Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Subduction Zone]

So ether CHAT GPT is also part of this massive pro creationsits conspiracy………. Or maybe (just maybe) you are wrong, maybe testimony doesn’t necessarily implies “without evidence” According to the common usage of this word

No, CHAT GPT is merely a man made algorithm that is still in development. By the way that one asks questions one can often tune the answer. It is a far worse source than Wikipedia ever was. I am not saying that it will stay that way, but people have gotten it to both declare that there is no God and that there is one. A source that can support both sides of an argument without trying too hard is worse than no source at all.

It may still help you if you use it correctly, but you have to remember that the program is apt to reflect the biases that you put into your questions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

This post is a significant example of the kind of post that make it difficult for me to take you seriously.

Where are these posts about nonrandom mutation where you address the claim, explain it and provide support that demonstrates they take place? Do you address the arguments and evidence that are contrary to the claim and explain how they fail?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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 .

Sometimes it is necessary due to the actions of some people. Chew out the posters that keep trying to play linguistic games.

 

[Pogo]

@leroy
Ask chatGPT
Is testimony an appropriate word for research papers?

it answers:

1)Yes, "testimony" is not typically used in scientific papers. In scientific writing, it's more common to use terms like "evidence," "data," "findings," "results," or "observations" to describe the information presented. "Testimony" carries connotations of personal statements or declarations, often associated
with legal or subjective contexts, rather than the objective and empirical nature of scientific discourse.

2)
Yes, "testimony" isn't typically used in scientific papers. In scientific writing, terms like "evidence," "data," "findings," "results," or "observations" are more commonly used to describe the information presented. These terms emphasize the empirical nature of scientific research and the objective reporting of results rather than subjective accounts or personal testimonies.
3 / 3


interesting CYA responses.

 

[blü 2]

Becase Jesús sayas so

This i show I would elaborate my argument, (read the whole post before answering)

1 there are God arguments for the existence of God (I am talking about some generic type of God)

There doesn't seem to be a definition of God appropriate to a being that has objective existence, such that if we found a real suspect we could tell whether it was God or not. It seems accurate to say instead that the only way gods are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual, and very usually acculturated, brains.

Or do you have such a definition?

2 if God exist miracles every once in a while become probable (or atleast not very unlikely)

Magic is the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality. Miracles are that subset of magic performed by a supernatural being.

There is not even one authenticated incident of magic.

3 if miracles are not very unlikely, then the specific miracle of the resurrection becomes probable (especially given the historical evidence for this event)

I'd suggest that until there's at least one authenticated occurrence of a God, and of that God performing a real miracle, then no such question can seriously arise.

As I've mentioned before, not even the churches actually believe miracles happen, since none of them has any research program into their occurrence, authentication or origin, let alone how humans can use this knowledge to perform miracles of their own,

5 we have multiple *reports* (I can´t use the word testimony anymore) from contemporary people that describe what Jesus said and did (including the promises)

With respect, you have not one single eye-witness account of an historical Jesus, whether in the NT or elsewhere. It's ALL hearsay.

6 these reports are historically reliable

There are no such reports.

 

[YoursTrue]

To be in Heaven= an everlasting experience of unimaginable joy



My concern is why should my limited 80 to 100 years that I will live in this planet are relevant. If I will be on a much better place for a potentially infinite amount of years ?...... why is it important weather if I waste my life watching Netflix all day long, instead of perusing my professional and personal goals if I will end up in heaven anyway

I'm sorry but I don't understand your questions. Or points. But that's ok, and I actually don't expect you to make it clearer, but maybe you can, I hope so.

 

[YoursTrue]

@leroy
Ask chatGPT
Is testimony an appropriate word for research papers?

it answers:

1)Yes, "testimony" is not typically used in scientific papers. In scientific writing, it's more common to use terms like "evidence," "data," "findings," "results," or "observations" to describe the information presented. "Testimony" carries connotations of personal statements or declarations, often associated
with legal or subjective contexts, rather than the objective and empirical nature of scientific discourse.

2)
Yes, "testimony" isn't typically used in scientific papers. In scientific writing, terms like "evidence," "data," "findings," "results," or "observations" are more commonly used to describe the information presented. These terms emphasize the empirical nature of scientific research and the objective reporting of results rather than subjective accounts or personal testimonies.
3 / 3


interesting CYA responses.

Just conclusions drawn from the data.
One definition of testimony is: evidence or proof provided by the existence or appearance of something.
"his blackened finger was testimony to the fact that he had played in pain"

 

[YoursTrue]

I read the Bible regularly. I can attest that the writers were not experts in science with an in depth knowledge of the natural world. I wouldn't expect them to be that kind of expert. And that does not imply or state that I think they were stupid. Just ignorant of much information.

By the time I was 8 or 10, I probably knew more about the world around me than the men who wrote the Bible. And there is no evidence that God saw fit to provide the information the writers didn't have to fill in the gaps of their ignorance.

Some scientists declare (testify) there is no God. They claim to have FACTS. Like the expanding universe or multiple universes that will eventually die out. You're different than that maybe, because you speak as if you believe there is a God of sorts. Perhaps describes as Essence without personality, who has no purpose for mankind other than for humans to live, suffer, and die?

