How do you define evolution?

[YoursTrue]

Again . . .

'In reflection there is no real verification of the genetic and literal process of evolution.' from your perspective is ro rely on the faith of your belief, one of hundreds of thousands of different conflicting claims based on 'faith' with no effort to consider the scientific evidence, You have no knowledge of what is verifiable in science and what is not. Religious beliefs are subjective and not verifiable by any independent objective methods.

I know that genes exist, and can form a being. And, in an interesting way, when a man dies, his genes die too. In other words, his being is dead. In other words, in order for any of his genes to be passed on, he must combine them with a female's genes. I think. That is what makes families I suppose, in the vague parlance of the human race. (families) I do believe all humas are related genetically. Genetic transference from person to person can form tribes also. It does not, however, mean to me any longer that mankind came about from evolution of some "unknown common ancestor" involved with chimpanzees, bonobos, etc., and humans..

 

[YoursTrue]

Again . . .

...Religious beliefs are subjective and not verifiable by any independent objective methods.

It depends. Mahatma Ghandi, for instance, had one perspective. Not all agree with his views. But, as you say, religions, while differing, have many adherents. And some are doctors, lawyers, and leaders of state. Etc. Many of those also believe in evolution. And adhere to different belief systems.

 

[YoursTrue]

And you got plenty of it.
Your response was "i don't believe this evidence".

So yea...........................

Seems like an exercise in futility, to give you evidence of a scientific theory that you are hellbend, and even religious required, to reject.



See? PURE argument from incredulity.

"I disagree because I don't believe it".

Ie: "my evidence against evolution, is that i don't believe it".


uhu.



Why would we care what the bible says when the topic is modern biology?

And that is one reason why I am not discussing much about what the Bible says on this thread. No, I no longer believe that evolution is the reason for human existence as well as the rest of life on earth, to be more specific about it. It (the theory) no longer makes sense to me as I examine it, but -- that doesn't mean that others must agree with me. I mean I don't see that what is considered by scientists as the evidence of fish becoming land-rovers is true. So, of course, while there may be fossils perhaps of animals that look like fish but have limbs to walk on, it doesn't mean that it happened by evolution. If it did (and the only proof is conjecture so far), I will change my mind. But as for now, I no longer believe that fossils support the claim of evolution, because -- there really is no proof. And the examination of fossils no longer shows ME that evolution is the way these various forms came about. If you want to say there is proof, or evidence that supports the theory -- that is your right to do so. I can say I no longer believe that.

 

[YoursTrue]

When you claim that evidence exists you put a burden of proof upon yourself. When you are challenged and do not provide any you have effectively admitted that the evidence does not exist.

The Bible (the evidence of the writing) shows that many people didn't believe Moses, they didn't listen to the prophets, and they did not follow or believe Jesus. So the fact that many people do not believe what the Bible says is coinciding with what the Bible has documented insofar as the account of history there goes and people believing or not believing the prophets.
Now while I do not believe in the theory of evolution, I do take some medications when prescribed. And I know that tests usually show that some patients get better upon taking the medicines, others do not. Does this mean that evolution is true? (No.) Does it mean that looking for a cure for illnesses is a waste of time? (No.) Does this mean that doctors and researchers should not look for or attempt to give new medications? (No.) Regardless, however, of the efficacy of certain medications or vaccines, does this mean that evolution is true? (you guessed it...but I'll say it, ok, I won't say it.) Does the fact that some medications are efficacious mean that fossils and dates surmised mean that evolution is true?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible (the evidence of the writing) shows that many people didn't believe Moses, they didn't listen to the prophets, and they did not follow or believe Jesus. So the fact that many people do not believe what the Bible says is coinciding with what the Bible has documented insofar as the account of history there goes and people believing or not believing the prophets.
Now while I do not believe in the theory of evolution, I do take some medications when prescribed. And I know that tests usually show that some patients get better upon taking the medicines, others do not. Does this mean that evolution is true? (No.) Does it mean that looking for a cure for illnesses is a waste of time? (No.) Does this mean that doctors and researchers should not look for or attempt to give new medications? (No.) Regardless, however, of the efficacy of certain medications or vaccines, does this mean that evolution is true? (you guessed it...but I'll say it, ok, I won't say it.) Does the fact that some medications are efficacious mean that fossils and dates surmised mean that evolution is true?

