Irony of the evolutionary belief

[YoursTrue]

I've almost completely lost interest in engaging with some of the contributors to these evolution threads. I can't hardly figure out what they are talking about half the time. And if you correct them or point out any flaws in what is presented, the next thing seems to be cries of persecution for 20 posts. Or responses that I find nonsensical and baseless without any merit.

I've come to the conclusion that you can only repeat yourself so many times before realizing these questions and claims don't come up to learn anything or enter into legitimate debate or discussion. At least, that is my take. I'd rather talk with some of the atheists than many of the people claiming they are Christian like me. The fruit that is offered doesn't seem to fit the claim as I understand it. I find that it isn't so much belief in God that is driving this, but belief in a doctrine or what some group of church leaders demand.

But don't let me stop you guys from bringing up established knowledge, theory and sound reasoning. That I am still interested in discussing.

"When you use hardly, the negative is already included in that word, so you don't need to add another negative—in this case, the can't—in order to make it a negative. Doing so cancels the negative. The bottom line is that when using hardly, use can hardly, not can't hardly.Mar 7, 2019"

Can’t Hardly or Can Hardly: I Can Hardly Stand It

In Shakespeare’s time, double negatives such as can’t hardly were common, but in current standard usage (and by current, I don’t mean that I just made it up this week!), double negatives are substa…

languageandgrammar.com

 

[F1fan]

Do you view God as Santa Clause (someone that obviously and certainly doesn’t exist) or do you view God as Aliens (we don’t know, perhaps they exist perhaps no,)

1. There actually was a St. Nicholas that the Santa Claus story was based on.

Saint Nicholas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2. Aliens are likely to exist somewhere out there. They are as natural as we are, and we exist. There's no special assumption necessary to ponder them existing because they are plausible. We just have no definitive evidence of them existing, or visiting earth.

3. As for God and gods, how are they plausible knowing what we do of reality? There's nothing that the word God can apply to in our experiences as human beings in any objective way. Theists don't have evidence of their Gods existing, they have adopted beliefs from their social experience and they work to make these ideas relevant to their everyday life.

Explain how your idea of God is more plausible than Santa Claus.

So if I ask a scientist about his experiment, would that count as testimony?

It would be an answer. What is your obsession with the word testimony?

If a scientists was called as a witness in a court case his answers would be called testimony, and that's because it's appropriate definition in that context of language use.

If I ask him about his methodology, results, conclusions etc. would that be a testimony………….

No, it would be answers.

if I ask him who review the paper would that be his testimony?

No.

The word testimony has definitions and is appropriate in certain contexts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've almost completely lost interest in engaging with some of the contributors to these evolution threads. I can't hardly figure out what they are talking about half the time. And if you correct them or point out any flaws in what is presented, the next thing seems to be cries of persecution for 20 posts. Or responses that I find nonsensical and baseless without any merit.

I've come to the conclusion that you can only repeat yourself so many times before realizing these questions and claims don't come up to learn anything or enter into legitimate debate or discussion. At least, that is my take. I'd rather talk with some of the atheists than many of the people claiming they are Christian like me. The fruit that is offered doesn't seem to fit the claim as I understand it. I find that it isn't so much belief in God that is driving this, but belief in a doctrine or what some group of church leaders demand.

But don't let me stop you guys from bringing up established knowledge, theory and sound reasoning. That I am still interested in discussing.

Despite my failure to proof read my post, clearly some readers can still figure out what I'm talking about.

 

[YoursTrue]

When (in the story) Eve ate the fruit, she had no concept of good or evil because God had expressly denied her this.

God did not deny Eve the knowledge of good and evil. He did not, however, allow her to decide for herself without consulting with Him first because the tree belonged to HIM. Not her and not her husband and not the serpent. And clearly she should have spoken to her husband before listening to the serpent. But if you don't think so, that's ok. Your choice. She probably figured she did the wrong thing when she was expelled from the Garden of Eden. Take it as you will and have a good evening.

 

[YoursTrue]

Despite my failure to proof read my post, clearly some readers can still figure out what I'm talking about.

No one is perfect.

 

[YoursTrue]

Despite my failure to proof read my post, clearly some readers can still figure out what I'm talking about.

It's good to be clear about what a person cannot understand that another says. But that's the way I think and that's why it seems certain ones get upset when asked to augment (not prove, but perhaps explain) their viewpoint as to why they say they believe in God. Hey! Have a good one.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Despite my failure to proof read my post, clearly some readers can still figure out what I'm talking about.

Still the harassment about diversionary discussions of irrelevant issues. Who would have guessed it? It seems almost obsessive to me.

