Learned and Adapted Behaviors

[Dan From Smithville]

I appreciate many things that science has produced or effected. Electricity, for one, vaccines for another. I will take an operation when I deem necessary.

I'm glad to hear it. I have no idea what you intend that to mean. Unless it is a prelude to concluding you can cherry pick what you like and ignore or reject what you don't.

It is science that was used to provide us what we know about electricity, vaccines, surgery and evolution. It isn't speculation. If it is for evolution, then it also for everything else that we know through the use of science. That's some mighty powerful speculation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not sure I understand your first few sentences. But that's ok, because I don't want to get too testy. Have a good one...You've explained yourself about your belief in evolution but I do not wish to antagonize you. Thank you for your explanations. Insects are fascinating, you've helped me to understand or learn more about them.

I don't believe in evolution. I accept it as the best explanation for the evidence. It's not revealed truth that one believe in. If you believed in it, it would lose its value as an explanation. If it were belief, it would fall apart every time new evidence came along that challenged it. Belief is what you do on faith. You don't need evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not sure I understand your first few sentences. But that's ok, because I don't want to get too testy. Have a good one...You've explained yourself about your belief in evolution but I do not wish to antagonize you. Thank you for your explanations. Insects are fascinating, you've helped me to understand or learn more about them.

I do not believe that God would plant false evidence. That He would tell us one thing and then plant evidence that tells us something else. But I don't subscribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know. But I'm not claiming to know the mind of God. How do I know that He didn't give us the curious, intelligent minds and senses to learn about the world He created? The message I get from some sources is to ignore, deny or obfuscate what we learn from looking at the world and pretend the evidence we find isn't really there or draw flawed and misleading conclusions about it so that some can be comfortable concluding a literal Genesis.

No. We don't have to deny reality. I believe genetics and/or mutations changes lives. But insofar as figuring that fishes came out flopping and eventually turned into air breathers is not something I can agree with. Deduction doesn't do it now for me to agree with some conclusions. But again -- you have been most kind and I thank you for the discussion.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't believe in evolution. I accept it as the best explanation for the evidence. It's not revealed truth that one believe in. If you believed in it, it would lose its value as an explanation. If it were belief, it would fall apart every time new evidence came along that challenged it. Belief is what you do on faith. You don't need evidence.

The big problem I have now with the theory of evolution is the distinction between plants and fish and birds and humans, as if they all evolved from a few cells. If possible, I'll get back to this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's what I'm saying. So if a person says or thinks he believes there is a god, and especially if he goes to church or claims to be a Christian, how does God fit in the picture about evolution? and/or creation...yes, it's about evolution and my wondering about it.

Perhaps I misunderstood where you were going with this.

I believe God created, I just admit that I do not know how or why He chose to leave no evidence of His actions. I don't arbitrarily assign validity to Genesis as a literal account, because some denomination demands that it be read that way.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. We don't have to deny reality. I believe genetics and/or mutations changes lives. But insofar as figuring that fishes came out flopping and eventually turned into air breathers is not something I can agree with. Deduction doesn't do it now for me to agree with some conclusions. But again -- you have been most kind and I thank you for the discussion.

I understand that you reject it, but the only reason I can see is adherence to a group ideology and not on the basis of theory and evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know. But I'm not claiming to know the mind of God. How do I know that He didn't give us the curious, intelligent minds and senses to learn about the world He created? The message I get from some sources is to ignore, deny or obfuscate what we learn from looking at the world and pretend the evidence we find isn't really there or draw flawed and misleading conclusions about it so that some can be comfortable concluding a literal Genesis.

One of the quandaries I have in thinking about evolution and creation now (and I'm not saying all of the Bible is literal, certainly not) is that humans think very differently from gorillas and birds. I bring birds (and insects) into the picture because yes, their abilities and brain capabilities are very different from humans, who theorize, write, communicate over the centuries.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think you may have missed my point. It seems from my observations that there are some here who believe in the theory of evolution but also go to church, or have a form of religion. Maybe I'm wrong.

You are correct. I did miss your point. I apologize for my error.