I am sorry, but you do not seem to understand what evidence is. The Bible is merely the claim. Biblical historians have shown that Moses was mythical or legendary. He was not the author off the Pentateuch. People not believing Moses is just part of the story, it is not evidence. By your standards the Harry Potter books are history.

You should be asking how do they know that Moses was not the author.

Let's switch tack a bit. Do you believe the Noah's Ark Myth?

 

[rational experiences]

In olden times after Rome was Satan star burning fall burnt attacked they owned a human science agreement to stop temple science. No alchemy either.

As machines evil came from the Alchemy human practice of God the planet.

The circuit temple pyramids turned in jeru Salem. A point position of transmitting relays pertinent to the technology advice.

More than likely heavenly natural cooling outcomes was why that particular point was considered.

Science agreed to stop its nuclear practice. History even says so.

Then about 1000 years later the same asteroid falling star irradiated life and the human mind brain again. Science re emerged again. The want of rebuilding the science temple proven in holy wars.

Baha'i teachings prove that the circumstance advice life sacrifice causes was not wanted. As science by the rich control had tried to rebuild the temple again.

Reason to war over a temple position. Technology.

So the story says the activist was murdered. The advisor.

Humans seem to forget that a human life by humans heavenly conditions is already dead.

As a life body. Rationally we returned from the dead via human sex.

So we tell a story that infers our parents should not have had sex. As they eventually died. Why it was taught that earths God advice for human life conditions was not heeded.

It would have ended right then and there logically if they had not chosen human sex. It was a logical spiritual human teaching.

Depending on a logical balanced human teacher.

So when teaching a human we quote we only came back from the dead. It means human sex forced us to live before the human parent adult self eventually dies.

A teaching that also says hence no baby or child should ever die before its parent life.

For a human reason.

Against evil human science theisms looking way back into past terms where mass of radiation in space causes history of a destroyed bio life on earth as per cold sun by theory now sits. Burnt out by body.

A larger colder sun supported ancient life. A smaller colder sun now supports natural life. The sun not existing now why any life in the past died as a suns radiation is consuming.

The equals answer to why any bio destroyed life body no longer lives today yet lived in the past.

Science theists human by law were taught never look back. So science theory had in fact been outlawed by humans on behalf of humans.

As we are all an equal human life suffering bodily as personal advice why science is evil by fact of human evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It (the theory) no longer makes sense to me as I examine it

This is an honest question.
What do you mean when you say that you "examine it"?

How are you doing that? Which sources are you using?

I ask, because, regardless if you agree with that or not, it is painfully obvious that you don't even have a clear grasp of the absolute basics.

The fact that I need to repeat to you ad nauseum that if "one kind of animal would produce another kind of animal" (referring to all the "but they are still humans / microbes / dogs / ..." comments you continually make), is proof of that.

No person who understand even only the basics of the theory, would make such a rookie mistake.


So, if you are sincere in trying to study evolution concerning what it actually says, then clearly you must be doing something wrong...

No person who spends a reasonable amount of time studying evolution properly, would make the rookie and fundamental mistakes you do.

So, of course, while there may be fossils perhaps of animals that look like fish but have limbs to walk on, it doesn't mean that it happened by evolution.

When are you finally going to address the question about how it is possible that tiktaalik was discovered by prediction, if evolution is false?

The prediction was 110% dependend on evolution being accurate.

If it did (and the only proof is conjecture so far), I will change my mind. But as for now, I no longer believe that fossils support the claim of evolution

How can you sit there and honestly claim that?
Evolution states early life existed in the sea and that animals gradually migrated to land and evolved into tetrapods.

Then we find a "fish-apod" fossil. A semi-aquatic creature that has both fish as well as tetrapod anatomical features. It's found by prediction, based on the theory. The fossil matches the prediction of age, anatomical features and location.

How is that NOT supportive of the theory??????


Please explain and be specific.

How does Tiktaalik NOT support evolution theory, eventhough its discovery is done by prediction using the theory?

 

[YoursTrue]

I am sorry, but you do not seem to understand what evidence is. The Bible is merely the claim. Biblical historians have shown that Moses was mythical or legendary. He was not the author off the Pentateuch. People not believing Moses is just part of the story, it is not evidence. By your standards the Harry Potter books are history.

You should be asking how do they know that Moses was not the author.

