How do you define evolution?

[Dan From Smithville]

I reviewed my post which I think you are saying I said black bears produce only black bears, etc., I don't see that I said black bears produce only black bears, or white bears produce only white bears. What I see I did say is that bears (white OR black) produce bears. If you can show me where I said black bears produce only black bears and so forth., I would like to see that. Thanks.
One thing at a time.

I reviewed it too. It is interesting that you, like the rest of us, have difficulty comprehending what you post. However, you did say that black bears produce only black bears and white bears only white bears depending on the environment. You did not say that bears produce only bears.

It is in your post that you claim you reviewed.

 

[Windwalker]

You don't know if God made living organisms by evolution. It may appear that way from fossil finds, or similar genetics, but there is no real hard core evidence in motion such as a change from one type of organism, such as fish to land-roving strictly air breathing animals as there might be if observed in motion or real live organisms evolving to become another type of organism.

But there is hard evidence of this. Whoever is telling you there isn't is not be truthful or honest about it. Evolution is not a debatable topic amongst scientists.

Do I "know" God made living organism by evolution? I believe God creates all life in all the forms we see. That's not a scientific statement. That's a statement of faith. But since evolution is a fact that cannot be denied honestly and truthfully, before God, then we have to figure out how to allow God to do what all the evidence points to. That, or deny the evidence and try to box God into our ideas based upon misunderstandings of scripture. I choose the former, as it's is both intellectually and spiritual honest and holds with integrity and humility before the evidence. The latter option lacks all of those.

 

[rational experiences]

Theists humans look at apes.

Said a living ape as the God status said by his human head changed its body biology by sex. Conceived the first humans.

The ape life was in science a status the God. As biology changed.

There wasn't any other depiction of a God term.

As he said it had. As a man observation.

We owned as a human what no ape owned was the statement.

Status no ape owns what a human life owned was the first as the lawful advice.

Dominion. Human is the highest life on earth. No other evolution. So nothing else was higher. No atmospheric changes allowable became the status.

Holy said science was the highest claim. A human.

No evolution beyond.

Hence every state was exact in its order present.

Present meant the criteria. Human.

Presence was all things.

As the science.

Water oxygenation. Mainly water is a humans truth as equality living balanced by ice. Stable. Human plus any animal beast life.

Ice science said kept water cooled. Kept heavens gas cooled in space.

Ice the saviour.

Water oxygenated was nature's garden plants life. Water natural.

There isn't any change.

Without ice water would be warmer. Gas heavens would vary.

Saviour stable life statement human babies and animal life.

There never was any reason reasoned.

You however argue genesis. As the human chosen topic genesis...DNA.

Written by the human whole self design being human. Design is not genesis. What you lied about.

Science status. What you first observe SEE is the status. Men said in science no argument existed.

So the idea why life had de evolved as a human first was to be irradiated by sciences fallout.

As living humans with no previous answers where did I come from wrote human evidence....as humans.

It owned no argument.

So case closed. Book was shut and no more preaching by scientific theists. Only law in society and truth was allowed.

No science.

 

[rational experiences]

But there is hard evidence of this. Whoever is telling you there isn't is not be truthful or honest about it. Evolution is not a debatable topic amongst scientists.

Do I "know" God made living organism by evolution? I believe God creates all life in all the forms we see. That's not a scientific statement. That's a statement of faith. But since evolution is a fact that cannot be denied honestly and truthfully, before God, then we have to figure out how to allow God to do what all the evidence points to. That, or deny the evidence and try to box God into our ideas based upon misunderstandings of scripture. I choose the former, as it's is both intellectually and spiritual honest and holds with integrity and humility before the evidence. The latter option lacks all of those.

God plus box.

Multiply what I never owned a nuclear reaction.

React the dust converts energy as it gets removed. First...substance formed ended goes back away from existing by consuming. Is not time shifting. As it never was consuming it was held.

If a human says if my human first gets consumed did I go back into being an ape human?

Without owning my highest and my first?

 

[exchemist]

The intricacy of nature is certainly a reason to actually believe in a Power that has intelligence who made these things possible and -- who designed things that 'we' (humans) did not make. Does that mean I think God made hurtful mutations? No. But the genetic process is involved and can go haywire, not necessarily to the advantage of the person. I don't want to get too technical, since while science has certainly figured things out, let's say about producing vaccines, fixing debilitating situations medically, scientists have also made some grave medical errors. I take vaccinations, my cousin is a research scientist in the medical field, another cousin is a doctor, my uncle was a surgeon. Etc. If I would go back to school I myself might go into a science field rather than the field I originally went into. There is much to do and much to learn.

The intelligent religious believer (like @Dan From Smithville for instance, or Ken Miller) will seek to reconcile this idea with what science has revealed to us abut how nature works. And that is what the mainstream Christian churches have been able to do, without difficulty.

Obstinately rejecting perfectly good and well-corroborated science whenever it doesn't fit a naive interpretation of scripture is not an intelligent approach, nor is it necessary.

 

[YoursTrue]

But there is hard evidence of this. Whoever is telling you there isn't is not be truthful or honest about it. Evolution is not a debatable topic amongst scientists.

