Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Eli G]

How much more flooding the thread is needed to talk about what some words mean and how you are using them?
It's getting really boring .

 

[leroy]

You’re the random guy.

This is why reputation is built when people follow norms in language and reasoning. Getting science right shows a sort of intellectual integrity and this is valued by like minded individuals.

Creationists have flawed assumptions and behaviors that sabotage their reputation in forums. And one such flaw is an inability to recognize their own flaws. It’s entertaining but also sad to see otherwise smart people fall into a trap of flawed patterns of thought.

Well as far as i can remember the score is 1-0 in my favor

We have only disagree on one scientific issue (the existence of nonrandom mutations)………..and I supported my position with peer reviewed literature………and you didn’t even shown the modesty of admitting your mistake and thanking me for the information that you learned because of me.

So obviously I have much more integrity than you

 

[Pogo]

And when I was told to use a different Word (claim) I changed the Word………….so what is your issue?

I am still not convinced that “testimony” means without evidence and you haven´t done anything to support that claim. So forgive me if I don’t accept your words just because you say so………… you would do the same think in my position


The fact that you are focusing on “vocabulary” strongly suggest that you don’t have any scientific case against any of the claims that I have made

Actually it is after sorting through your confusion due to your poor vocabulary that your lack of knowledge of biology becomes apparent at which point we returned to the primary problem of vocabulary hoping that later you can take at least a HS equivalent biology course so as to at least understand the subject and the words used.
At present it is quite apparent that you could not pass a rigorous HS biology course.

 

[Pogo]

How much more flooding the thread is needed to talk about what some words mean and how you are using them?
It's getting really boring .

Says the person who posts nothing but falsehoods about evolution. LOL
But I see you included your troll smiley.

 

[Eli G]

... the existence of nonrandom mutations ...

That's an interesting issue: Can mutations really generate new species?

For example: if genetic mutations appear in some humans (that have happened), can these produce new species of human-apes capable of reproducing and prolonging their life effectively?

 

[F1fan]

Well as far as i can remember the score is 1-0 in my favor

You play a game no one is interested in playing, so of course you are the champion, in your game, with your own rules.

Everyone else wants to have valid knowledge.

We have only disagree on one scientific issue (the existence of nonrandom mutations)………..and I supported my position with peer reviewed literature………and you didn’t even shown the modesty of admitting your mistake and thanking me for the information that you learned because of me.

There’s vastly more than that over the years on this forum. And you don’t mention your misuse of language, so wrong right there.

So obviously I have much more integrity than you

Patting yourself on the back, playing your game all by yourself, with your own rules that no one else recognizes. Congratulations. Too bad others disagree.

 

[Eli G]

Back to topic:

If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?

In historical materialism, a current philosophy that can be classified as "naturalistic", it is proposed that social changes originate when objective and subjective conditions become concrete.

What were the conditions that materialized, at what moment in the eternity of a supposed cosmic void (from the atheist position) did they occur and why never before?

PS: the existence of an eternal Intelligence that chose its own moment to begin the process is much more understandable. At least purpose is attributed to existence.

 

[Pogo]

Back to topic:

In historical materialism, a current philosophy that can be classified as "naturalistic", it is proposed that social changes originate when objective and subjective conditions become concrete.

What were the conditions that materialized, at what moment in the eternity of a supposed cosmic void (from the atheist position) did they occur and why never before?

PS: the existence of an eternal Intelligence that chose its own moment to begin the process is much more understandable. At least purpose is attributed to existence.

Not biology, not physics, not relevant.

 

[leroy]

That's an interesting issue: Can mutations really generate new species?

For example: if genetic mutations appear in some humans (that have happened), can these produce new species of human-apes capable of reproducing and prolonging their life effectively?

Irrelevant but yes

it is possible for mutations (genetic variation) to accumulate in given population of humans, to a point where these population would evolve in to something that would be considered a different specie

 

[Eli G]

The lack of purpose in human existence is one of the most degrading factors of the human being as a result of the theory of the accidental appearance of life.

