Irony of the evolutionary belief

[TagliatelliMonster]

... still stay birds.

How many more times must your strawman be exposed before you will stop doubling down on it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can see no irony can you?

All science is individual because all knowledge and all thought is individual. But each individual takes their beliefs and science to the grave so science never really changes at all does it?

Now that's irony!!!

Speak for yourself.

I have no problem changing my mind in light of new evidence and neither does science.
In fact, I love it when it happens... I like learning

I hope to be proven wrong about something every day. It means I learn something new every day. It's a good thing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What I find interesting is that so many people mourn their family members who died, were killed, but don't feel or express that much grief for others who are also killed. Hundreds of thousands killed often but it gets announcement maybe on the news.

What a random comment.

 

[metis]

Not sure how you define species, otherwise I might agree with your definition.

Different species have enough different genes whereas they cannot reproduce fertile organisms.

 

[metis]

Social Darwinism is not related to the theory of evolution. It is generally considered to be a pseudoscience, not science.

It generally connotates dog-eat-dog competition in some human societies.

 

[cladking]

Lions will catch the slower gazelle more easily then the faster ones.

Not really true.

Lions target the slowest looking individuals.

 

[YoursTrue]

Different species have enough different genes whereas they cannot reproduce fertile organisms.

Ok that makes sense to an extent.

 

[YoursTrue]

It generally connotates dog-eat-dog competition in some human societies.

I think we go back to mental attitudes virtually instilled in young children on upwards to adulthood.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not really true.

Lions target the slowest looking individuals.

They do? That's interesting and makes sense to me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not really true.

Very much true. In fact so obviously true that I wonder how anyone in their right mind can even think about arguing against it.

Lions target the slowest looking individuals.

Gratz on contradicting yourself.
Remember when you said the following?

They do not search their niche seeking the least fit or the less fit.

Now you say lions target the slowest looking individuals. How is that NOT searching the niche for the least fit?

Wait, don't tell me you still don't understand what "fit" means in evolutionary context?
Didn't you say a few posts back that "everybody" understands what "survival of the fittest" means?


I love "debating" with people like you. I actually don't have to do much. Just let you talk and you refute yourself.

 

[F1fan]

Not really true.

Lions target the slowest looking individuals.

So they will fake being slow, but are actually fast? Maybe they learned to moonwalk like Michael Jackson.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What I find interesting is that so many people mourn their family members who died, were killed, but don't feel or express that much grief for others who are also killed. Hundreds of thousands killed often but it gets announcement maybe on the news.

Perhaps this book is worth a read:

Against Empathy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or this if not wanting to read the whole thing:

Against Empathy Summary

This Against Empathy summary identifies the problems with and limitations of being empathetic, giving us better alternatives to it.

fourminutebooks.com

 

[YoursTrue]

Take the principle that you learned, and extend it over a long period of time. Changes, such as the color, would accumulate over time. Eventually you would have to acknowledge, heck, this has become a new species.

It doesn't become a lion. Eventually

 

[YoursTrue]

It generally connotates dog-eat-dog competition in some human societies.

Now the interesting point to me is the history of Abraham and his progeny. I understand many don't believe it but...There were prophecies regarding the future of his offspring. And then there was Moses who came before Pharaoh begging to release the Israelites to serve their God. Realizing many believe this to be a fairytale kind of like, my thought anyway is (1) first Moses went kind of peacefully before Pharaoh who was stubborn, then of course, according to the account, God got involved. Later of course the account was written down. When do you think scholars believe the account was first written down?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It doesn't become a lion. Eventually

The comments you make show a profound lack of education in TOE.

 

[metis]

I think we go back to mental attitudes virtually instilled in young children on upwards to adulthood.

Yes, but in an aggressive way that becomes considered normal and moral, thus the antithesis of the Gospel.

 

[metis]

When do you think scholars believe the account was first written down?

It is impossible to know the answer to this question since we don't have original manuscripts plus, we don't know if it was part of an oral tradition prior to it being written.

But there's a serious problem within the narrative, namely that it states the God "hardened pharaoh's heart", which puts the onus on God. In Jewish circles, it's considered to be the single most controversial verse in all of Torah as why would God supposedly do this, thus leading to the death of so many?

Not all problems are solvable.

 

[John53]

I think they are taking a theory and going with that as if it's the truth.

If that's what the evidence shows why would they not believe it to be the truth?

I certainly don't think scientists are deliberately lying in all cases but rather are using the theory of "natural selection" to substantiate the idea.

Which cases are they lying about? It's hard to understand what you're trying to say unless you're specific.

One of my relatives was a physicist at a university. I know he loved reading scientific publications when he was younger, went on to become a professor. Do I think he was lying? No. But I do think theoretical scientists play mental games. And many cannot coincide religious ideas with the theory. God is the judge. And without any real evidence including that of supposing about things like intelligence as I see it on these boards, supposing fossils (fitting them in the theory as if a jigsaw puzzle, sometimes changing their thoughts about it). Sorry, but it's just too incredible for me to go along with all the presumptions.

Yet you have no real evidence of God. If there was we would not be having this discussion.

Furthermore, it is generally concluded that mankind is harming itself. Some of that which seems apparent to me stems from religious conflict, and ideas which I won't go into now, but the more I think about it, the various tribes which eventually became strong in some instances forming nations, has a role in this. I believe this is partially evidence of the use of religious forces, something unique among mankind--not gorillas or butterflies, for instance, with their own fascinating fabulous qualities.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this or what it has to do with what I asked.

 

[YoursTrue]

The comments you make show a profound lack of education in TOE.

LOL, that made me laugh. OK, maybe a butterfly did not "evolve" to become a lion -- after all -- a butterfly has wings and a lion does not unless it's in a comic strip, but -- where is the EVIDENCE? OK, can't call it proof that a butterfly did or did not become a lion and, of course, the common excuse (answer) is that it takes a lot of time to have sponges evolve to something else. I do not go along with all that supposition.

 

[YoursTrue]

If that's what the evidence shows why would they not believe it to be the truth?


Which cases are they lying about? It's hard to understand what you're trying to say unless you're specific.



Yet you have no real evidence of God. If there was we would not be having this discussion.



I'm not really sure what you mean by this or what it has to do with what I asked.

For me there is evidence. Naturally you don't believe that Moses had that rather big discussion with Pharaoh, but it makes sense to me. I had an employer (a lawyer) who told me when he found out that I believe in God and the Bible, thinking he was funny -- if the end comes why doesn't He announce it on TV? I said God doesn't have to, the Bible has the answer. He, of course, didn't believe me to the best of my knowledge he still does as he does. But -- we shall see what we shall see and of course, I do hope the best for you. I can't speak for others but I do know what I found at the beginning of my journey, only God can give you faith.