Accepting a scientific theory does not mean a rejection of God.

No one can say that God didn't create the universe, this planet and the life on it consistent with all the observations and conclusions that we have been making the last few centuries using science.

I try to keep an open mind.

 

[YoursTrue]

Perhaps I misunderstood where you were going with this.

I believe God created, I just admit that I do not know how or why He chose to leave no evidence of His actions. I don't arbitrarily assign validity to Genesis as a literal account, because some denomination demands that it be read that way.

I thought about this, and I thank you again for your reply. I do believe a vast portion of the creation account, meaning some portions may be figurative -- I certainly cannot explain everything scientists say, still trying to figure what Einstein meant, and yes, there are some that teach that everything must be taken literally. I do not.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are correct. I did miss your point. I apologize for my error.

Accepting a scientific theory does not mean a rejection of God.

No one can say that God didn't create the universe, this planet and the life on it consistent with all the observations and conclusions that we have been making the last few centuries using science.

I try to keep an open mind.

And I appreciate that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

One of the quandaries I have in thinking about evolution and creation now (and I'm not saying all of the Bible is literal, certainly not) is that humans think very differently from gorillas and birds. I bring birds (and insects) into the picture because yes, their abilities and brain capabilities are very different from humans, who theorize, write, communicate over the centuries.

Different species have different traits that define them as species. That we have some that others do not or do not have as well developed is not evidence that we are not related. Sharks can swim 35 mph in the ocean and I cannot, but the very distant relationship between sharks and humans is not established based on how fast through the water either is.

Chimpanzees are far stronger and can climb up and through trees with much greater skill than people, but that does not mean we are not related. The same differences exist between groups of people too. We would not say that one group of people is a different species or less human because they can climb trees less well than another group. Or are physically stronger, taller, etc.

Other animals communicate. Some with quite sophisticated means. Other animals use tools. Elephants appear to have incredible memories as well as the ability to use tools. Certainly, the scope to which our intelligence has risen and directions we have taken it are unique, but that does not offer evidence that we are somehow distinct to the point of eliminating our relationship to other living things.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And I appreciate that.

Take care. I have to get to bed. Have a good night.

 

[YoursTrue]

Different species have different traits that define them as species. That we have some that others do not or do not have as well developed is not evidence that we are not related. Sharks can swim 35 mph in the ocean and I cannot, but the very distant relationship between sharks and humans is not established based on how fast through the water either is.

Chimpanzees are far stronger and can climb up and through trees with much greater skill than people, but that does not mean we are not related. The same differences exist between groups of people too. We would not say that one group of people is a different species or less human because they can climb trees less well than another group. Or are physically stronger, taller, etc.

Other animals communicate. Some with quite sophisticated means. Other animals use tools. Elephants appear to have incredible memories as well as the ability to use tools. Certainly, the scope to which our intelligence has risen and directions we have taken it are unique, but that does not offer evidence that we are somehow distinct to the point of eliminating our relationship to other living things.

OK, I gotta close up soon, too, but according to the Bible, God made man (Adam and Eve) to cultivate the entire earth, including gorillas, lions, and more. Adam failed to listen to God, and so he was given the opportunity to make all decisions by himself. Cast out of the Garden of Eden. And we are experiencing what Adam wrought. But! the scriptures speak of a time when no rapacious beast will do harm, when the earth will be transformed by obedient humans to be a paradise all over. (Revelation 21:1-5, symbolic or not, some things cannot be taken symbolically.) And so, like in the justice system, some things are left up to our consciences and the true judge is, of course, God. Sleep well, my friend.

 

[nPeace]

According to what I have read, here is a reference to his viewpoint:
Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God | Stephen Hawking | The Guardian

Ah. I see.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and
will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous
creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing,
why the universe exists, why we exist.

What Hawking is saying, is the universe "spontaneously created itself"

from nothing - another way of saying, "the universe is like the Trinitarian Jesus who resurrected himself from the dead" Or, "the universe is like the genie that was releases by the "Law of gravity" tripping." Or...

On the serious tip though, YoursTrue, he is saying, that the "law of gravity" set off the expansion they call the Big Bang.
However, to me, that is saying that it is not a law, when it does something different to what it has been doing normally.