 

[F1fan]

I've almost completely lost interest in engaging with some of the contributors to these evolution threads. I can't hardly figure out what they are talking about half the time. And if you correct them or point out any flaws in what is presented, the next thing seems to be cries of persecution for 20 posts. Or responses that I find nonsensical and baseless without any merit.

It's Lucy and the football. And I get the feeling that it is a sort of deliberate sabotage of discourse. It comes down to the educated saying "this is what science says" and also "what you think science says isn't what it says".

I've come to the conclusion that you can only repeat yourself so many times before realizing these questions and claims don't come up to learn anything or enter into legitimate debate or discussion. At least, that is my take. I'd rather talk with some of the atheists than many of the people claiming they are Christian like me. The fruit that is offered doesn't seem to fit the claim as I understand it. I find that it isn't so much belief in God that is driving this, but belief in a doctrine or what some group of church leaders demand.

It's just like the old Beliefnet boards that Blu and me were on back in the late 90's. It became an alliance betwen atheists and rational theists in debate with more absolutist theists. It was an interesting dynamic.

But don't let me stop you guys from bringing up established knowledge, theory and sound reasoning. That I am still interested in discussing.

In my experience in debates about evolution, it is one side defering to what experts in science report, and correcting the false beliefs of creationists. There's no debate over the results.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Despite my failure to proof read my post, clearly some readers can still figure out what I'm talking about.

Still no evidence that what I said was misunderstood in the context. As well, there is further evidence that would indicate that some people that write rather obtuse posts almost exclusively can actually write posts that are readily coherent. That tells me something too.

 

[blü 2]

God did not deny Eve the knowledge of good and evil.

Of course [he] did. Why else was there a tree in the story called The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden, and why else were they forbidden to eat its fruit and why else when Eve ate it did she suddenly obtain knowledge of good and evil, and why is the same true of Adam?

He did not, however, allow her to decide for herself without consulting with Him first because the tree belonged to HIM.

She had no knowledge of good and evil so she was at all times up to having eaten the fruit kept in ignorance of those qualities and the difference between them. The story is unambiguous.

Not her and not her husband and not the serpent.

The serpent spoke only the truth. It was God who misspoke, since just as the serpent said, they didn't die when they ate the fruit.

And clearly she should have spoken to her husband before listening to the serpent.

Why? Even were you right, 'should have' has no meaning to someone denied the power to discriminate, as Eve and Adam were.

And as I pointed out, Ezekiel is unambiguous that sin can't be inherited.

So whichever way you look at it, there was no biblical Fall of Man, just an old yarn from Alexandria that Paul overheard at the golf club.

And whichever way you look at it, it's only a story.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's Lucy and the football. And I get the feeling that it is a sort of deliberate sabotage of discourse. It comes down to the educated saying "this is what science says" and also "what you think science says isn't what it says".

It's just like the old Beliefnet boards that Blu and me were on back in the late 90's. It became an alliance betwen atheists and rational theists in debate with more absolutist theists. It was an interesting dynamic.

In my experience in debates about evolution, it is one side defering to what experts in science report, and correcting the false beliefs of creationists. There's no debate over the results.

I've been doing this since the 90's myself. Back on Usenet's alt.binaries. My conclusions are much as yours. A willful attempt by those intent on keeping baseless dissent alive for lack of anything valid to bring to a discussion or debate.

I'm just growing weary for the time being. I need to take a break from it I suppose.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course [he] did. Why else was there a tree in the story called The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden, and why else were they forbidden to eat its fruit and why else when Eve ate it did she suddenly obtain knowledge of good and evil, and why is the same true of Adam?


She had no knowledge of good and evil so she was at all times up to having eaten the fruit kept in ignorance of those qualities and the difference between them. The story is unambiguous.


The serpent spoke only the truth. It was God who misspoke, since just as the serpent said, they didn't die when they ate the fruit.H


Why? Even were you right, 'should have' has no meaning to someone denied the power to discriminate, as Eve and Adam were.

And as I pointed out, Ezekiel is unambiguous that sin can't be inherited.

So whichever way you look at it, there was no biblical Fall of Man, just an old yarn from Alexandria that Paul overheard at the golf club.

And whichever way you look at it, it's only a story.

Eve obviously wanted the decision to rest with herself. She paid the price. It's like a child saying to the parent, "You have no right to tell me what to do."

 

[F1fan]

God did not deny Eve the knowledge of good and evil.

But God did forbid access to this knowledge.

The irony is that how could Eve known it was bad to disobey? She had no knowledge of bad.

He did not, however, allow her to decide for herself without consulting with Him first because the tree belonged to HIM.

And she didn't disobey until she was tempted by the Serpent, which God sent to do. And of course God knew this would work, because what God does never goes against his will, yes? So God set up Eve to disobey. It was the plan.

