Evolution My ToE

[TagliatelliMonster]

So they think Adam and Eve evolved rather than were created?

No.

In fact, they don't even consider Adam and Eve to be real people and most certainly not "the first people".
Instead, they understand the difference between myth / allegory and reality.

 

[dad]

The person I responded to, denied that birds are dino's or are descendend from dino's.

False. Birds were created the same week as man and all other creatures. What I allowed was the possibility that some birds may have adapted rapidly to become dinosaurs. In the former nature, rapid changes were the natural order of the day. So, perhaps some dinos even adapted back into being birds or more bird-like. What we cannot say is that birds came to exist because of evolution from dinos.

The fact is, that birds ARE dino's. In response to such a denial, it seems quite meaningless to point out that it is impossible to define what a dino while birds being exluded from that definition.

Who cares about cult classification systems?

Birds are dino's, just like humans are mammals.

The lumping together of animals and mankind is something that demonstrates absolute ignorance of what it is all about and what man is.

They dominate perception in human culture and perhaps idd even exhibits. But they did not dominate, full stop.

Who cares? They all died anyhow!

Consider this: the vast majority of americans that I know off, are famous celebrity actors, musicians, performers, etc.

Yet among all americans, these are a minority. Most americans aren't big shots.
This is perception. When you say "dino", people think T-rex or brontosaurus.

I do not get too hung up on foolish classification systems. Ask a school kid what a dino is. Look at movies. Generally they are thought of as big and scary.

They don't consider velociraptor, which was the size of an average turkey.
There are dino's that would fit in your hand.

Still, they are scary little guys.

The are instead the result and conclusion of rigorous research and analysis of data.

A result of a total misunderstanding of the fossil record and genetic realites and other evidences, actually.

Once more: it is impossible to formulate a defintion of "dinosaur" which includes all dino's but excludes birds. Just like you can't define what a mammal is that describes all mammals but not humans.

Baloney. We do not know any dinos exited or not when birds were created.

When you define what a dino is, then that definition applies to birds also. Because birds ARE dino's.

In the strict and religious and cultish definition of false science, yes. Of course. In reality, no.

Evolution doesn't work like that. Species can not jump branches or outgrow their ancestry. This is a law of biology. Making stuff up, is not an argument.

Baloney! There are no branches and no tree, you made that up based on connecting things like fossil life. Hilarious. The fossils do not represent life on earth. Man was here before dinos probably. At least at the same time. The lack of man and other creatures in the fossil record does not mean we were not here. It means that we could not leave remains in the former nature.

Yes we do, by necessity.
Birds are dino's just like humans are mammals.
You can't define "dino" to include all dino's while excluding birds.

Yes I can.

If dinos adapted/evolved from some of the created bird kinds in the former nature, then we do not need to include dinos as original created kinds at all.

ANY definition of "dino" that includes all dino's, automatically also includes birds. Because birds are dino's.

We do not know that is true of the original kinds.

Just like ANY definition of "mammal" that includes all mammals, automatically includes humans. Because humans are mammals.

Man is not an animals or beast according to God. You have invented a little cult classification system that includes both. Whooopee meaningless doo.

Here's a generic biological definition:
Mammals are a group of warm-blooded vertebrate animals and include the largest animals on the planet. They are distinguished from other animals by having hair or fur and mammary glands for milk production in females

Find me a mammal that doesn't fit that definition. Find me a human that doesn't fit that definition.
Find me a non-mammal that does fit that defintion.

Meaningless. That is like saying all creatures who have eyes are listafarians. Therefore man and octopi are listofarians. Seriously?

Except that instead, it's based on objective and independently verifiable evidence.

It is based on partial information. Any real grouping would have man in a separate category.

 

[dad]

No.

In fact, they don't even consider Adam and Eve to be real people and most certainly not "the first people".
Instead, they understand the difference between myth / allegory and reality.

Who cares what ignorant men consider to be true?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, but that is the point. Most processes in nature don't have minds controlling them. Why would you expect evolution to be different?

How would laws be created without another governing law allowing it?

Does the "governing agency" think? (in other words, have a mind?)

 

[YoursTrue]

It really does't make a difference who said that. After all, we are human too, and I certainly never stated nor implied otherwise.

If I didn't think it made a difference who said it, I wouldn't have quoted it. People are people, and scientists assailed are said to be as narrow-minded and defensive as others. As you said more or less, people are people.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's not at all true because some accounts may only be partially true.

We know the Temple was destroyed by the Romans, and I have no reason to believe that Jesus didn't predict that. However, there's no way of knowing whether he actually made that prediction with any certainty since Matthew was written after the Temple had already been destroyed. Maybe Jesus said something along that line that Matthew applied to the destruction of the Temple, but this I simply do not know.

To put it another way, I don't believe in everything I read, nor do I believe that the Bible is inerrant, which is clearly what we call a "blind belief"-- namely a belief based on a form of idolatry. .However, it is a book of faith that I read at least twice per day every day of the year. Plus, I've taught Christian and Jewish theology for several decades now, so if it didn't mean much to me why would I have done that. [notice there's no questionmark at the end, as I wouldn't have done that if I didn't believe]

? With any certainty?? Yet you are certain that evolution occurred as said by scientists. With absolutely no real-time evidence of burgeoning genes and forms. Nothing. Far less than Matthew's writings and the subsequent destruction of Herod's temple in Jerusalem, which many are still mourning over.