Let's switch tack a bit. Do you believe the Noah's Ark Myth?

I don't consider it a myth, so I can't answer your question. As far as evidence, the explanation of, I looked it up and see evidence is that information or other things that fit in with a theory. By the way, now I have a question for you and others -- we live for less than 140 years (I heard of a man who was 138 more recently when he died). But most of us are considered old at 70-80 years of age. Do you consider that a long or short time for any of us to live?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I expect to see what happens as foretold. Because you have that attitude towards the Bible, as many do, considering it a book of myths, it would be folly for me to discuss this with you because so much is in conflict with common 'scientific' beliefs.
Nevertheless, as I said, according to scientists and experts today, the earth is in a very precarious state for humankind. Which it is, if the Almighty does not step in. Which I believe He will. At this point, it's probably best if we say so long for now...

So first of all, you didn't answer my question or address my point.
What is a "fundamentalist evolutionist?"

Secondly, you didn't address at all why you believe every single claim in the Bible at face value without any question whatsoever at the same time that you flat out reject demonstrable, verifiable science. And all the while, you assert with great confidence that there is no evidence for evolution, despite the fact that it's the most well-evidenced scientific theory in existence which draws its evidence from multiple different fields of science that all converge on the same conclusion that evolution is a fact of life. You even go so far as to deny genetic ancestry, which is truly bizarre, but not so much when you realize that you've got it set in your head that the Bible must be correct no matter what. Why? You won't say. But you acknowledge that the Bible is "in conflict with common scientific beliefs." But you're gonna go with the Bible, rather than with verifiable, demonstrable science. Truly bizarre.

 

[SkepticThinker]

A fundamentalist evolutionist is one that insists that evolution is the only reason that you and I are alive.

Huh? Who are these people?

I am alive because my parents had sexual intercourse and created me. And their parents, and their parents, and their parents, etc. I am a product of that genetic lineage though.

I no longer subscribe to that theory.

What you've just described is not a theory.

It's my term for this conversation. Fundamentalist evolutionist. That means that sheer evolution and nothing else is the reason we are alive. I hope that helps explain my term there.

And where do I find these fictitious people?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again, I have looked at the evidence you use to support or verify your theory.
I no longer see it as proving or supporting the theory. But -- I thank you all for your answers.

Let's be honest here, no you haven't. You've been presented evidence that you have ignored, sidestepped or waived away. Then later you simply claim it doesn't exist.

That's what has really happened here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It depends. Mahatma Ghandi, for instance, had one perspective. Not all agree with his views. But, as you say, religions, while differing, have many adherents. And some are doctors, lawyers, and leaders of state. Etc. Many of those also believe in evolution. And adhere to different belief systems.

Depends on what?

Religious beliefs are subjective and not verifiable by any independent objective methods.

Have you verified your religious beliefs by any independent objective methods, the way science has done with evolution? Has anyone?

 

[SkepticThinker]

And that is one reason why I am not discussing much about what the Bible says on this thread. No, I no longer believe that evolution is the reason for human existence as well as the rest of life on earth, to be more specific about it. It (the theory) no longer makes sense to me as I examine it, but -- that doesn't mean that others must agree with me. I mean I don't see that what is considered by scientists as the evidence of fish becoming land-rovers is true. So, of course, while there may be fossils perhaps of animals that look like fish but have limbs to walk on, it doesn't mean that it happened by evolution. If it did (and the only proof is conjecture so far), I will change my mind. But as for now, I no longer believe that fossils support the claim of evolution, because -- there really is no proof. And the examination of fossils no longer shows ME that evolution is the way these various forms came about. If you want to say there is proof, or evidence that supports the theory -- that is your right to do so. I can say I no longer believe that.

How did it happen then?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is an honest question.
What do you mean when you say that you "examine it"?

How are you doing that? Which sources are you using?

I ask, because, regardless if you agree with that or not, it is painfully obvious that you don't even have a clear grasp of the absolute basics.

The fact that I need to repeat to you ad nauseum that if "one kind of animal would produce another kind of animal" (referring to all the "but they are still humans / microbes / dogs / ..." comments you continually make), is proof of that.

No person who understand even only the basics of the theory, would make such a rookie mistake.


So, if you are sincere in trying to study evolution concerning what it actually says, then clearly you must be doing something wrong...