We see in this forum some forum members about who we can make a fairly accurate psychological profile: immature, they did not know how to raise children or keep wives by their side, probably addicted to some vice, and given to wasting time... It is a logical product of a philosophy that considers life as a casual phenomenon that has no purpose.

 

[Eli G]

... yes

it is possible for mutations (genetic variation) to accumulate in given population of humans, to a point where these population would evolve in to something that would be considered a different specie

Examples???

 

[leroy]

Back to topic:

In historical materialism, a current philosophy that can be classified as "naturalistic", it is proposed that social changes originate when objective and subjective conditions become concrete.

What were the conditions that materialized, at what moment in the eternity of a supposed cosmic void (from the atheist position) did they occur and why never before?

PS: the existence of an eternal Intelligence that chose its own moment to begin the process is much more understandable. At least purpose is attributed to existence.

Yes in my opinion this is a serious problem for naturalism, lets see if you get any good answers

 

[leroy]

The lack of purpose in human existence is one of the most degrading factors of the human being as a result of the theory of the accidental appearance of life.

We see in this forum some forum members about who we can make a fairly accurate psychological profile: immature, they did not know how to raise children or keep wives by their side, probably addicted to some vice, and given to wasting time... It is a logical product of a philosophy that considers life as a casual phenomenon that has no purpose.

Many theist have made that point in the past………but honestly I don see how theism “solves” that problem.

If theism is true and there is a heaven, what would be the meaning or purpose of life , for example why should I spend high quality time with my wife and daughter instead of eating Cheetos and watching Netflix all the time………………we are all going to heaven anyway, so who cares if I waste my life in this planet by eting Cheetos all day long?

 

[leroy]

Examples???

Examples of what? perhaps I am misunderstanding your request.

There are many known mechanisms that produce hereditable changes in the genome (for simplicity we call all of them mutations) that cause ether changes in the genotype or the phenotype or both

If these changes accumulate over time, the result would be something that could be called different specie” because it would be very different from the original



Did I answer your question?.........if not please ask again with different words

 

[Eli G]

I don't believe the Bible support the idea of all good people going to live in heaven ... but that is for another subform and thread.

The purpose of human life is about enjoying what God created for us on this planet, as it was supposed to be when He put Adam in a special place created for him, and told him:

“Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.” (Gen. 1:28).

 

[leroy]

You play a game no one is interested in playing, so of course you are the champion, in your game, with your own rules.

Everyone else wants to have valid knowledge.

There’s vastly more than that over the years on this forum. And you don’t mention your misuse of language, so wrong right there.

Patting yourself on the back, playing your game all by yourself, with your own rules that no one else recognizes. Congratulations. Too bad others disagree.

Yes, my rules say that whoever supports his claims with a proper source scores a point

So under this rules the score is 1-0

 

[Eli G]

...The purpose of human life is about enjoying what God created for us on this planet, as it was supposed to be when He put Adam in a special place created for him, and told him:

“Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.” (Gen. 1:28).

Have you ever thought about what you would like to do if you could live for more than a thousand years on the planet and under what conditions you would like to carry out those activities?

This is what God promises in the Bible about the future:

Is. 65:19 (...) No more will there be heard in her the sound of weeping or a cry of distress.”
20 “No more will there be an infant from that place who lives but a few days,
Nor an old man who fails to live out his days.
For anyone who dies at a hundred will be considered a mere boy,
And the sinner will be cursed, even though he is a hundred years of age.
21 They will build houses and live in them,
And they will plant vineyards and eat their fruitage.
22 They will not build for someone else to inhabit,
Nor will they plant for others to eat.
For the days of my people will be like the days of a tree,
And the work of their hands my chosen ones will enjoy to the full.
23 They will not toil for nothing,
Nor will they bear children for distress,
Because they are the offspring made up of those blessed by Jehovah,
And their descendants with them.
24 Even before they call out, I will answer;
While they are yet speaking, I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
The lion will eat straw just like the bull,
And the serpent’s food will be dust.
They will do no harm nor cause any ruin in all my holy mountain,” says Jehovah.

