How do you define evolution?

[SkepticThinker]

Upon reflection, looking at pictures of bees (I just got a book about bees - <g>) I figure (I haven't investigated this much) that bees may make (?) different types. This does not mean that God did not enable them to do so. But! the idea that the various branches of the Darwinian model explains plants, tigers, bees, elephants as all evolving is something I (1) do not see or recognize, and (2) no longer see it as logical or logically theoretical now. But thank you so much (really) for your nicely expressed ideas.
As usual, I still have questions about the gap between groups that somehow are said to be highly related. Such as lions and tigers. Do I know how they got to be that way in those two groups, except by conjecture? OK, scientific conjecture. No. Beyond the fact that I cannot right now account for the (rather permanent) changes. But again, it seems reasonable for me now to believe that God made the earth's atmosphere relative to the sun for growth of plants and animals on the earth. Meaning that I re-read the Genesis account. It doesn't go into detail. But it does help to see that somehow Moses knew the earth's atmosphere was made ready for life on it.
P.S. Slightly off the subject, SZ, I was looking in admiration and amazement at pictures of bees, and their ways. OK, I wasn't trained in the sciences and I know the various forms of animals have their own studies. But bees are amazing! I simply cannot imagine they just "came about" by evolutionary forces. No. Not at all. This does not mean that I don't think somehow the various types of bees emerged from one another--(I don't really know)-- but again -- I think God is highly involved, meaning He is the one that causes to be in life forms. Not that He causes deformities. I don't believe He does. I believe these come about because of His allowing imperfection to exist at the present. I also do not believe or see that deformities (mutations?) enable better living conditions for those who inherit such. We all inherit disabilities, my aching bones tell me that. I saw the birth of a baby giraffe on youtube. The mother giraffe did not seem to be in any pain whatsoever dropping this (not) little baby. She just let it go. And by instinct the baby did what babies do. Naw -- it's too amazing for me to think these ways just came about. Again - do I think science can explain how these guys including bees know how to do what they do? :=)

Your last paragraph is nothing more than an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.
Just because you can't imagine how something happened, doesn't mean it didn't happen and it doesn't mean that your made-up explanation is true, especially when you haven't demonstrated that your made-up explanation is anywhere close to being true.

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK, looking back at the statistics, I see that bonobos are considered to be among humans closest relatives, sharing "98.7% of their genetic material with humans."
But that 1.3% difference makes a whole lot of difference in -- thinking and creativity. And breeding. "Let us make man in our image..."

So what? You're avoiding the point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do not take everything in the Bible as literal. In reference to the shape of the earth, as a child I used to think and believe the earth was round like a ball. I saw pictures in school and believed them. Had no reason not to. Not quite like I shrugged my shoulders, or held them solid when learning about evolution. I had no alternative opinion about that. I believed it because I couldn't figure who God was, so I figured without much else to go by, that evolution must be true.
I used to go to the beach with my mother when I was a little child and wonder if I could dig deep enough maybe I could reach the other side. I see no proof from anyone, including those who say the earth is like a disc, that it's flat. Or a disc. So to say that because I believe Moses not only existed as a person, but believe that he wrote most of what's in the writings credited to him does not mean I am a flat-earther.
OK, well, I'm going to say good night, it's been a pleasant conversation. I am now reading a couple of chapters in Deuteronomy, ascribed to Moses, about the entrance to the promised land, many places are mentioned that are specific. There's so much to research, so many things to learn.

Spiderman comics mention specific, real places in New York City, but that doesn't mean that Spiderman is real, does it?

 

[ecco]

So to say that because I believe Moses not only existed as a person, but believe that he wrote most of what's in the writings credited to him does not mean I am a flat-earther.

But you have not denied it either.
How about heliocentricity? Or do you believe, as the Bible implies, that the earth is the center of the universe?

 

[YoursTrue]

When the rift between two groups gets large enough they cannot successfully breed with each other. An example are lions and tigers. They can interbreed, but the offspring eventually run into a dead end. The two groups have separated past the point of reunification. And it is not that the "genes do not duplicate". That is a rather nonsensical phrase in biology.

