Irony of the evolutionary belief

[F1fan]

Actually, you don't get the picture. I won't fully explain it to you now, but think -- the Doomsday Clock doesn't say anything about God or no God. It talks about death by destruction by humans.

What I wrote has nothing to do with the Doomsday Clock. Why are you even bringing this up on a thread about evolution?

Feel free to respond to the trap that creationists create for themselves. If my memory serves me, you have claimed that diseases are tied to the Fall of man. But 1. The Adam and Eve story isn’t true, and 2. If it was the Fall is still a world that God created.

I would think Bible literalists would be tempted to let evolution take the blame for the bad things in the lottery of life because otherwise it all falls on God.

It’s as if Jeffery Dahmer was your dad but you don’t let his serial murders interfere with seeing him as an awesome dad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is correct.

Nope. I'm just bringing to your attention that the resurrection has been testified to, whether you believe it or not. And--there were those in the first century who claimed to be Christian and did not know about Darwinian type evolution, but even then denied the resurrection. Evolution and the Doomsday Clock offer only the possibility of death by natural means and also at the hand of those purportedly evolved. The Bible says something else. Have a good one. Indeed, the resurrection is not something considered in the theory of evolution. This does not mean there will be no resurrection, or that death is the final result for everyone.

Testimony is a extremely weak evidence. It only tells you that a person believes the religion that he his a member of. Would you switch to Islam merely because you heard their slogan about Allah? If not then you should understand how others feel about testimony.

 

[YoursTrue]

Testimony is a extremely weak evidence. It only tells you that a person believes the religion that he his a member of. Would you switch to Islam merely because you heard their slogan about Allah? If not then you should understand how others feel about testimony.

At a certain point, I leave any further consideration of certain ideas up to God and each individual.

 

[YoursTrue]

It seems that evolutionists, who talk so much about science, forget how it works.

The nine main characteristics of science are: Objectivity, verifiable, ethical neutrality, systematic exploration, reliability, precision, abstraction and predictability.

Each supposed new species, presumably arising from a previous species related to others and so, would offer evolutionists such an immense wealth of information that it would be very easy to predict what the next expected changes would be.

Or is the doctrine not so scientific?

From what I see and am learning, there is no proof in science. Therefore -- ok, so what is considered by some as "evidence," does not prove the theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From what I see and am learning, there is no proof in science. Therefore -- ok, so what is considered by some as "evidence," does not prove the theory.

Correct, evidence confirms a theory. What you do not understand is that there is no "proof" in science is what makes science more reliable than just about anything else in the world. What others consider "proven" scientists will laugh at because it is not where near that.

 

[Pogo]

From what I see and am learning, there is no proof in science. Therefore -- ok, so what is considered by some as "evidence," does not prove the theory.

Wow, another concept makes a dent. No, you don't prove things in science, you gather evidence for hypotheses and theories and the ones that best explain the observed reality are accepted.

 

[YoursTrue]

Testimony is a extremely weak evidence. It only tells you that a person believes the religion that he his a member of. Would you switch to Islam merely because you heard their slogan about Allah? If not then you should understand how others feel about testimony.

Again, the written account in the Bible shows that some believed in a resurrection, and others did not. And then it is also written that if a person did not believe in the resurrection their faith was useless. (in vain)

Correct, evidence confirms a theory. What you do not understand is that there is no "proof" in science is what makes science more reliable than just about anything else in the world. What others consider "proven" scientists will laugh at because it is not where near that.

Many people are aware that things in the world are getting tough. And of course, while the Doomsday Clock does not "prove" evolution or disprove evolution, some realize that what Jesus said is being fulfilled. Your take is that evidence confirms the theory of evolution. So far I don't see that. Even though some might believe that fish emerged (evolved) from the water by means of Tiktaalik moving ever onward. Again -- it's a theory that Taktaalik evolved and the evidence simply does not prove the theory in all its aspects. But if you think so, that's what counts for you and others. As you know, I used to believe whatever I learned in school. Including the theory of evolution. I no longer do. Not only have I learned to question these things (summations and posits of scientists), but because I have faith and trust in the Bible, I believe that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." So let's take a tree, for instance. There are seeds that are very small. And a tree can produce many seeds. Do I think that God makes every tree and every seed? I think He made the initial and fine instructions. Do I think that God causes deformities? No. That comes about by circumstances outside of initial creation. And particularly because of what happened with Adam and Eve, God now permits these things to happen. But it will not always be this way. That's how I believe now. I know you do not, maybe cannot.

 

[F1fan]

At a certain point, I leave any further consideration of certain ideas up to God and each individual.

Would you leave your medical problems up to God? If you were diagnosed with cancer would you trust God to cure you miraculously, or go to a hospital?

 

[YoursTrue]

Wow, another concept makes a dent. No, you don't prove things in science, you gather evidence for hypotheses and theories and the ones that best explain the observed reality are accepted.

Yes, they may be accepted but that does not mean they are true. If I were an evolutionist, I might ask, what else would you need to make sure the theory is true? Or -- why wouldn't it be true? Take the second question first. It might not be true because -- all the evidence is not there, and what is considered as evidence is that by those fitting what they consider as evidence in with the theory. The answer to the first question is there would need to be definite unquestionable evidence, almost like eyewitness account or video recording of change. But of course that cannot be because no one was around to see the entire absolute process of transition from one form to another, such as fish to Tiktaalik and beyond.

