How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[Subduction Zone]

That is the point. There is a prostitute symbolically speaking, of course. You can do some research on that. I'm glad you brought that up.

Not a real one? Darn, I am so disappointed.

The point is that there are many parts of the Bible where one would be foolish to take it literally.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not a real one? Darn, I am so disappointed.

The point is that there are many parts of the Bible where one would be foolish to take it literally.

It's real, all right. Just not the way you might think of it. why would you be disappointed. I can only imagine your former religion did not discuss that part of Revelation and what it might mean.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes I used to argue that years ago,,,,,,,,,, that what atheists then were calling random was actually something that God could understand even if they could not.

OK

Surely you also believe that God can step in and do whatever He likes and that people would not know that it was God who did it.

I believe in God, but not the anthropomorphic hands on God the needs to "do what God (not he nor she) wants" Humans cannot objectively know when God is involved or not One believes in God. I believe God is predominately involve and Creates naturally.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is correct. But to say (as someone did here) that everything is literal in the Bible is simply not true. So thank you for your observation.

That is only partly correct and misrepresents my complete posts, Yes, the authors of the Bible and the Church Fathers believed what they wrote literally true, but unfortunately it represents an ancient cultural mythology without any knowledge of science, therefore not remotely true..

It is a problem when believers manipulate the text to make it fit what they want to believe. In plain understanding of the text of Genesis our physical existence was Created in seven days .

 

[John53]

Yup, if you say so. Have a good one...as you look forward or not to your descendants evolving...

You said so not me.

What are they evolving into?

 

[YoursTrue]

You said so not me.

What are they evolving into?

So do you and scientists believe all life forms evolve or maybe only some of them or maybe some do not evolve?

 

[John53]

So do you and scientists believe all life forms evolve or maybe only some of them or maybe some do not evolve?

I don't speak for scientists but I believe life has evolved into the diversity we see today.

 

[YoursTrue]

You said so not me.

What are they evolving into?

So humans you think may not evolve?

 

[YoursTrue]

You said so not me.

What are they evolving into?

Do you think scientists think fish knew what they were evolving to? Some fish obviously stayed fish, while some evolved according to science, little by little and eventually became humans. So the question is, what is your personal idea of your future? Not all fish of course evolved (according to science) to be gorillas, monkeys, or humans, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't speak for scientists but I believe life has evolved into the diversity we see today.

I understand that. That is also what most scientists say. Some fish remained fish in the water while others, they say, eventually developed legs and lungs that could sustain them out of water and they could not revert back to strictly water dwellers.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't speak for scientists but I believe life has evolved into the diversity we see today.

I think most of us here know that science teaches all life in every aspect has evolved.

 

[gnostic]

Again...from the"evidence," and I appreciate your consideration, bird beaks growing smaller or larger or things like that...they still remain...birds.

Of course, they remained birds.

But birds are not species, YoursTrue. Birds, or it biological taxon name is class Aves. There are whole lot of subclasses, orders, suborders, families, subfamilies, genera, species, subspecies, clades, and so on. Birds or Aves are just umbrella name of some shared but very general physical traits.

Saying that every birds having beaks or wings or feathers, “are still birds”, just demonstrates your illiteracy in biology, your incompetency of not learning more about the vast diversity of species.

While falcons and eagles are both birds of prey, they don’t belong into the same order, so their respective families, genera and species differed.

But even the name “falcon” and “eagle”, are not names of their species, they are names of their respective genera, so:

• genus Falco (falcon) include all different species and subspecies of the Falco, so the species Falco tinnunculus, otherwise known as “common kestrel”, the species Falco peregrinus or “peregrine falcon”, and species Falco rusticolus or “gyrfalcon”, are 3 different species of falcons or of the genus Falco. With the kestrels, there are many different species for the kestrels.
• genus Aquila, a Latin name eagle, and like the genus Falco, there are many different species of eagles. Examples, Aquila audax or “wedge-tailed eagle”, Aquila chrysaetos or “golden eagle”, are 3 different species of the genus Aquila (eagle).

You are ignoring that their order or family or genus, these taxons are not species.

No one is saying they are not birds, as birds doesn’t tell us much about the different orders, families & species. Biologists are very specifics in details, while you are being ignorantly general.

The questions to you -

Do the peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) belong to the same species as the common ostriches (species Struthio camelus)?​

​

How do they differ, anatomically or morphologically, physiologically?​

​

 

[John53]

Do you think scientists think fish knew what they were evolving to? Some fish obviously stayed fish, while some evolved according to science, little by little and eventually became humans. So the question is, what is your personal idea of your future? Not all fish of course evolved (according to science) to be gorillas, monkeys, or humans, right?

I am not a scientist nor do I read minds but I doubt if scientist think fish are aware of evolution.

Nor can I predict the future.

 

[John53]

I understand that. That is also what most scientists say. Some fish remained fish in the water while others, they say, eventually developed legs and lungs that could sustain them out of water and they could not revert back to strictly water dwellers.

Yes they could, whales and dugongs can't live out of the water. Seals and penguins are close.

 

[John53]

I think most of us here know that science teaches all life in every aspect has evolved.

And your point is?

 

[Sargonski]

Actually, we have. There are no confirmed planets orbiting the main components of alpha Centauri (note the spelling), but Proxima Centauri has two confirmed planets (Proxima Cen b and d). The density of cheese is about 1.0 g/cm³, whereas Proxima's planets have densities of about 4.0 and 2.7 g/cm³. Therefore these planets are not made of cheese. QED.

Good grief .. folks clicking like on this post is sad commentary ..

1) the point is not that the moon is actually made of Green cheese or not . .. come up with an example that fits the .. just because you can't prove that X is false .. doesn't mean that X is true

2) you have no idea whether not a small but very dense inner core of Green cheese resides inside said planet .. donut .. the whole planet need not be made of Green cheese for the axiom to be fallacious nonsense on steroids Right ?! .

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

K .. good start -- but you need to be more specific

Not sure how to do that. it's pretty straight forward.

.. humans for example have developed the ability to "Violate" the law of Gravity .. learned to fly

No. Flight of planes (or birds or whatever) doesn't violate any natural law. It uses aerodynamics etc.
A rocket spending insane amounts of energy to achieve escape velocity doesn't violate any natural law either.

Keep in mind that this term is being used in the context of Godly powers

So?

.. such that one who could perform such deeds would be said to be a God .. and thus God is defined by the powers she has ....

So?

 

[YoursTrue]

And your point is?

Most here know that science teaches all life evolved and was mot designed by an intelligent force. Thus, some fish emerged slowly, very slowly from water -- developed legs by mutations and air-breathing lungs and nostrils and stayed on land. To recap: that's what many people believe, including scientists. That is my point. That is what the science of evolution teaches.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Most here know that science teaches all life evolved and was mot designed by an intelligent force. Thus, some fish emerged slowly, very slowly from water -- developed legs by mutations and air-breathing lungs and nostrils and stayed on land. To recap: that's what many people believe, including scientists. That is my point. That is what the science of evolution teaches.

That is not true as what science teaches in regards to an intelligent force.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not true as what science teaches in regards to an intelligent force.

Sorry, I made a typo there. OK, science, you say, if I understand you correctly, does NOT teach there was no intelligent force behind the process of evolution. In other words, they (the scientists, for the most part) think there could be an invisible intelligent force behind the process of evolution but they don't find any evidence of that, so maybe they think there is, and maybe there is not, right?