Once again -- upon reflection -- while the rift is big enough to determine that the lion and tiger cannot successfully mate in the long run, I wonder -- why? Now reasoning would say to someone, well, there were evidently groups of like animals that separated from one another and eventually had changing genes so ultimately the genetic change was so great there was no successful "intermixing." (my term.) But let me sum up my position (again) -- this does not mean that God did not enable changes like that to happen in these groups. Does that mean I believe in evolution of the Darwinian kind? No. It means so far to me that the mechanics for diversity / among certain types (such as mammals vs. fish) were enabled by God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Spiderman comics mention specific, real places in New York City, but that doesn't mean that Spiderman is real, does it?

It does mean, however, to those that know, that NYC exists, or at least existed maybe if it disappeared and Spiderman comic survived, perhaps in a time capsule under a rock. Or maybe they would question if NYC ever existed as Spiderman comics would have had it. Just as unearthed monuments demonstrate (oh, no, not prove, I suppose) that they existed. Meantime, it's been a long time since the collection of the scrolls were begun. And that in itself is an interesting examination.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It does mean, however, to those that know, that NYC exists, or at least existed maybe if it disappeared and Spiderman comic survived, perhaps in a time capsule under a rock. Or maybe they would question if NYC ever existed as Spiderman comics would have had it. Just as unearthed monuments demonstrate (oh, no, not prove, I suppose) that they existed. Meantime, it's been a long time since the collection of the scrolls were begun. And that in itself is an interesting examination.

Um sure. Finding that NYC actually exists doesn't make Spiderman real, right? Do you think that when archaeologists found and dug up the city of Troy, that suddenly makes the stories from ancient Greek mythology true? I.e. That Zeus, Apollo and all the other Gods the ancient Greeks worshipped are real?

It would be super awesome if you'd address the point for once.

 

[shunyadragon]

lol, I don't think so. Meantime, all you do basically is call me names. <g> Furthermore, while I find this illogical and sometimes amusing, I also wonder jesst how far back a person can go with their genealogical findings, I mean isn't there a gap between human genes and bonobos? C'mon now...it's either yes, or no. After you say yes or no, then you may go on to your reasoning as to why it's either yes, or no. (Thank you.)

Again . . .

The above is not a coherent science response as usual. The facts that you are intentionally ignorant of science is well documented.

 

[shunyadragon]

It does mean, however, to those that know, that NYC exists, or at least existed maybe if it disappeared and Spiderman comic survived, perhaps in a time capsule under a rock. Or maybe they would question if NYC ever existed as Spiderman comics would have had it. Just as unearthed monuments demonstrate (oh, no, not prove, I suppose) that they existed. Meantime, it's been a long time since the collection of the scrolls were begun. And that in itself is an interesting examination.

The same problem exists with the Bible as the historical record as the Spiderman Comics no 'objective verifiable evidence,' as a historical record. Yes, there is a verifiable historical evidence for New York City and the cities in the Bible, but no 'objective evidence' for Genesis as a historical record, and the miraculous events in the Bible nor the Spiderman Comics.

 

[ecco]

It does mean, however, to those that know, that NYC exists, or at least existed maybe if it disappeared and Spiderman comic survived, perhaps in a time capsule under a rock.

Quick, tell us where Gotham disappeared to.

Where did Iota Geminorum IV go?

 

[night912]

It does mean, however, to those that know, that NYC exists, or at least existed maybe if it disappeared and Spiderman comic survived, perhaps in a time capsule under a rock. Or maybe they would question if NYC ever existed as Spiderman comics would have had it. Just as unearthed monuments demonstrate (oh, no, not prove, I suppose) that they existed. Meantime, it's been a long time since the collection of the scrolls were begun. And that in itself is an interesting examination.

And those critical thinkers who are being rational, would be skeptical about the idea of spider man actually existed and/or that NYC was actually how it is portrayed in the spider man comics.

 

[night912]

Quick, tell us where Gotham disappeared to.

Well, since you asked, Gotham did not disappear. Here it is.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, since you asked, Gotham did not disappear. Here it is.