Not her and not her husband and not the serpent. And clearly she should have spoken to her husband before listening to the serpent.

Why would she need to do that since having no knowledge of good and bad any actions and decisions are mindane?

But if you don't think so, that's ok. Your choice.

Some of us are freer than Adam and Eve, as we have reasoning skill. Many conservative Christians are as limited and naive as Adam and Eve.

She probably figured she did the wrong thing when she was expelled from the Garden of Eden. Take it as you will and have a good evening.

After it was too late. After she had the knowledge. But not before, just as God created her: naive, and easily fooled by others.

 

[YoursTrue]

"The evolution of human intelligence is closely tied to the evolution of the human brain and to the origin of language. The timeline of human evolution spans approximately seven million years,[1] from the separation of the genus Pan until the emergence of behavioral modernity by 50,000 years ago. " Not saying I agree, but this is how some scientists explain intelligence.

Evolution of human intelligence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[F1fan]

I've been doing this since the 90's myself. Back on Usenet's alt.binaries. My conclusions are much as yours. A willful attempt by those intent on keeping baseless dissent alive for lack of anything valid to bring to a discussion or debate.

I'm just growing weary for the time being. I need to take a break from it I suppose.

For me there are two elements. There is science that has earned respect due to its commitment to the scientific method, and those of us who respect it, and defer to wat exprts report is a sort of sacred thing. The other is how some can disrespect the effort of so many in science by rejecting their work, and do so because they lack the very cognitive tools that makes science work. There's an irony in that (not to take away from the bogus title). I think ultimately these debates are over pride. One side is proud of what experts can discover about how things are. And the other has pride in assuming a power over their accomplishments.

 

[F1fan]

Eve obviously wanted the decision to rest with herself.

Much the way a cat decides to jump on the countertop.

She paid the price.

She didn't know there were any consequences due to no knowledge of good and bad.

It's like a child saying to the parent, "You have no right to tell me what to do."

Because children don't know anything.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For me there are two elements. There is science that has earned respect due to its commitment to the scientific method, and those of us who respect it, and defer to wat exprts report is a sort of sacred thing. The other is how some can disrespect the effort of so many in science by rejecting their work, and do so because they lack the very cognitive tools that makes science work. There's an irony in that (not to take away from the bogus title). I think ultimately these debates are over pride. One side is proud of what experts can discover about how things are. And the other has pride in assuming a power over their accomplishments.

I think that there are certain creationist positions that cannot sustain the conception of any position existing outside of the personal interpretation rendered by the faith group a person decided to join or were born into.

I'm a creationist in the sense of my faith. But I don't maintain the hubris declaring I know how it all happened and can decided to dismiss conclusions based on evidence with a wave of the hand. I view science as a means to learn about what I believe is Creation. But also just the best means we have developed to learn about the world around us. I don't hold with the idea that anything humans come up with is flawed by default and has no value, significance or validity. After all, humans came up with the religions that make such claims. The irony of that is always so obvious to me.

 

[blü 2]

Eve obviously wanted the decision to rest with herself. She paid the price. It's like a child saying to the parent, "You have no right to tell me what to do."

What price?

You haven't addressed the problem that sin is NEVER, not even once, mentioned in the story, and that God chucks them out of the Garden for reasons personal to [him]self (Genesis 3:22-3) and for no other reason.

And you haven't addressed the problem that it's only a story, with no historical basis whatsoever.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes

Right, so when you said:

Why would I want to ask that ,,? Why is it relevant..... Have I ever claimed the opposite? When?

You were either lying or having a serious case of amnesia.

and I defined testimony as “what other people say or report”

Actually, you did not. Not clearly anyway. In any case, nobody uses that word to describe the reporting of data and evidence. Especially not when that data and evidence is also included in verifiable ways.

So to insist on using that word anyway, only serves to confuse and it's quite obvious what your goal is. It's not an honest goal.

So on that definition scientific papers would be the testimony (report) of the authors

I can make up a definition also by saying that "lying" means "reporting data" and then call scientific papers "lies".
And "technically" I wouldn't be saying a falsehood, but it's pretty clear how it would be extremely confusing to everybody.

My original claim was that at least sometimes testimonies (using that definition) can be evidence like for example trhe testimony of the authors of a scientific paper.

Only because you make up a definition that nobody else uses.
It's a dishonest approach and you know it.

I suggest you stop it.

Strange comment , given that you are the one who is sayign that I should never accept claims as evidnece……………why should I accept what other people say about the proper defitnion of testimony?

There you go again.

The arrogance is astounding.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In order to believe what reports say about human evolution you have to believe what the (scholarly) papers are saying, including the estimates of when 'humans' first appeared. etc.

That is, if you are too lazy to review the evidence provided.