Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Why do you think that this sort of argument helps you at all?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

And that Adam would not have known what he was doing according to the myth. Haven't you ever read it? It is clear that you did not understand it. Tell me, can you describe the tree that they ate from in the myth? What did the tree do?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

The drive to survive is also likely from evolution. Animals that did not care if they died, probably died. Animals with an instinct to live passed on their genes. The fact of death runs contrary to that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

A false hope to what sounds like its own kind of hell. People are quite often to immature to realize that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you think that this sort of argument helps you at all?

I don't have to think for you. But because I like you I am expressing my thoughts as to how I reason. I am not saying it is something for you but how I analyze reality now. Again, monkeys do not have funeral homes and expensive coffins. Fish don't either.

 

[YoursTrue]

A false hope to what sounds like its own kind of hell. People are quite often to immature to realize that.

If anything this is hell.

 

[YoursTrue]

The drive to survive is also likely from evolution. Animals that did not care if they died, probably died. Animals with an instinct to live passed on their genes. The fact of death runs contrary to that.

Likely but not surely. It was only to Adam did God offer the opportunity to not die. Not to trees, or lions. And again, monkeys do not wonder about black holes in the universe. Later...

 

[blü 2]

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.

I can understand the fear of death as an evolved instinct of all complex creatures, but I can't turn it into a wish to live forever. To achieve what, exactly? Here's a poem I've quoted here before that I think is to the point ─

Heaven​

​

One hundred​

billion​

years on​

what will you say​

to your true love?​

By the way, I'm still interested to hear your response to my earlier reply to you >here<.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

ok there you go.....from comments that you have read


@TagliatelliMonster doesn't ever accept testimony (claims) as evidence

1 a doctor telling you that you are sick (not evidence)

2 a local man telling you where the restorant is (not evidence)

3 your neighbor telling you that he has a son (not evidence)

Correct. All these are just claims.
The doctor, local man and neighbour all might be able to provide evidence to support their claim.
But as written, they are just claims.

Depending on context / circumstance, you might decide to just believe the claims without that additional evidence. And in some cases it might also be rational to do so. But they remain claims. Just because you decide to believe them doesn't magically turn them into evidence of themselves.

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

A claim doesn't magically become evidence of itself simply because one believes the claim.

You obviously disagree with him

'obviously'? I doubt it.

, so are you going to explain to him why is he wrong? Or are you going to support his mistake just because he is an atheist and part of your tribe.?

Your false dichotomy is noted.

As for my DNA example I admit that I was wrong DNA test are more than just testimony

It in fact isn't "testimony" in any logical sense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1 You would accept a phone call from your doctor as evidence that you are sick

2 tag wouldn’t accept that as evidence

Therefore you disagree with tag



Why is this so hard to understand?

A claim is a claim is a claim.

You can believe a claim or you can reject a claim.

Neither believing nor rejecting the claim turns the claim into "evidence" of itself".

You make no sense at all.

Wheter something is evidence or not is not determined by if someone believes it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don’t know ask @TagliatelliMonster , I am equally amazed both by his comment and by your (plural) reaction……… if any YEC would have made such a ridiculous claim the thread would be flooded with corrections and even insults to such a nonsense position.

But obviously it is now clear to me that internet atheism is a cult, and that you will support each other no matter what

Your inability to understand simple things is a you-problem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The difference between you and I is that I support my accusations, you accuse me of commiting logical fallacies or scientific mistakes, but you never support those assertion.

I am @TagliatelliMonster accusing for committing a straw man fallacy and this is my justification:

I said:
well supported testimonies made by well-informed people in a context where lies are improbable count as evidence.

His reply (starwman)

I have bridge for you to buy.
Apparently your standard of evidence is so low that the above became "more likely", merely because I claimed it.

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/irony-of-the-evolutionary-belief.272884/page-113#post-8510662

I quoted your posts word for word. NOWHERE have you EVER said the bolded statement. Ever.
And specifically the underlined part was never present.

Once again you shows your dishonest colours.
You even included the link to the post where everyone can go and read and see that you completely changed your language here.
And then you have to odacity to accuse me of strawmanning you.......

The arrogance and dishonesty is astounding!



A "well supported testimony" would indeed be evidence. Because of the "well supported" part of it, which would be additional evidence supporting the testimony. The evidence would be the supported part, not the testimony / claims part.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Single mutations can't.
The accumulation of many mutations over time not only can, but will.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't have to think for you. But because I like you I am expressing my thoughts as to how I reason. I am not saying it is something for you but how I analyze reality now. Again, monkeys do not have funeral homes and expensive coffins. Fish don't either.

Others have pointed out how this sort of argument fails. When you keep reusing it you are telling us that you cannot think for yourself. Snark only works if you can show that you are right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If anything this is hell.

Is your life really that bad? It sounds as if you are the victim of a very controlling religion at times. Have you realized that those controls may be the problem?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Likely but not surely. It was only to Adam did God offer the opportunity to not die. Not to trees, or lions. And again, monkeys do not wonder about black holes in the universe. Later...

That is incorrect. If Adam had eaten from the tree of life and then of the tree of knowledge he would have lived forever.

 

[leroy]

Maybe you are wrong. But I don't see you considering that possibility.

@Eli G is correct it is boring and useless to spend 100+ post with definitions

I said what I had to say multiple times

I saw an alien eat a baby. What is it that makes this testimony a fact for you?

How about this testimony? I saw a woman invent the cotton gin.

Or this testimony? I saw a stork deliver a baby to my neighbor's house.

Or this testimony? I saw that minister shoplifting. It wasn't my friend that shoplifted.

Why are these facts to you? What evidence is delivered in those statements?

I've even written them here, so they are documented. I could repeat them in a court of law so they are in the court records. Does that make them less claim and more fact?

Why are these facts to you?

No these are not facts to me.

But I have a genuine desire to understand, why do you think that I would / should accept those claims as facts?

 

[leroy]

Do we? The last time that I checked it was not that much longer. The main difference is due to our larger brain and the amount of time it takes to become an adult. We have a longer childhood, it takes longer to raise a being where reasoning is the key to survival. In other words, a longer lifespan is a side effect of our increased intelligence. It was needed and the cost of a prolonged childhood was made up for by more success as an adult. The goal was never just to live longer. The only goal to evolution is to pass on genes. That can have some amazingly different results for different reasons.

Wow that was actually a good and informative answer. ( @It Aint Necessarily So you can add this to the things that I have learned )

 

[leroy]

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.

But do you understand that GPT is much better as a source than mere claims from anonymous people in forums ?

Do you understand why am I more inclined to accept GPTs definition over your (plural) definition?

 

[leroy]

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?

In an other thread I claimed and supported the claim that there are non random mechanisms that can produce hereditable changes in the phenotype and the genotype

@F1fan disagreed

I am not sure if I understand your request.... Do you want a link to that thread?