 

[Polymath257]

Does the "governing agency" think? (in other words, have a mind?)

Not by any evidence we have, no. But then, neither does gravity.

 

[YoursTrue]

See my last post.

If the above is what your church is telling you, maybe find a church that simply doesn't lie in the name of "God". I did. The irony is that same exact church and denomination changed its tune and now accepts the reality of the ToE. If your church refuses to acknowledge reality, then let me recommend you find one that does.

BTW, it's very easy to basically prove the ToE, and it goes like this: All matter appears to change over time, and all genes and life forms are matter and thus change over time. That's what "evolution" is, and it stands to common sense even if one is not familiar with the science.

So let me ask you this question: what hope do you personally have for the future of mankind? So far, it seems to me you're making the Bible into an unreliable record. So again -- what if any hope do you see in the Bible for the future? I can tell you my hope. What about yours?

 

[YoursTrue]

Not by any evidence we have, no. But then, neither does gravity.

So then again, it's mindless. It just 'does.' Without thought.

 

[Polymath257]

So then again, it's mindless. It just 'does.' Without thought.

Right. So?

Thoughts seem to be processes limited to brains. We have no evidence of thoughts outside of brains. So why would we expect any natural process to be 'mindful'?

 

[YoursTrue]

That's not at all true because some accounts may only be partially true.

We know the Temple was destroyed by the Romans, and I have no reason to believe that Jesus didn't predict that. However, there's no way of knowing whether he actually made that prediction with any certainty since Matthew was written after the Temple had already been destroyed. Maybe Jesus said something along that line that Matthew applied to the destruction of the Temple, but this I simply do not know.

To put it another way, I don't believe in everything I read, nor do I believe that the Bible is inerrant, which is clearly what we call a "blind belief"-- namely a belief based on a form of idolatry. .However, it is a book of faith that I read at least twice per day every day of the year. Plus, I've taught Christian and Jewish theology for several decades now, so if it didn't mean much to me why would I have done that. [notice there's no questionmark at the end, as I wouldn't have done that if I didn't believe]

I commend you for reading it often. I, too, enjoy reading it as often as I can, and I learn more as I keep reading it. You call it a book of faith. Faith, according to the Bible is: "... the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)
We could say evolution is something similar (evidence of things not seen), but then what is it that is hoped for in evolution? And please do not misunderstand -- I am certain that viruses, for instance, can 'evolve' in a way. It doesn't mean to me that God is behind every single mechanism, including that of deformities, although some might think so. I don't. But I do believe He set certain mechanisms in progress. Such as the life cycle from Adam and Eve as they produced children. I have faith in what the Bible says. HOW exactly this will work out is yet to be seen. But I do know what the Bible says, and I believe it. (No more death. No more war. No more sickness. -- That's Revelation 21 and other places as well.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Right. So?

Thoughts seem to be processes limited to brains. We have no evidence of thoughts outside of brains. So why would we expect any natural process to be 'mindful'?

Then there should be no conflict when I call evolution 'mindless' which is why this conversation on that subject started. True, bodily functions don't necessarily need us to think about everything. My heart beats without me telling it to. I am often not mindful of my heart beating. But if I contemplate future actions, or dwell on certain thoughts, I am mindful.

 

[YoursTrue]

See my last post.

If the above is what your church is telling you, maybe find a church that simply doesn't lie in the name of "God". I did. The irony is that same exact church and denomination changed its tune and now accepts the reality of the ToE. If your church refuses to acknowledge reality, then let me recommend you find one that does.

BTW, it's very easy to basically prove the ToE, and it goes like this: All matter appears to change over time, and all genes and life forms are matter and thus change over time. That's what "evolution" is, and it stands to common sense even if one is not familiar with the science.

Going back to your question there. Do you believe that there is a mindful, thoughtful direction put in place by a higher source concerning evolution? Or -- does it just happen by itself, start by itself without a superior intelligent force, sometimes called creator? What do you believe?

 

[Polymath257]

Then there should be no conflict when I call evolution 'mindless' which is why this conversation on that subject started. True, bodily functions don't necessarily need us to think about everything. My heart beats without me telling it to. I am often not mindful of my heart beating. But if I contemplate future actions, or dwell on certain thoughts, I am mindful.

I just wonder if you would also call gravity mindless. Or chemistry. Why the focus on the mindlessness of evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

Right. So?

Thoughts seem to be processes limited to brains. We have no evidence of thoughts outside of brains. So why would we expect any natural process to be 'mindful'?

I have come to the conclusion after reading, studying, and recognizing what the Bible says, that there IS a Creator who cares. As said, which I did not understand years ago when I was a self-proclaimed atheist but now have come to believe, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

 

[YoursTrue]

I just wonder if you would also call gravity mindless. Or chemistry. Why the focus on the mindlessness of evolution?

