Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Subduction Zone]

My God can raise the dead, recreate cells, and do whatever He wants. No man or angel can stop him. He can cause wars to cease.
Isaiah 2:4
"Then He will judge between the nations and arbitrate for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will no longer take up the sword against nation, nor train anymore for war."

Okay, then natural abiogenesis is not necessary for evolution. You just answered your own question.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is evident that the evolutionary chain has to have an initial life or point zero. Evolutionary doctrine sweeps that point zero under the rug. Same as the point at which apes became intelligent...

Those who accept that doctrine are supposed to accept it as it is, unsatisfactory, incomplete and incoherent. It requires faith.

I have respect for Stephen J. Gould. He is (was) honest. Although a firm believer in the process of evolution. I respect him because he was honest, although I do not agree with the concept of evolution as it stands. I knew his cousin well and I read some of Gould's statements which I understand and I respect him. Although do not agree with the theory of evolution. My cousin was a nuclear physicist in California. What I am saying is this: from my study of the Bible I have come to understand that life is a gift. From God. True knowledge is also a gift from God. "In the beginning..."

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay, then natural abiogenesis is not necessary for evolution. You just answered your own question.

I'm thinking you don't know what you're saying. That's what I'm saying. And seeing.

 

[Eli G]

I have respect for Stephen J. Gould. He is (was) honest. Although a firm believer in the process of evolution. I respect him because he was honest, although I do not agree with the concept of evolution as it stands. I knew his cousin well and I read some of Gould's statements which I understand and I respect him. Although do not agree with the theory of evolution. My cousin was a nuclear physicist in California. What I am saying is this: from my study of the Bible I have come to understand that life is a gift. From God. True knowledge is also a gift from God. "In the beginning..."

There is a point at which humans are no longer just biological beings but thinking beings created in the image of God and capable of controlling their environment in an intelligent and advanced way.

Evolutionists cannot give a satisfactory answer to this difference between humans and animals, much less apes. Many animals can be considered more intelligent than today's apes, let alone those that have not existed for so many years and that according to them were the biological parents of humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay, then natural abiogenesis is not necessary for evolution. You just answered your own question.

I'll try once more, maybe only. The last time. I'm thinking you're not making sense, but that's ok because I'm not going to change you or straighten your mind out.
I do not believe the theory of evolution is true. Abiogenesis as purportedly explained by chemists and scientists must be connected with the first life on earth. Because otherwise -- (guess, but doesn't mean I am going to continue this conversation)
Anyway, have a nice evening, and I have a feeling our discussions have come to an end.

 

[Eli G]

The justifications they give are childish: evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life... or, human intellectual development has nothing to do with evolution... As if they decide what evolution has to prove or explain, or not; In fact, as if they believed that there is a science called "Evolution" that is dedicated to very specific issues. That science does not exist, and whoever believes in the evolution has to prove all its aspects to demonstrate that it is credible, feasible, and demonstrable. That's what we try to do when explain our beliefs, all of them, not just a few of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll try once more, maybe only. The last time. I'm thinking you're not making sense, but that's ok because I'm not going to change you or straighten your mind out.
I do not believe the theory of evolution is true.

I hate to interrupt you, but so what. You can believe that the theory of gravity is not true. You can believe that atomic theory is not true. Do you think that will save you if you jump off of a tall building or if you are next to a thermonuclear device when it goes off.

But I understand what you are saying. You do not like reality.

Abiogenesis as purportedly explained by chemists and scientists must be connected with the first life on earth. Because otherwise -- (guess, but doesn't mean I am going to continue this conversation)

Not "must be". You need to watch your phrasing. It is connected. It is almost certainly a fact too. But you keep ignoring that if God was not liar, as you believe, that he could have started life at the cellular level and let it go on from there.

Anyway, have a nice evening, and I have a feeling our discussions have come to an end.

That is rather sad. It appears that you are going to insist that your God is a liar. And I find that such a strange belief for someone that is claiming to be a Christian to have.

 

[Eli G]

There is also no such thing as "science of human evolution."

