flood probably inspired the myth. It did not last a year. It did not cover the Earth or threaten man with extinction. There really was no need for an Ark. Would you care to discuss that?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Ability to pass through matter is not an established property.

I’m sorry, I meant that Data and those with him (in the movie), couldn’t pass through matter. I edited my post.
Not that it changes anything....I just wanted to be accurate.

You stated in another post, that I was dodging. That was not my intent. I do tend to go off ‘on tangents’, not focus on the point at hand.
I apologize for that tendency. But I wasn’t dodging.

It’s late. I’ll take a more thorough look at your replies and queries tomorrow.

But with reference to being anti-intellectual....what is intellectual about believing that unguided, mindless (I.e., non-intelligent) processes can increase information in the genome to the point that novel, more complex body plans can evolve?
It’s called natural selection, as in selecting from what’s already there. It can do no more.

To believe it can, that is not logical or rational.

 

[dad]

How do we know that? I know Paul made claims, but those don't count.

? Acts 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision

Paul also spent time with Peter. So yes, he was accepted by the early church and apostles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

? Acts 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision

Paul also spent time with Peter. So yes, he was accepted by the early church and apostles.

That was at least a slightly biased source. Wasn't Luke supposedly one of his sycophants? And where did Peter acknowledge him?

 

[nPeace]

Since they were so terribly wrong so many times I do not see how that correlates to being "inspired by God". Are you claiming that God is incompetent? That sounds like blasphemy to me.



That has been done countless times. One of your problems is that you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence. You make claims that only a liar (and I do not assume that you are a liar) or one that did not understand the concept of evidence would make. And no, you did not present any such evidence. Once again, we really should discuss the nature of evidence.

But tell me, you do know that the Noah's Ark story is myth, don't you? There never was a worldwide flood. There have been countless small local floods over the history of the Earth, but nothing like in the Bible. We even know what small local flood probably inspired the myth. It did not last a year. It did not cover the Earth or threaten man with extinction. There really was no need for an Ark. Would you care to discuss that?

I think the problem lies with you making claims on top of claims, and with nothing outside those claims to support them.
However, pointing that out to you a million times don't make a difference, since you can do that here on RF, every hour, minute, and second, of every day, as you are not obligated as in a court of law, to produce credible evidence.
So I acknowledge your claims, and opinions.

That goes no where with me though, so if you are really interested in serious discussion....
Let's start with what is, and is not evidence.
You can begin.

Edit.
On second thought, @Subduction Zone, I'll start.
Evidence

I know your response already, so to be clear, what are we talking about here... evidence right? Not one particular form of evidence. We are going to also hop over to the Bible thread, since that is what we are looking at.

 

[McBell]

It is really rather simple.
Member A is asking for evidence, meaning anything that is presented in support of a claim.
Member B presents objective empirical evidence.
Member A replies that the objective empirical evidence presented is not evidence.
Member B replies that Member A does not understand what evidence is.

Now for Member A to claim that objective empirical evidence is not evidence when it is in fact far superior evidence than what Member A is claiming is evidence does show that Member A does not understand how evidence works.

For those who understand how evidence works, it looks as though Member A has an epic double standard when it comes to what is and what is not evidence.

Of course, I personally think that Member A is actually using the word evidence to mean "what convinces me". There fore, any evidence, be it circumstantial evidence, hearsay, or objective empirical evidence, that does not convince Member A is considered by Member A as not even evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think the problem lies with you making claims on top of claims, and with nothing outside those claims to support them.
However, pointing that out to you a million times don't make a difference, since you can do that here on RF, every hour, minute, and second, of every day, as you are not obligated as in a court of law, to produce credible evidence.
So I acknowledge your claims, and opinions.

That goes no where with me though, so if you are really interested in serious discussion....
Let's start with what is, and is not evidence.
You can begin.

Edit.
On second thought, @Subduction Zone, I'll start.
Evidence

I know your response already, so to be clear, what are we talking about here... evidence right? Not one particular form of evidence. We are going to also hop over to the Bible thread, since that is what we are looking at.

As a person that claims to be a Christian you should not make false claims about others.

And linking to an argument that you lost is not a wise strategy. Let's start all over.

There is no need to get too sophisticated. Excessive sophistication is often the tool of the dishonest. Since we are discussing a scientific concept then scientific evidence is the natural choice. It is also well defined. Creationists are notorious for denying evidence and scientists sometimes had that problem themselves. They found a fix for it.