Evolution is mindless as described in the long run by many scientists. They may not use the term mindless, but yes, it is mindless, without thought, without thought of consequence. And yes, while a nuclear bomb may be put into action by humans (with minds and thought), the forces within the bomb do not have a mind or thoughts.

 

[YoursTrue]

I just wonder if you would also call gravity mindless. Or chemistry. Why the focus on the mindlessness of evolution?

Also because this is a discussion centering around the ToE.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

False. Birds were created the same week as man and all other creatures.

I'm sorry, but bare assertions of fantastical tales don't really count as arguments.

What I allowed was the possibility that some birds may have adapted rapidly to become dinosaurs.

Reality cares not what you "allow".

Who cares about cult classification systems?

Irony.

The lumping together of animals and mankind is something that demonstrates absolute ignorance of what it is all about and what man is.

Animal: Animals are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms, which are heterotrophic, meaning they obtain nutrition from organic sources

Read more: http://www.biologyreference.com/A-Ar/Animalia.html#ixzz6JsPWyNap


Sounds to me like humans fit that definition.
Sticking your head in the sand won't help.

Any definition of "animal" that includes all animals will also include humans.
It's impossible to define what an animal is in such a way that it includes all animals and excludes humans.
Heck, it's impossible to define what an ape is without excluding humans while including all apes.

You may deny it all you wish. You are also welcome to try to come up with such definitions also.
I bet you can't do it without arbitrarily adding "...but not humans" to the definition.

Who cares? They all died anyhow!

You certainly don't care about what the facts are, that's clear.
People who like to not hold false beliefs, like me, usually care about facts, since facts are what validates or invalidates beliefs.

I do not get too hung up on foolish classification systems. Ask a school kid what a dino is.

I bet a school kid might know better then you, actually.
In any case, in a discussion about scientific knowledge, why would we care what kids think?

My kid thinks that when I leave the room, I disappear from existence and then she screams like the 4-month old that she is, only to burst into laughter when I reappear from nothing again upon entering the room.

I don't think the beliefs and opinions of kids matter when it comes to scientific subjects.

Look at movies. Generally they are thought of as big and scary.

I'ld think that that is because making a movie about a huge monster is a bit more exciting and impressive then similar monsters the size of turkeys.

Still, they are scary little guys.

Which is irrelevant to the point that it's wrong to say that dino's were these huge monsters as if that's some kind of argument against birds being dino descendends (and still dino's themselves). SOME dino's were huge. Many were not. Many had feathers too. Just like birds.

A result of a total misunderstanding of the fossil record and genetic realites and other evidences, actually.

How come millions of experts in fields like molecular biology, paleontology, biology, evolutionary biology, genetics, genomics, phylogenics, anatomy, comparative anatomy, etc etc etc all converge on those exact same "totally misunderstood" conclusions then?

What's more likely? That they are ALL wrong in the same way and that YOU, some fundamentalist dogmatic religious believer with no relevant education on the matter whatsoever are correct?

Or that you just don't know what you are talking about, seeing as how you have no relevant education on the matter whatsoever AND you have a dogmatic adherence to a fundamentalist version of some ancient religion?

Excuse me while I go by the millions of experts who can actually demonstrate their conclusions, instead of a fundamentalist who asks me to have "faith" instead.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then there should be no conflict when I call evolution 'mindless' which is why this conversation on that subject started.

No. Nobody said that it "conflicts" anything. Instead, people called it useless, meaningless. As it is redundant.

Like saying "an unmarried bachelor". It's meaningless to add the word "unmarried" to "bachelor" because being unmarried is implied by "bachelor". Just like "mindless" is implied by "natural process".

A natural process is something that occurs as a result of a combination of physical laws, the forces at work (gravity, electro-magnetism and whatnot) and properties of matter, interacting.

There's no "mind" there doing anything.
There are no "minds" at work in "falling", in tornado's forming or raging, in volcano's forming and erupting, in chemical reactions taking place inside plants when they absord carbon dioxide or engaging in photosynthesis, in cells splitting, in evolution occuring.

It's what natural processes are.

True, bodily functions don't necessarily need us to think about everything. My heart beats without me telling it to. I am often not mindful of my heart beating. But if I contemplate future actions, or dwell on certain thoughts, I am mindful.

Which has nothing to do with the subject of no "mind" being active in natural processes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Going back to your question there. Do you believe that there is a mindful, thoughtful direction put in place by a higher source concerning evolution? Or -- does it just happen by itself, start by itself without a superior intelligent force, sometimes called creator? What do you believe?

An evolutionary process will inevitably occur when you have systems that reproduce with variation and which are in competition over limited resources.

Your question is not sensible.

The process WILL occur in those circumstances. So at best you could claim that some "mind" at certain points tried or did "steer" the process by fiddeling arund with DNA and introducing specific mutations or something, but 1. there is no reason at all to think that happened and 2. then that mind did it in such a way that it is completely indistuinguishable with what the process without intervention would have been capable of anyway.

So to me, that amounts to a form of "last thursdayism". A position that can not be falsified and in no way defended or supported. It is... "not even wrong".

So sure, while a "fiddeling mind" could not be ruled out (or IN, wich is a key point), it isn't even needed in the first place.