Taxonomic classifications are susceptible to change, so subjective.
Bone dating is not infallible.
The interpretation of a small bone, what type of known apes it belongs to or whether a new one has to be invented, or whether it belonged to a human of the time, is based on already prefabricated "legends",

... and if I continue, I could fill a whole page of the problems why there cannot be any science that is dedicated to the theory of evolution.

Using other known and accepted sciences to apply them to evolutionary theory does not give those sciences the character of "pertaining to evolution."

PS: Nor is there any kind of "medicine based on the theory of evolution", as some comic forumers have said somewhere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is also no such thing as "science of human evolution."

Taxonomic classifications are susceptible to change, so subjective.

So what? So is most of the sciences. Anything on the "cutting edge" is susceptible to change. I do not think that you know what science is. Science is not dogma. Science changes as more evidence comes in.

Bone dating is not infallible.

True, but so what? Some may be wrong. It is almost impossible for a significant number of them to be wrong.

The interpretation of a small bone, what type of known apes it belongs to or whether a new one has to be invented, or whether it belonged to a human of the time, is based on already prefabricated "legends",

Not at all. Take Java man. Dubois, who discovered the first two bones of Homo erectus had enough knowledge of human anatomy to recognize them as human that is where the "Homo" part of its name comes from, but not "sapiens" It was very close to us, but different enough to be another species. Was this immediately accepted as "gospel"? No, not even close. There was heavy debate on this. And then more examples of Homo erectus were found. And then more. And an almost complete skeleton. At that point it was obvious that he was right. His analysis of two bones was spot on. Do mistakes happen? Oh yes. All of the time. But those are debated too and the evidence is heavily investigate. And more samples are searched for. Eventually mistakes are clearly mistakes. Other species, such as Homo erectus, are confirmed to the point where creationists show that they are transitional fossils.

... and if I continue, I could fill a whole page of the problems why there cannot be any science that is dedicated to the theory of evolution.

I am sure that it will be as full of errors as this short post of yours. I do not even think that you understand the scientific method.

Using other known and accepted sciences to apply them to evolutionary theory does not give those sciences the character of "pertaining to evolution."

What is this supposed to even mean?

PS: Nor is there any kind of "medicine based on the theory of evolution", as some comic forumers have said somewhere.

You were given examples and you only had denial as an answer so I am not going over that again.


If you really want to discuss the sciences you should at least learn what is and what is not evidence in the sciences. Would you like to know? It is not a hard concept to understand.

 

[Eli G]

For an evolutionist, any monkey bone they find could be from an ape that is going to become a human, LOL.

They are very desperate to demonstrate a doctrine that they invented more than 100 years ago and they still haven't proven it...

They even commit many frauds, they did it before and they still do it... in all the sciences. That's how credible they are (sarcasm).

 

[Subduction Zone]

For an evolutionist, any monkey bone they find could be from an ape that is going to become a human, LOL.

They are very desperate to demonstrate a doctrine that they invented more than 100 years ago and they still haven't proven it...

They even commit many frauds, they did it before and they still do it... in all the sciences. That's how credible they are (sarcasm).

Hardly. There are fossil studies done of other great apes too. Though we find more bones from man than others. Not because there were more of us, but because we left the forest. Damp environments are terrible for preserving bones. We do have some very interesting fossils from the New Guinea and Borneo area. The "greatest" of Great Apes lived there. Mostly teeth, which are very very hard and preserve well, and part of a jaw are all that have been found. But such TEETH. We are not talking 'King Kong" but they were definitely taller than humans.

 

[Eli G]

IKR ...evolutionists fantasize about a world where there were more apes becoming humans than normal apes, LOL.

 

[Subduction Zone]

IKR ...evolutionists fantasize about a world where there were more apes becoming humans than normal apes, LOL.

No, no fantasies at all. You seem to think that you are a giraffe. Or maybe an aardvark. Don't mind me, let your furry freak flag fly!

 

[YoursTrue]

For an evolutionist, any monkey bone they find could be from an ape that is going to become a human, LOL.