No person who spends a reasonable amount of time studying evolution properly, would make the rookie and fundamental mistakes you do.



When are you finally going to address the question about how it is possible that tiktaalik was discovered by prediction, if evolution is false?

The prediction was 110% dependend on evolution being accurate.




How can you sit there and honestly claim that?
Evolution states early life existed in the sea and that animals gradually migrated to land and evolved into tetrapods.

Then we find a "fish-apod" fossil. A semi-aquatic creature that has both fish as well as tetrapod anatomical features. It's found by prediction, based on the theory. The fossil matches the prediction of age, anatomical features and location.

How is that NOT supportive of the theory??????


Please explain and be specific.

How does Tiktaalik NOT support evolution theory, eventhough its discovery is done by prediction using the theory?

no genetic proof of evolutionary transference.

 

[YoursTrue]

How did it happen then?

i am not sure.

 

[SkepticThinker]

i am not sure.

Well, it happened so ....

Evolution provides an explanation that fits all the evidence.

How about your belief?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't consider it a myth, so I can't answer your question. As far as evidence, the explanation of, I looked it up and see evidence is that information or other things that fit in with a theory. By the way, now I have a question for you and others -- we live for less than 140 years (I heard of a man who was 138 more recently when he died). But most of us are considered old at 70-80 years of age. Do you consider that a long or short time for any of us to live?

Since we know that it did not happen it is either a myth or a legend. What do you think that the story is?

And why does it matter how long I think that a human life is? The question is rather poorly asked since there can be sooooo many variables. Is that life good or bad? If one is tortured every day of one's life 40 may be too long. If one has a life that is extremely pleasant 50 years would not be enough.

 

[ecco]

Let's not fight. Let's run a test. Whichever city has Batman in it is the real Gotham City.

That won't work. In March 2020, as covid was beginning to spread, Batman got out of Gotham City and moved to an undisclosed island. Rumor has it that the island used to belong to Jeffrey Epstein.

 

[ecco]

Suppose a spiderman comic is uncovered thousands of years into the future and NYC is long gone and forgotten.

Then suppose archeologists discover NYC and actually pinpoint certain specific places mentioned in the comic.

Do you think that this discovery would lend credence to the Spiderman claim?
This is a sincere question

I'm quite sure that superstitious fringe people will still be around thousands of years from now. Therefore, the discovery will lead to some beliefs in an actual spiderman. I'm sure that some of those people will irradiate spiders and have the spiders bite them. Perhaps, some will cut out the middleman spider and just irradiate themselves. Some may even believe that that procedure will protect them from the latest covid mutation.

This is a mostly sincere answer

 

[ecco]

1. the scientific proof of genetic sharing, as in the form of slow transference however you want to phrase it, between or among such branches somewhere as fish and humans is not there. It's made up, based on what looks like a gorilla, a plant, or a fish, etc.
2. I believe the Bible is more believable than evolution regarding creation. And life.
3. I believe there is a God who is the Creator, and has ultimate power.
4. I believe the miracles happened.
5. And will happen.
6. Those miracles are from a Source higher than the regular way of doing things (called existence), so we can get along (such as the "law" of gravity or other such circumstances).

Obviously these are not the beliefs of all men, and anyway, you might say that the earth is in pretty bad shape now, so I look forward to the future of mankind as well as what the Bible calls the "new heavens and new earth," where righteousness is to dwell. I've examined the subject of evolution here, wondering how and why believers in evolution believe in the theory, I thank some of you for your intellectual and sometimes polite offerings based on what you feel "proves" evolution, the theory, and I see that the evidence does not fit in with the theory because of gaps and lack of real-time proof. Lack, really, of evidence. To clarify, I believe genes are moved from one creature to another. That in itself is miraculous. The process and details of which man cannot invent. It takes a male and female to make another person. Therefore, genes are not static. It no longer means evolution of the Darwinian kind to me. I have decided that evolution as explained by the Darwinian model is not true. Thank you for your help in doing so.
There are "new heavens and a new earth" to come in which righteousness is - to dwell. (Or live, or be.)
"See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind." Isaiah 65:17.
2 Peter 3:13 - "But in keeping with God's promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

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.

Your first quote is words, lots of words.

Your second quote says: Nature is too complex for me to comprehend. I prefer the simplicity of:

God said it,
I believe it.
End of story.​