Do I "know" God made living organism by evolution? I believe God creates all life in all the forms we see. That's not a scientific statement. That's a statement of faith. But since evolution is a fact that cannot be denied honestly and truthfully, before God, then we have to figure out how to allow God to do what all the evidence points to. That, or deny the evidence and try to box God into our ideas based upon misunderstandings of scripture. I choose the former, as it's is both intellectually and spiritual honest and holds with integrity and humility before the evidence. The latter option lacks all of those.

OK, please relate the "hard evidence" of a chimpanzee or another organism like a fish becoming another organism. Fossils won't do the job. Despite what is conjectured about them. Genes certainly tell a story. But -- genes of chimpanzees are not the same as those of bonobos and humans. Similar perhaps, but not the same.

 

[YoursTrue]

The intelligent religious believer (like @Dan From Smithville for instance, or Ken Miller) will seek to reconcile this idea with what science has revealed to us abut how nature works. And that is what the mainstream Christian churches have been able to do, without difficulty.

Obstinately rejecting perfectly good and well-corroborated science whenever it doesn't fit a naive interpretation of scripture is not an intelligent approach, nor is it necessary.

If I thought that each religion had a real good hold on godly principles, I would feel free to join any religion.

 

[YoursTrue]

The intelligent religious believer (like @Dan From Smithville for instance, or Ken Miller) will seek to reconcile this idea with what science has revealed to us abut how nature works. And that is what the mainstream Christian churches have been able to do, without difficulty.

Obstinately rejecting perfectly good and well-corroborated science whenever it doesn't fit a naive interpretation of scripture is not an intelligent approach, nor is it necessary.

As I said, while not being a scientist, I believe it is reasonable for most people to take vaccines (developed, of course, by scientists). When I say that, I think it's great that scientists have developed vaccines. Just an example.

 

[exchemist]

If I thought that each religion had a real good hold on godly principles, I would feel free to join any religion.

The religion I was referring to is your own.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, please relate the "hard evidence" of a chimpanzee or another organism like a fish becoming another organism. Fossils won't do the job. Despite what is conjectured about them. Genes certainly tell a story. But -- genes of chimpanzees are not the same as those of bonobos and humans. Similar perhaps, but not the same.

Your self=imposed ignorance of science negates the above question as meaningful. It you fail to make an effort to educate your self asto the science and evidence for evolution you are hodlessly mired in an ancient religious agenda with out science.

 

[gnostic]

Theists humans look at apes.

Said a living ape as the God status said by his human head changed its body biology by sex. Conceived the first humans.

The ape life was in science a status the God. As biology changed.

There wasn't any other depiction of a God term.

As he said it had. As a man observation.

We owned as a human what no ape owned was the statement.

Status no ape owns what a human life owned was the first as the lawful advice.

Dominion. Human is the highest life on earth. No other evolution. So nothing else was higher. No atmospheric changes allowable became the status.

Holy said science was the highest claim. A human.

No evolution beyond.

Hence every state was exact in its order present.

Present meant the criteria. Human.

Presence was all things.

As the science.

Water oxygenation. Mainly water is a humans truth as equality living balanced by ice. Stable. Human plus any animal beast life.

Ice science said kept water cooled. Kept heavens gas cooled in space.

Ice the saviour.

Water oxygenated was nature's garden plants life. Water natural.

There isn't any change.

Without ice water would be warmer. Gas heavens would vary.

Saviour stable life statement human babies and animal life.

There never was any reason reasoned.

You however argue genesis. As the human chosen topic genesis...DNA.

Written by the human whole self design being human. Design is not genesis. What you lied about.

Science status. What you first observe SEE is the status. Men said in science no argument existed.

So the idea why life had de evolved as a human first was to be irradiated by sciences fallout.

As living humans with no previous answers where did I come from wrote human evidence....as humans.

It owned no argument.

So case closed. Book was shut and no more preaching by scientific theists. Only law in society and truth was allowed.

No science.

Oh.

There are so many weird claims and weirdly wrong claims in this post, that I don’t know where to begin.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, please relate the "hard evidence" of a chimpanzee or another organism like a fish becoming another organism. Fossils won't do the job. Despite what is conjectured about them. Genes certainly tell a story. But -- genes of chimpanzees are not the same as those of bonobos and humans. Similar perhaps, but not the same.

How many times have you been shown all that you demand only to reject it for no good reason?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If I thought that each religion had a real good hold on godly principles, I would feel free to join any religion.

You only believe what you want and then pretend it all into facts that you cannot demonstrate to anyone.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh.

There are so many weird claims and weirdly wrong claims in this post, that I don’t know where to begin.

I didn't even have to ask which post.

 

[rational experiences]

Oh.

There are so many weird claims and weirdly wrong claims in this post, that I don’t know where to begin.

You are first the human.

Egotists scientist is the theist. Human.

Pretty basic liar advice.

You look at the ape. It is an ape.

You say the ape had sex.

So the ape is humans sex God who changed biology in the baby forming via he says atmospheric causes.