They are very desperate to demonstrate a doctrine that they invented more than 100 years ago and they still haven't proven it...

They even commit many frauds, they did it before and they still do it... in all the sciences. That's how credible they are (sarcasm).

One commentary about S. J. Gould's teachings and viewpoint (even though I don't believe in the theory of evolution and he did. But he's honest in his assessment of what he knows or believes:
"His work is a fine example of how new ideas, even if they’re not universally accepted, even if they are proved wrong, or right, or have still yet to be proven either way – in short, scientific debate – can be a motor force for paradigm shifts in science."
Now I hope and believe I will meet Dr. Gould and we can have a long time discussing these things.

 

[shunyadragon]

If we came from random chemical reactions and our intelligence came through this process,

First the nature of our existence, life did not come about by random chemical reactions. Like all cause and effect outcomes in nature are determined by the Laws of Nature and chemical reactions likewise are not random they have to follow the laws and processes that we know in chemistry. All cause and effect events in nature have only a limited range of outcomes. I have devoted a couple of threads in this forum that document that the nature of our physical existence is not random, and determinism rules,

I like Einstein's take on this as his understanding of the determinism in nature,

One of Einstein's most famous quotes is often completely misinterpreted

For starters, Einstein did not believe in god.

www.businessinsider.com

One of Albert Einstein's most famous quotes is, "God does not play dice with the universe."

But there are two huge errors in the way many people have interpreted this quote over the years. People have wrongly assumed Einstein was religious, believed in destiny, or that he completely rejected a core theory in physics.

First, Einstein wasn't referring to a personal god in the quote. He was using "God" as a metaphor.

"Einstein of course believed in mathematical laws of nature, so his idea of a God was at best someone who formulated the laws and then left the universe alone to evolve according to these laws," physicist Vasant Natarajan wrote in an essay.

Einstein at best had empathy for Spinoza's God. I believe in God as the origin of Natural Laws but it is indeed a belief, which cannot be determined objectively, but in the expression I believe, "God does not play dice with the universe."

then what's to suggest that intelligence didn't come before we did somewhere else? From what I understand, there's an infinitely large field of possibility out there beyond our capability to observe.

What;s to suggest? Only a subjective Theist argument for the existence of God, which is beyond the realm of science.

. . . "because that beyond the capability to observe," becomes a theological/philosophical argument for Intelligent Design and an Intelligent Designer.

Again . . .
False, this is an extreme stretch to the theological argument for Intelligent Design is a specific argument for the necessity of an Intelligent Designer outside nature to explain what they consider the complexity of nature that cannot be explained by science.

Scientific methods, experiments and research simple replicate natural conditions to make predictions to falsify hypothesis concerning the nature of our existence. The human design of experiments is in no may comparable to the Theistic claims of Intelligent Design.

In fact over the recent history of science the claims of irreproducible complexity of the Intelligent Design advocates has been repeatedly refuted. Also the argument for irreproducible complexity represents negative hypotheses which cannot be falsified by objective verifiable evidence. because it simply represents an unverifiable "argument from ignorance" and not objective evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nothing to do with what I said, The Bible is the account of Creation, the story of God and his relationship with His Creation from beginning to the end with Revelation. He told us ahead of time what was going to happen. We see those things happening right now. No one can stop what God said was going to happen. Biology is just one aspect of life that scientists have looked at through a microscope and failed miserably to explain. God did explain in one chapter the reality of the Universe that we live in and that’s a fact.

No it is not a fact. It is a belief based on ancient tribal scripture. What I previously stated stands and you did not respond.'