 

[YoursTrue]

later maybe

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Would you leave your medical problems up to God? If you were diagnosed with cancer would you trust God to cure you miraculously, or go to a hospital?

I would pray and continue seeking medical and surgical options.

 

[McBell]

Yes, they may be accepted but that does not mean they are true. If I were an evolutionist, I might ask, what else would you need to make sure the theory is true? Or -- why wouldn't it be true? Take the second question first. It might not be true because -- all the evidence is not there, and what is considered as evidence is that by those fitting what they consider as evidence in with the theory. The answer to the first question is there would need to be definite unquestionable evidence, almost like eyewitness account or video recording of change. But of course that cannot be because no one was around to see the entire absolute process of transition from one form to another, such as fish to Tiktaalik and beyond.

One wonders why you have not required your beliefs to be held to same standard you require science to meet.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, they may be accepted but that does not mean they are true. If I were an evolutionist, I might ask, what else would you need to make sure the theory is true? Or -- why wouldn't it be true? Take the second question first. It might not be true because -- all the evidence is not there, and what is considered as evidence is that by those fitting what they consider as evidence in with the theory. The answer to the first question is there would need to be definite unquestionable evidence, almost like eyewitness account or video recording of change. But of course that cannot be because no one was around to see the entire absolute process of transition from one form to another, such as fish to Tiktaalik and beyond.

It is very simple, come up with a better theory that explains the observations or something that the theory can't explain like the proverbial Cambrian rabbit, barring that, we will continue to accept the theory as the best available explanation.
This is not a search for any sort of absolute truth, rather the best understanding that we can have.

 

[We Never Know]

I would pray and continue seeking medical and surgical options.

Wouldn't that be similar to Pascal's wager ..

You would pray for God to help/cure you put seek other venues just in case he doesn't

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wouldn't that be similar to Pascal's wager ..

You would pray for God to help/cure you put seek other venues just in case he doesn't

No. I'm not hedging my bets. Prayer doesn't have to have magical responses. Why can't medical science be the answer to prayer? Darn this lag.

 

[We Never Know]

No. I'm not hedging my bets. Prayer doesn't have to have magical responses. Why can't medical science be the answer to prayer? Darn this lag.

"Why can't medical science be the answer to prayer?"

That's one way to look at it if you would see the treatment improving your condition as the prayer answer. But improvement doesn't always occur.

 

[F1fan]

No. I'm not hedging my bets. Prayer doesn't have to have magical responses. Why can't medical science be the answer to prayer? Darn this lag.

Right, as prayer can help coping with trauma, and aid in a more positive attitude that is tied to better medical outcomes.

 

[We Never Know]

Right, as prayer can help coping with trauma, and aid in a more positive attitude that is tied to better medical outcomes.

Yep. Which is why I can't understand why people give others crap about praying to a god.

 

[blü 2]

So glad you realize that it is not an error. It goes on, for your consideration:
"Nevertheless, someone will say: “How are the dead to be raised up? Yes, with what sort of body are they coming?” 36 You unreasonable person! What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies. 37 And as for what you sow, you sow, not the body that will develop, but just a bare grain, whether of wheat or of some other kind of seed; 38 but God gives it a body just as it has pleased him, and gives to each of the seeds its own body."

Of course biology existed only in very primitive forms back then, so Paul didn't know that seeds are not biologically dead, and that if they were, nothing would grow from them. In 2024 however it's nonsense as a metaphor.

You don't have to believe it. I do.

If we leave your acculturation aside, would you have any reason to believe it? No testable theory supports it in any way, and no authenticated examples are known.

In my view, Ecclesiastes 9 nails it ─

4. He who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion.​

5. For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward; but the memory of them is lost.​

6. Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and they have no more for ever any share in all that is done under the sun.​

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, the written account in the Bible shows that some believed in a resurrection, and others did not. And then it is also written that if a person did not believe in the resurrection their faith was useless. (in vain)

Why? Why do you need to believe that to be "saved"? That is one of the huge problems with the Bible.

Many people are aware that things in the world are getting tough. And of course, while the Doomsday Clock does not "prove" evolution or disprove evolution, some realize that what Jesus said is being fulfilled. Your take is that evidence confirms the theory of evolution. So far I don't see that. Even though some might believe that fish emerged (evolved) from the water by means of Tiktaalik moving ever onward. Again -- it's a theory that Taktaalik evolved and the evidence simply does not prove the theory in all its aspects. But if you think so, that's what counts for you and others. As you know, I used to believe whatever I learned in school. Including the theory of evolution. I no longer do. Not only have I learned to question these things (summations and posits of scientists), but because I have faith and trust in the Bible, I believe that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." So let's take a tree, for instance. There are seeds that are very small. And a tree can produce many seeds. Do I think that God makes every tree and every seed? I think He made the initial and fine instructions. Do I think that God causes deformities? No. That comes about by circumstances outside of initial creation. And particularly because of what happened with Adam and Eve, God now permits these things to happen. But it will not always be this way. That's how I believe now. I know you do not, maybe cannot.

But they are not getting worse. That is just human nature to remember the past fondly. When one looks at statistics things are getting better..