 

[YoursTrue]

But a ill eel is still an eel.

Ain't that cute. slick, too.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, we see it quite often.

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.

what happens if an organism does not die? what about that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

what happens if an organism does not die? what about that?

There are organisms that never "die" and yet they still evolve. Bacteria do not tend to die. They reproduce. Every time that they reproduce mutations are probably added. As to animals they all tend to die. There may be some very simple ones that do not die but there does appear to be a evolutionary benefit for adults of species to bear offspring and eventually die. You should really ask a biologist this question.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are organisms that never "die" and yet they still evolve. Bacteria do not tend to die. They reproduce. Every time that they reproduce mutations are probably added. As to animals they all tend to die. There may be some very simple ones that do not die but there does appear to be a evolutionary benefit for adults of species to bear offspring and eventually die. You should really ask a biologist this question.

Naturally you don't believe in the Bible so I won't quote anything in there for you now. Have a good evening.

 

[YoursTrue]

Except to say @Subduction Zone that I was speaking about the possibility of a human not dying. I know you don't believe that, but I have no reason not to. Hope you're having a good evening, digesting your food properly and well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except to say @Subduction Zone that I was speaking about the possibility of a human not dying. I know you don't believe that, but I have no reason not to. Hope you're having a good evening, digesting your food properly and well.

Sooner or later people die. You will die some day. It is uncomfortable but that is a fact. You can pretend part of you will live on. That does not bother me. But you will die.

Now I cannot explain the evolutionary reason that happens beyond making some educated guesses. A population that has critters that do not die could not evolve. Sooner or later it would be all undying adults and no young could survive that. No evolution means that when the environment changes they would simply die out. It is an evolutionary advantage to keep having replacements with some variation. That way as the environment changes certain new traits would be prevalent and older ones that were no longer beneficial would be lost. To have that happen you need the older population to die and get out of the way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Naturally you don't believe in the Bible so I won't quote anything in there for you now. Have a good evening.

You can use the Bible. If you an show that it is trustworthy. If you cannot do so why would you quote from it in the first place?

 

[YoursTrue]

Sooner or later people die. You will die some day. It is uncomfortable but that is a fact. You can pretend part of you will live on. That does not bother me. But you will die.

Now I cannot explain the evolutionary reason that happens beyond making some educated guesses. A population that has critters that do not die could not evolve. Sooner or later it would be all undying adults and no young could survive that. No evolution means that when the environment changes they would simply die out. It is an evolutionary advantage to keep having replacements with some variation. That way as the environment changes certain new traits would be prevalent and older ones that were no longer beneficial would be lost. To have that happen you need the older population to die and get out of the way.

here's how I figure it now: HUMANS alone have salesmen and graveyards that generally cost money. Gorillas do not. THEREFORE, humans have different viewpoints, ideas and characteristics than monkeys and fish. I don't know about fish or monkeys because fortunately they have not spoken to me. But again, to keep it simple, they don't have mortuaries and salespeople. Do not turn this around. Does that, however, mean that there is a God who cares? You already know what I believe. to an extent.

 

[YoursTrue]

You can use the Bible. If you an show that it is trustworthy. If you cannot do so why would you quote from it in the first place?

OK, since you asked, and I don't particularly wish to go off on a tangent, the Bible offers hope within its pages that one day this earth is going to be a better place with humans that God allows to live forever. I appreciate what I have learned. As one of the Bible writers pointed out, there are some things hard to understand.* But the hope of everlasting life is something I can relate to.
*when I say hard to understand, I mean there are some things I cannot explain. Hope YOU understand that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sooner or later people die. You will die some day. It is uncomfortable but that is a fact. You can pretend part of you will live on. That does not bother me. But you will die.

Now I cannot explain the evolutionary reason that happens beyond making some educated guesses. A population that has critters that do not die could not evolve. Sooner or later it would be all undying adults and no young could survive that. No evolution means that when the environment changes they would simply die out. It is an evolutionary advantage to keep having replacements with some variation. That way as the environment changes certain new traits would be prevalent and older ones that were no longer beneficial would be lost. To have that happen you need the older population to die and get out of the way.

speaking of which, if it is an uncomfortable fact (now) that people experience death, one would have to ask why? Why would it be an uncomfortable thought or fact?

 

[YoursTrue]

Sooner or later people die. You will die some day. It is uncomfortable but that is a fact. You can pretend part of you will live on. That does not bother me. But you will die.

Now I cannot explain the evolutionary reason that happens beyond making some educated guesses. A population that has critters that do not die could not evolve. Sooner or later it would be all undying adults and no young could survive that. No evolution means that when the environment changes they would simply die out. It is an evolutionary advantage to keep having replacements with some variation. That way as the environment changes certain new traits would be prevalent and older ones that were no longer beneficial would be lost. To have that happen you need the older population to die and get out of the way.

And reason would show that the Bible shows that God told Adam that if he ate from that tree, he would die. He did not tell lions, birds, or monkeys that they would die in that same manner. Because he did not offer them the possibility of everlasting life.

 

[YoursTrue]

You can use the Bible. If you an show that it is trustworthy. If you cannot do so why would you quote from it in the first place?

ok, have a good evening, SZ.