God he said did it. Heavens god.

Yet a human only living in the same balanced atmosphere supporting human dominion life said it. The ape is still the ape.

With no changes. As evolution my human thesis. It's law status. Human status.

Why man said why I am the God owner as the human. So don't change our heavens.

If you didn't theory in the first place no problems in human life would exist. Just self acceptance.

So other humans asked pretty basic human questions.

Why are you stating an ape is not a human life for! We know it isn't.

Answer my status. Storyteller egotists. The status science. The human.

Science claimed a human was once an ape.

In reality a human was never an ape.

Natural answer is highest intelligence.

Who realised science is a liar and quoted hence no man is God.

The argument is science arguing against science.

Natural never argued about self presence it was accepted.

You only theoried for change advice as the machine owner.

I needed to quantify he said where life came from!

Why?

The correct answer is for human egotism.

As only science argued science.

The argument what changed an ape to become a human.

So if you challenge egotists humans. Ask science to tell us what the ape was before it was an ape. And what God made its pre form change in animal sex!

The reality is no one asked for your theories. As humans make all claims.

Only science is human motivated to quote why they have to tell the stories. Their claim was against humans who said dust nuclear reacting began life.

A sciences non historic human need to argue reality.

Religion just said. No science and no argument. Just accept that the heavens changed. But they don't accept.

The reason. As an ape is still the ape.

Magic he wants.
Mystery said religion.

The human place is science likes to argue even against itself. Humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your self=imposed ignorance of science negates the above question as meaningful. It you fail to make an effort to educate your self asto the science and evidence for evolution you are hodlessly mired in an ancient religious agenda with out science.

lol,
sadly to say, you have offered the usual of yours nothing in the way of cogent thinking. Bye for now. (You offer nothing but insults, and no proof of the theory of evolution per "natural selection..") Bye for now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Frankly, if it weren't a theory in general, we'd see humans evolving to a more advanced organism if I can use the word advance, chimpanzees evolving, and so forth. Including viruses which stay viruses.

You already know better than this by now. Come on.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans conscious.

Aware environmental status.

Ice. Ice melt. Water replacement.

We say water cooled allows our bodies to change as a human.

And we do change heal as humans.

Notified. We remain alive. Cells keep reproducing our advice.

Give life heated gases heated water we die.

So a scientist introduces a virus. Then the virus mutated. As the virus proves its body changes.

So as a virus remains a virus a human proved they remained a human.... just a changed mutated human.

The human man belief I should be allowed to do anything I want.. and the meek let him.

Waiting for the hero human saviour teacher.

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK, please relate the "hard evidence" of a chimpanzee or another organism like a fish becoming another organism. Fossils won't do the job. Despite what is conjectured about them. Genes certainly tell a story. But -- genes of chimpanzees are not the same as those of bonobos and humans. Similar perhaps, but not the same.

Well, my genes are similar to my sister's genes, but not the same. We just share similar patterns of genes. So using your logic, my sister and I are not related.
My genes are similar to my parent's genes, but not the same. We just share similar patterns of genes. So using your logic, my parents and I are not related.

Do you see where you've gone wrong here and how you've horribly misunderstood genetics?

 

[rational experiences]

The Bible's medical advice which occult nuclear scientists had changed was about DNA health.

First.

First was gone the teaching said. Removed. Why life now suffered.

Teaching said any sin given to life was then by sex. Meaning changes in biology produced by sex.

As unless sex is acted upon life as biology existing ages then dies.

Adult advice in biology in science as science says adult life in biology ages and dies.

Biology.

Scientific advice as real science. Healer science was about human life sacrificed as humans were not a scientific from nothing thesis for machine reactions.

It was biological human evidence only about biology. So you have to exist first to be notified of self body changes.

Yet theists today are allowed to mis quote and also abuse life by inference of advice in human medical sciences.

Personal human life studies. Observed change.

Self presence first. Self presence changed.

Animal sex or human sex cannot be used in any scientific thesis. The reason life lives today.

Was the teaching to a theist human liar in science.

The bible was about theists as humans who lie.

As a human thinking did not invent presence. And it is what any human egotists implies first by a human belief is by a human thought.

If a theist says a human began as nothing the intention is consciously Idealised. Remove self back to nothing.

Reasoning is between two humans is first. One human thinking compared another human to not existing.

As never was it nor is it thought by the human self thinking...their own non existence. Why it's egotism. Self status.

Then they use coercion. They depend on group agreement. Why we said taught...
if not for medical assistance to assist healing or safety of life thinking first the group was a cult. Science included.

As it is the human scientist who says their first thoughts just thinking are correct.

Then he says let me prove it. By numbers.

Yet science said the first human eradicated gone by science numbers. Why in your head conscious....you said first human is now nothing.

Why maths proved it had destroyed humans first origin life body. The mind also already knew as it is conscious first about self.

What you ignore is human consciousness. Self awareness. Advice in thinking first.

Which is not any theory.

So we wait for the meek loving man advised logically and in humans life spirituality to defend our human rights.

How origin family is now allowed to argue against all past brother injustices. As he is just a liar coercer.