Any questions yet?

 

[nPeace]

As a person that claims to be a Christian you should not make false claims about others.

And linking to an argument that you lost is not a wise strategy. Let's start all over.

There is no need to get too sophisticated. Excessive sophistication is often the tool of the dishonest. Since we are discussing a scientific concept then scientific evidence is the natural choice. It is also well defined. Creationists are notorious for denying evidence and scientists sometimes had that problem themselves. They found a fix for it.

Any questions yet?

What scientific concept are we discussing?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What scientific concept are we discussing?

Since this thread is about evolution I thought that it was obvious. We are discussing the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

 

[nPeace]

Since this thread is about evolution I thought that it was obvious. We are discussing the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

I'm sorry, the last I checked, you were discussing the Bible, for more than a few pages.
That's why I linked to the Bible thread.
Please check this page, if you are confused.
If you really want to discuss evolution, may I suggest to stick to the topic... of the thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sorry, the last I checked, you were discussing the Bible, for more than a few pages.
That's why I linked to the Bible thread.
Please check this page, if you are confused.
If you really want to discuss evolution, may I suggest to stick to the topic... of the thread.

I should have known that you would be too afraid to discuss the evidence for the topic of this thread. But as to evidence for the Bible you did fail at that. Looking back I see that you offered to discuss the RationalWiki article I linked. What problems did you have with that? It set forth very good standards for prophecy. I don't see how it could be construed as dishonest.

 

[nPeace]

I should have known that you would be too afraid to discuss the evidence for the topic of this thread. But as to evidence for the Bible you did fail at that. Looking back I see that you offered to discuss the RationalWiki article I linked. What problems did you have with that? It set forth very good standards for prophecy. I don't see how it could be construed as dishonest.

This thread is 160 pages long, and I have discussed the topic 50% of it, where you had very little participation... if any.
I don't consider that evidence of my being afraid.
So. that's evidently another unsupported claim, you made here.

Oh. You are a bit late in seeing that post. Did you actually read it before, or are you now doing so?
Anyway, since that deals with the topic of whether we can trust the Bible... or not. I will post my discussion on that, in the thread here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This thread is 160 pages long, and I have discussed the topic 50% of it, where you had very little participation... if any.
I don't consider that evidence of my being afraid.
So. that's evidently another unsupported claim, you made here.

Oh. You are a bit late in seeing that post. Did you actually read it before, or are you now doing so?
Anyway, since that deals with the topic of whether we can trust the Bible... or not. I will post my discussion on that, in the thread here.

That is another false claim. Whenever challenged to discuss the nature of scientific evidence you are nowhere to be found. That sure makes it look as if you are running to me.

And yes, I missed that response. I do believe that post was aimed at dad since he had been trying to use prophecy for his claims.

 

[nPeace]

That is another false claim. Whenever challenged to discuss the nature of scientific evidence you are nowhere to be found. That sure makes it look as if you are running to me.

And yes, I missed that response. I do believe that post was aimed at dad since he had been trying to use prophecy for his claims.

Sorry to have to tell you... these are baseless false claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry to have to tell you... these are baseless false claims.

Wrong again. I have offered to discuss the nature of evidence with you countless times. You have yet to respond. But since we are discussing a scientific concept let's discuss scientific evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

Interestingly enough, Paul spoke of other gods when he was in Athens. Acts chapter 17 describes his visit there. He also spoke of his God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in contrast to the Greek gods. The temple for Athena was in Athens while Paul was there. Athens, the city in Greece, is named after the goddess Athena. Paul gave a talk on these things while he was there. (Acts chapter 17)

So, do you think that Zeus, Athena, etc actually exist(ed)?

 

[YoursTrue]

You don't seem to understand that non-believers of your specific religion don't recognize "blasphemy" (i.e. questioning as a sin. So pointing it out is a waste of time.

On and on. Endlessly.

That's almost like saying, "See? This rock which landed on the earth is evidence that life started from outer space."

 

[YoursTrue]

So, do you think that Zeus, Athena, etc actually exist(ed)?

No. Is that what you got from my answer?

 

[Polymath257]

No. Is that what you got from my answer?

Well, that points to the issue: using the archeological discovery that some Biblical stories having a factual basis cannot be used to show the existence of a deity any more than the fact that Troy was discovered can be used to show the existence of Athena and Zeus.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Since this thread is about evolution I thought that it was obvious. We are discussing the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

Didn't he start this thread?