Evolution My ToE

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

By George, I believe you've nailed it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Didn't he start this thread?

Yes, but recently a side trip was taken. He still lacks evidence for his claims about the Bible. We then took a sidetrip to another thread of his where he tried, and utterly failed, to defend the Tyre prophecy. One of the worst failed prophecies in the Bible. In fact it is a BOGO.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, but recently a side trip was taken. He still lacks evidence for his claims about the Bible. We then took a sidetrip to another thread of his where he tried, and utterly failed, to defend the Tyre prophecy. One of the worst failed prophecies in the Bible. In fact it is a BOGO.

I have not looked, but I feel fairly he has also not posted nearly 1700 posts on this thread either. That is roughly what his claim of 50% participation would come to. Claims like that are his mainstay.

 

[dad]

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

You better stick to pretending to debate on issues other than the bible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

The last section of your post goes a long to supporting the idea that you defer to belief and church doctrine over evidence and valid scientific theory. I accept the theory of evolution and natural selection based on the evidence of scholarly effort. I do not believe it like you or I believe in God, based on faith. Evolution and natural selection have been more than sufficiently demonstrated and no church will convince me to lie to myself and others about that. Didn't you recently claim to accept evolution? Am I mistaken? If so, your statements make little sense unless you just believe without understanding. That is possible, but hardly intellectual.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You better stick to pretending to debate on issues other than the bible.

LOL. dad just agreed that I won.

 

[Bear Wild]

I would like to say something here. While the Bible speaks of God in the masculine sense, that is because of the type of language. But God is not human. Also, since God is spoken of as the Maker of the heavens and the earth, He can maneuver genes to accomplish His will. Again, while I don't know everything, I would like to ask you if you believe there is evil or sinful actions in this world.

How do you know god can maneuver genes to accomplish his will? Just saying it is so does not mean it is real. As for the maker of the heavens and earth, again just because people want to believe it does not make it so.

 

[McBell]

You better stick to pretending to debate on issues other than the bible.

You really should take your own advice.

 

[Bear Wild]

You really should take your own advice.

He cant you see because if he admitted it his world would fall apart.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

The data in the Bible points to repeated and cumulative experiences throughout centuries, detailing in account after account both history and progressive details about things like the temple in Jerusalem, as well as what went on during the centuries in and out of Jerusalem for that group of people. The main thrust in regard to their dealings and understanding of their relationship with their God. I don't know if the same can be said about Athena. Can it?

 

[dad]

You really should take your own advice.

I can debate on bible issues fine, thanks.

 

[dad]

LOL. dad just agreed that I won.

The opposite is true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The opposite is true.

I was going to say that you can do better.

dad, can you support any of your claims at all?

 

[McBell]

I can debate on bible issues fine, thanks.

You have already demonstrated that you cannot

 

[YoursTrue]

How do you know god can maneuver genes to accomplish his will? Just saying it is so does not mean it is real. As for the maker of the heavens and earth, again just because people want to believe it does not make it so.

First of all, I believe in God and His capabilities, both to form life and to change its capabilities. I also believe in the Bible. And since it says that God made man from the dust and Eve from Adam's rib (and I believe that, despite the ToE), I also believe He caused Mary's reproductive powers to move along without human interaction from a male. That, I believe, is also in conjunction with a Bible prophecy. Now I don't know too much about DNA, but since all of us inherit genes and capabilities from our predecessors, I figure Mary had genes that allowed the Almighty God to cause her to have a child without human intervention.

 

[Bear Wild]

First of all, I believe in God and His capabilities, both to form life and to change its capabilities. I also believe in the Bible. And since it says that God made man from the dust and Eve from Adam's rib (and I believe that, despite the ToE), I also believe He caused Mary's reproductive powers to move along without human interaction from a male. That, I believe, is also in conjunction with a Bible prophecy. Now I don't know too much about DNA, but since all of us inherit genes and capabilities from our predecessors, I figure Mary had genes that allowed the Almighty God to cause her to have a child without human intervention.

She did not have a Y chromosome unless she was not human. So now we have a god that can go inside a woman's body to convert one of the eggs in to the male equivalent of a sperm then guide them together to implant into the uterus. Does that sound right to you?
If god becomes that active in a woman then why doesn't that god go in and correct the genetic defects in children or turn off the tumor genes in those who believe in him with malignant cancers?
Why didn't god just use the appropriate organic compounds to make adam? Why change the atomic particles in dust to become organic? Why rip out a rib from Adam then genetically manipulate the genetic material to convert all of the y chromosomes to X so eve could be female unless she was actually male?
There is only one answer - these are myths created by people who knew very little about biological systems.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was going to say that you can do better.

dad, can you support any of your claims at all?

I have not seen it happen even once by accident.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How do you know god can maneuver genes to accomplish his will? Just saying it is so does not mean it is real. As for the maker of the heavens and earth, again just because people want to believe it does not make it so.

I am a Christian raised by Christians in a community full of Christians and attended Christian churches my whole life, but I never had to manufacture hocus pocus to force reality to fit my personal beliefs. I do not understand why some people need that. Belief based thinking, fear, ignorance, and indoctrination rather than introduction seems to be the best explanation I can come up with for it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The last section of this post goes a long to supporting the idea that you defer to believe and church doctrine over evidence and valid scientific theory. I accept the theory of evolution and natural selection based on the evidence of scholarly effort. I do not believe it like you or I believe in God, based on faith. Evolution and natural selection have been more than sufficiently demonstrated and no church will convince me to lie to myself and others about that. Didn't you recently claim to accept evolution? Am I mistaken? If so, your statements make little sense unless you just believe without understanding. That is possible, but hardly intellectual.

What’s so hard to believe? I accept what the Bible states, that organisms were created “according to their kinds”, which I believe may relate to most family levels in taxonomy...which means natural selection took it from there, and more species began forming / evolving within those parameters.

So I don’t believe He created every * single * species that ever lived.

I don’t believe in a UCA.

 

[dad]

You have already demonstrated that you cannot

Sure kid.