Did you know that in the Bible you can read many promises from God similar to those about the future of humanity?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The statement "A testimony is a claim without evidence" is not entirely accurate. While a testimony can be a form of claim, it doesn't necessarily imply a lack of evidence. Testimony often refers to the statement or declaration made by a witness under oath, and it can be supported by evidence such as personal observation, experience, or other forms of documentation.

I disagree with the chatGPT above. Testimony is the words of somebody claiming that he or somebody else heard, saw, or did something. Any accompanying corroborating evidence is distinct from the testimony.

However, it's essential to recognize that testimonies alone may not always constitute sufficient evidence to prove a claim beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in legal contexts where corroboration and other forms of evidence may be required for validation.

I would say that testimony alone proves nothing except that somebody made that claim. Even if that testimony were, "I am conscious," we'd need evidence that it was, and not just more chatGPT or an old recording of somebody now asleep or dead.

What were the conditions that materialized, at what moment in the eternity of a supposed cosmic void (from the atheist position) did they occur and why never before?

What does that ask? How long had the universe existed before the first intelligence appeared in it? We don't know, but probably a few billion years after the first life formed on the first planet or moon stable enough to allow life to form and eventually multicellular animal life. Since the universe is about 13.7 billion years old and the a few generations of stars were necessary to run through their life cycles to generate and disperse heavy elements, the first life might have arisen 13 billion years ago and become intelligent maybe 3-5 billion years after that, before the earth existed.

It hadn't occurred earlier because the conditions for intelligent life didn't exist earlier.

The lack of purpose in human existence is one of the most degrading factors of the human being as a result of the theory of the accidental appearance of life.

You've been taught to believe that just as other believers are offended at being called apes or animals. The typical atheistic humanist finds none of those degrading or offensive. My life is full and meaningful to me despite me believing that it was a byproduct of purposeless, naturalistic processes. One has to be taught to object to that idea.

We see in this forum some forum members about who we can make a fairly accurate psychological profile: immature, they did not know how to raise children or keep wives by their side, probably addicted to some vice, and given to wasting time... It is a logical product of a philosophy that considers life as a casual phenomenon that has no purpose.

You seem to be attributing such problems to the lack of a god belief. That also describe some theists, many of whom are poor parents and /or spouses and given to time wasting and addictions, religion itself ("the opiate of the masses") being the source of some of that.

Regarding immaturity, Christian doctrine promotes maintaining adults in their juvenile psychological states complete with faith-based thought, magical thinking, inadequate critical thinking, and the idea of being dominated and judged by a father figure. This is why the church wants access to young minds before they evolve past that stage and why it calls the wisdom of the world foolishness while calling existing in that juvenile state wisdom.

Did you know that in the Bible you can read many promises from God similar to those about the future of humanity?

That would be time wasted by my standards. I have no reason to believe that the Bible is a source of knowledge about the future of humanity especially given how much it got wrong about its past.

 

[YoursTrue]

How much more flooding the thread is needed to talk about what some words mean and how you are using them?
It's getting really boring .

Lol yes, would an allele or two make a difference in intelligence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's an interesting issue: Can mutations really generate new species?

Yes, we see it quite often.

For example: if genetic mutations appear in some humans (that have happened), can these produce new species of human-apes capable of reproducing and prolonging their life effectively?

Okay, it is not about "prolonging their life". Evolution is all about improving the odds of reproducing and having those organisms reproduce successfully themselves. It does not good to prolong a life indefinitely if that organism cannot reproduce. Even if a lifespan was increased by a factor of ten, if that animal could not reproduce when it died the mutations it had would disappear. So once again, evolution is all about successful reproduction.