View attachment 54813

The map location of the REAL Gotham City is a bit off. It is located in the center of the county in the largest nightclub in the center of Ann Arbor, Michigan, the Cavern Cave with black lights and an infinity mirror.

The other Gotham City is not real.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans look at human bodies claim it science. To be seen as a human life.

Did science invent or create the human life they look at?

No.

Then a human looks at a monkey.

I look at humans see they are human.

First observation.

I look at monkeys nothing like a human.

First observation.

First observation humans said presence life is with God.

God was defined as a one of planet earth creator of its owned heavens.

No other status.

As a God statement said by humans as science notification. By humans on behalf of natural life.

Then there is science the theist who as a human says they know it all.

The history of the human argument. Natural versus human egotists. destroyer.

By machine conditions the reason for all theories looking for God as the idea first source.

For energy.
For resource.
For trade.
For greed.
For machines. All about just machines.

To give the machination life by reactive controls to allow the machine to also actively convert planet mass.

Satanism. I want energy and energy control as a human inventor.

So they claim evil invented us as a thinker using maths. Knowing maths never created anything.

As they use maths to allow conversion by science to be practiced.

So their claim next is medical. Biology.

To observe bodily functions.
Medical advice only.

As two natural bodies do exist and live.

Medical advice to look at the inner body functions of the body living owning life observed in life.

Medical only.

Then you have the human theist who says all bodies have the same one history to exist by energy.

He wants new energy resource yet says I have no new resource.

I must somehow find the source of all energy.

Yet a bio body is nothing like an anergy mass body. God earth.

So as he theories he says he is trying to understand atmospheric energy by bio conditions how a monkey body by energy changed into a human.

As if he is a God claiming I will convert a monkey into a higher life body the human self. By a theory how by energy cells changed. Then I will finally have God. The source.

The source I want energy.

Science medical says if evolution was by species. A monkey had sex and the baby body changed for some reason.

Science I think I am a God ignores the reasoning. Sex as life continuance as species propogation. Even in nature body.

The babies no longer monkeys science biology thesis said a monkey form evolved into humans who had human sex and had human babies.

Human species separate life. Biology says so...science.

If the human intention is to claim I am studying God. Then a human in science by ego says I am pretending I am the God who caused change.

The scientist theist discusses only about the atmospheric conditions only does not accept the monkey had sex answer.

A human is just human.
A monkey just a monkey.

Both life bodies have been procreating their own baby species for a long time.

Is the real answer. What truth in science is. Not any theory. Fact of evidence in nature.

God is a human teaching with God meaning natural. The science of God said sex by choice procreated the species. Of two parents owning two babies.

On gods ark O stone ark planet God earth travelling around the sun as a journey.

The attack on life said man had in science sacrificed life as his bio body is nothing like the tree of life wood. That he had theoried upon.

As a scientific theist life existing within the atmospheric heavens

It was never a theory of how God did anything as humans owned the argument against human sciences using machines changing life by their thesis science...in the beginning

Whilst living and existing as the human.

What the bible never taught it was a human science choice to cause life attack.

 

[shunyadragon]

Once again -- upon reflection -- while the rift is big enough to determine that the lion and tiger cannot successfully mate in the long run, I wonder -- why? Now reasoning would say to someone, well, there were evidently groups of like animals that separated from one another and eventually had changing genes so ultimately the genetic change was so great there was no successful "intermixing." (my term.) But let me sum up my position (again) -- this does not mean that God did not enable changes like that to happen in these groups. Does that mean I believe in evolution of the Darwinian kind? No. It means so far to me that the mechanics for diversity / among certain types (such as mammals vs. fish) were enabled by God.

You are back peddling your original false assertions with more false assertions without science based on a religious agenda.

 

[rational experiences]

The cosmic lying theist says a theory water mass microbe bacterias. First life forms in his theory machine want of reactions.

Ignores nature garden forms by billions.
Ignores billions diverse species.
Ignores human presence.

Living in water oxygen heavens. Natural bodies nothing like any bacteria or microbe.

His thesis is direct to the lowest life forms.