The Bible represents the religious scripture of the many churches of the religion of Christianity, by simple definitions in the English language. This is equally true of the scripture of the other religions. The scripture and beliefs of any religion do not objectively confirm the religious beliefs as true,

 

[Eli G]

The "On the Origin of Species" represents the religious scripture of the many churches of the religion of evolutionists, by simple definitions in the English language. This is equally true of the scripture of the other religions. The scripture and beliefs of any religion do not objectively confirm the religious beliefs as true

 

[YoursTrue]

The "On the Origin of Species" represents the religious scripture of the many churches of the religion of evolutionists, by simple definitions in the English language. This is equally true of the scripture of the other religions. The scripture and beliefs of any religion do not objectively confirm the religious beliefs as true

There is no getting around it. So -- since we learn by many methods, some observed, some taught, it stands to reason that the Final Decider is -- God. Because in many, many respects, the world, including the world of religious belief, can be confusing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not sure you need the competition bit. All you need, surely, is an environment containing some sort of challenge, so that breeding success is improved by a particular trait, don't you? So for example if the climate becomes drier, an organism that is better at conserving water will breed better than one that is not so good at doing it.

True.
Although that could also been seen as some species of competition.
You have best performers vs less good performers.

But I get what you're saying though. Point taken.

 

[Balthazzar]

First the nature of our existence, life did not come about by random chemical reactions. Like all cause and effect outcomes in nature are determined by the Laws of Nature and chemical reactions likewise are not random they have to follow the laws and processes that we know in chemistry. All cause and effect events in nature have only a limited range of outcomes. I have devoted a couple of threads in this forum that document that the nature of our physical existence is not random, and determinism rules,

I like Einstein's take on this as his understanding of the determinism in nature,

One of Einstein's most famous quotes is often completely misinterpreted

For starters, Einstein did not believe in god.

www.businessinsider.com

One of Albert Einstein's most famous quotes is, "God does not play dice with the universe."

But there are two huge errors in the way many people have interpreted this quote over the years. People have wrongly assumed Einstein was religious, believed in destiny, or that he completely rejected a core theory in physics.

First, Einstein wasn't referring to a personal god in the quote. He was using "God" as a metaphor.

"Einstein of course believed in mathematical laws of nature, so his idea of a God was at best someone who formulated the laws and then left the universe alone to evolve according to these laws," physicist Vasant Natarajan wrote in an essay.

Einstein at best had empathy for Spinoza's God. I believe in God as the origin of Natural Laws but it is indeed a belief, which cannot be determined objectively, but in the expression I believe, "God does not play dice with the universe."



What;s to suggest? Only a subjective Theist argument for the existence of God, which is beyond the realm of science.

. . . "because that beyond the capability to observe," becomes a theological/philosophical argument for Intelligent Design and an Intelligent Designer.

Again . . .
False, this is an extreme stretch to the theological argument for Intelligent Design is a specific argument for the necessity of an Intelligent Designer outside nature to explain what they consider the complexity of nature that cannot be explained by science.

Scientific methods, experiments and research simple replicate natural conditions to make predictions to falsify hypothesis concerning the nature of our existence. The human design of experiments is in no may comparable to the Theistic claims of Intelligent Design.

In fact over the recent history of science the claims of irreproducible complexity of the Intelligent Design advocates has been repeatedly refuted. Also the argument for irreproducible complexity represents negative hypotheses which cannot be falsified by objective verifiable evidence. because it simply represents an unverifiable "argument from ignorance" and not objective evidence.

I asked myself a question last night. "What if there's an infinite amount of information in a single grain of sand?" The laws of physics govern existence, and I will assume every aspect of, including the less tangible ethers, which some may like to term spiritual. The question of intelligent design isn't even in question as intelligent beings. We utilize our intelligence to create and design as conscious beings. Here's another uncertainty, though. The collective mind network that we belong to... How far reaching is it? Is the whole greater than the sum or is the whole what God actually is? We can't deny intelligence, we can't deny mind or consciousness, but we can't really deny the subconscious out of sight out of mind processes that govern the greater aspects of our bodily functions, so maybe it's a little of both if we are to borrow from what we know and can verify. I'll leave myself open for the possibility that we were created, but I'll keep in mind that we may have been created through natural process not requiring conscious intelligence for the collection of mass we become. Physics aren't something I wish to reject, but we are still very much unaware of how it all works. So square pegs go in square holes, round pegs in round holes, triangle in triangular holes, etc. The building block reality of life and we're still learning how to put the pieces together.