However, they will tell you that the Big Bang, is one of many, which occurs every xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx years. So, it is normal.
This is all wishful thinking though. No one can tell us what caused this super inflation, and what slowed it.

They all have their ideas, but some scientist think they are appealing to magic, or miracles.
It's all conjectured, as you rightly pointed out.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's what I'm saying. So if a person says or thinks he believes there is a god, and especially if he goes to church or claims to be a Christian, how does God fit in the picture about evolution? and/or creation...yes, it's about evolution and my wondering about it.

It's like you don't even realize that your brand of anti-evolution / anti-science christianity consists of a minority among christians.


Here's a quote from the pope, addressing people such as yourself: "God is not a magician with a magic wand"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. We don't have to deny reality. I believe genetics and/or mutations changes lives. But insofar as figuring that fishes came out flopping and eventually turned into air breathers is not something I can agree with.

Your argument from incredulity is noted.

Deduction doesn't do it now for me to agree with some conclusions

No "deduction" required.
The theory makes testable predictions and they check out when verified.

Humans and toads sharing ancestry is a genetic fact in the same way that you and your siblings sharing ancestors is.

You simply cherry pick your facts based on your dogmatic a priori beliefs.
That, and willful ignorance.

Yes, willful. I have lost count a long time ago of how many times I had to point out the same strawman error in your arguments "against" evolution: "GORILLAS REMAIN GORILLAS".

After the upteenth time, one can only conclude that you insist on being wrong intentionally.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The big problem I have now with the theory of evolution is the distinction between plants and fish and birds and humans, as if they all evolved from a few cells. If possible, I'll get back to this.

No. Your big problem with evolution is 2-fold...

First, and this is your BIGGEST problem, is that you dogmatically cling to a faith based claim that is incompatible with it, as part of a requirement of your religion. Your a priori religious beliefs literally does not allow you to accept the science - regardless of the evidence.


Secondly, your willful ignorance. You refuse to learn what the theory actually says, causing you to repeat the same mistakes over and over and over again. You insist on holding on to false arguments.


In summary, your position can be stated as follows:

"my evidence against evolution, is that I don't believe it".

 

[nPeace]

Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia
Archaeopteryx was generally accepted by palaeontologists and popular reference books as the oldest known bird
Archaeopteryx was long considered to be the beginning of the evolutionary tree of birds. However, in recent years, the discovery of several small, feathered dinosaurs has created a mystery for palaeontologists, raising questions about which animals are the ancestors of modern birds and which are their relatives.

Oh. Mommy, look. It's a bird.
No, it's a dino.
No. It's DinoBird.


Meanwhile...
While scientists continue to argue, the world keeps on turning.

...and getting more and more chaotic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ah. I see.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and
will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous
creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing,
why the universe exists, why we exist.

What Hawking is saying, is the universe "spontaneously created itself"

from nothing - another way of saying, "the universe is like the Trinitarian Jesus who resurrected himself from the dead" Or, "the universe is like the genie that was releases by the "Law of gravity" tripping." Or...

On the serious tip though, YoursTrue, he is saying, that the "law of gravity" set off the expansion they call the Big Bang.
However, to me, that is saying that it is not a law, when it does something different to what it has been doing normally.

However, they will tell you that the Big Bang, is one of many, which occurs every xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx years. So, it is normal.
This is all wishful thinking though. No one can tell us what caused this super inflation, and what slowed it.

They all have their ideas, but some scientist think they are appealing to magic, or miracles.
It's all conjectured, as you rightly pointed out.

Maybe you should dig into the actual math of the model he proposes instead of just quote mining popular phrases and then pretend that there is nothing more to it then that.

But who am I kidding... you are not actually interested in that, are you?


FYI: I find it kind of hilarious also that you consider that quote mine by itself to be equally ridiculous as bare religious claims. Seems like you recognize the ridiculousness of such and by doing so, expose your double standard. If such is enough to reject the Hawking quote mine, then it should also be enough to reject your own bs. But you won't, will you?