So in science his thesis actually about cosmic radiation says removal of all other natural bodies just to equal a maths equation based on pre determined biological studies.. Microbe or bacteria.

So he lies about use of data.

As self maths equals answer maths as evidence.

Of I want.

So he builds the machination he says will cause the outcome to his science maths equals answer. To invent the beginning.

Yet he says no it is only about the reaction inside of his machine.

As he pretends he is as man a God.

Studies radiation mass leaving the earth body.

Which equals his machine. By causes heated alchemical conversions water mass in stone also.

He uses water in nature to own machine as he removed water in mineral material first.

So his machines owns nothing whatsoever. His thesis says just natural earth. No new science at all by theory.

In his mind all theories are in fact first just about planet earth.

He is just the brain mind controller self. Of machine a human not God. Nor is his machine any God.

Says machine reaction is inside the machine only.

Pretend coercion. As he theories natural atmosphere and God earth first.

Then takes out of earth what he says was its heavens beginnings. Mass chemicals to convert into a gas.

Notice the heavens in nature never began in the science format.

When earth released first hot gases.

First lie.

The machine not first place in natural cosmos he places cold gases instant. Says now I own the state the heavens.

Another coercive lie.

Then he says the atmosphere owns all energetic reactions he studies. I want what the atmosphere owns.

Says after studying UFO released returned to ground...yet it entered water mass by volume of UFO status.

Fish irradiated in shoals mass die proving it evil only.

Scientist said I want UFO to return direct to my machine body. As he knows machine presence equals radiation mass that left earth mass by his maths theory design for machine is first.

Doesn't tell the public by passing radiation through earths atmosphere first. Says it is naturally already occurring.

No machine is involved he says. Yet first science machines is already involved. Another lie.

Science says but I am only doing the reaction inside my machine.

Where did the heavens gases you use come from?

The same place the body mass of his machine had.

That circumstance is determined lying.

 

[YoursTrue]

When the rift between two groups gets large enough they cannot successfully breed with each other. An example are lions and tigers. They can interbreed, but the offspring eventually run into a dead end. The two groups have separated past the point of reunification. And it is not that the "genes do not duplicate". That is a rather nonsensical phrase in biology.

I have been thinking about this (again). And really I see that the entire theory is, yes, conjectural, based on look-alikes and studies of genetic similarities. This is not to say that genes do not change; they obviously do, such as when a male and female mates. It is too incredible now for me, now that I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, to imagine that it all came about by sheer circumstance. It's too incredibly complicated to begin with for it just to have happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are back peddling your original false assertions with more false assertions without science based on a religious agenda.

At least SubductionZone is a good teacher, even though I disagree with his conclusions.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are back peddling your original false assertions with more false assertions without science based on a religious agenda.

I have realized, based upon reading your posts and others, including the scientific links sometimes offered backing up your suppositions, that your analysis of the evidence is based on faith, far moreso than my belief now in God, also based on faith. There is far more evidence in the Bible than I see in your theoretical viewpoints, and I thank you for teaching me these things, than there is for the theory of evolution. Anyway, I don't want to go further with this with you right now, because of your insulting attitude, so I will wish you a good enough evening. (P.S. There IS no evidence conclusively drawing to evolution of the Darwinian kind.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have been thinking about this (again). And really I see that the entire theory is, yes, conjectural, based on look-alikes and studies of genetic similarities. This is not to say that genes do not change; they obviously do, such as when a male and female mates. It is too incredible now for me, now that I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, to imagine that it all came about by sheer circumstance. It's too incredibly complicated to begin with for it just to have happened.

You have to know that is not true. It s based upon the scientific method and testing. You are now trying to make excuses for your belief that God is a liar.

The theory of evolution can be and has been tested countless times. Meanwhile the term "Creation scientist" is an oxymoron since creationists refuse to follow the scientific method. And if one refuses to follow the scientific method enjoying the fruits of that method does make them to be more than just a little bit hypocritical. Why don't you reject all science?

Youi probably do not even understand what evidence is. There are more than one types of evidence, but the Bible fails as a source of evidence when tested.