More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[ratiocinator]

Do you really expect or think someone should not believe that the evidence of whatever (and what is that, btw) is not used as proof that...the theory of evolution is true?

Science doesn't work on proof (except possibly in the legal sense) but the evidence is overwhelming and way beyond reasonable doubt. As for asking what it is - a tiny sample of it is what you've been desperately avoiding addressing recently:

#101
#133
#136
#148
#153
#155
#160
#166
#167

 

[SkepticThinker]

The essential fundamental of evolution is that things happened without any divine influence. Period. As if God (or a superior intelligence) were not involved with creating the forms of life. While I don't believe that a rock falling and hitting a man on the head and killing him is from God, nevertheless God endowed life, and right now it is not perfect, but the hope is that one day life will be changed to something far better than what we see today. That from God.

No, it isn't.
Evolution doesn't say a single word about god(s).

There are plenty of people who believe in God(s) and accept the science of evolution.

I know I've pointed this out to you before.

Plus I don't "know" the actual transitions as postulated by Darwin and fellow believers. Meaning that I can read their summations, but this does not show or prove that it happened by evolution as such. Although some could have happened by genetic transference. I do know that various plants and/or animals can have similar characteristics. This, to me, does not prove Darwin's theory.

So you don't think the genetic similarities/patterns you share with your family members show that you are related?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have a pretty good idea. But since you ask as if you know, why not tell, and I'll see if I follow your answer.

When contrasting the theory with what the Bible says about creation, and when I contemplate these things such as the way things are now in organisms, I have decided that what the Bible says about creation is true. Not godless evolution, as if things just came about by magnetic force or sheer chemistry without a superior intelligence using these things. To add to this, as I have said, (this is an important point) -- do I think God made people to be deformed because He caused life to enter into organisms? No, the answer is no.

Why do you think this God you worship wasn't intelligent enough to have created the process of evolution?

 

[SkepticThinker]

God endowed humans with special qualities. Different from other organisms. Each in its own type of consciousness, or world of thought or activity.
The Bible says that God created animals according to their kind. Birds, according to their kind, water creatures according to their kind and so forth.
Genesis 1 verses 20-21 says:
Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens. And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind."
So water creatures were created to live according to their kind, same with flying creatures. According to their kind.

This needs to be demonstrated rather than just asserted.

You haven't given any reason for anyone to just accept whatever the Bible says, while you sit here ignoring empirical evidence for evolution that has been endlessly provided for you.

 

[We Never Know]

Let's go over the definition for incest. Here's what incest is defined as:

• Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom.
• The crime of sexual relations with a person defined by statute as too closely related.
• The offense of cohabitation or sexual commerce between persons related within the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by the law or established usage of a country. In this offense illegitimate consanguinity is of the same effect as legitimate.

So far every definition of incest I have read is that which by law or established custom is an offense. This obviously was not always the case in the Bible, and Leviticus 18 places close familial marriage or sexual relation as ILLEGAL. Nothing was written or forbidden before that. And there is a reason for that.

If you believe so then that's good enough for you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Say you and others that believe as you do. As I have said, what you guys have done for me is very good, convincing me that creation and allowance of life is from God. For societal generations to produce like kinded color of hair or skin is not evolution of the Darwinian kind. Still finches stay finches.

The fact that you're still repeating this stuff after it's been pointed out to you umpteen times that what you propose we should see from evolution would actually falsify evolution, demonstrates to me that you're not really reading anyone's posts and that you are completely uninterested in correcting your errors and learning how evolution actually works.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again -- when I look at animal life, even think about the soil, the sun and its effect on life on earth, no -- I no longer believe these things just happened. The proclamations about evolution no longer impress me, since I believe the reasoning is wrong. No one has seen one form categorically turn into another. In fact, the science itself does not ascertain that since the investigation of the fossils do not show evolution. What they show is age perhaps, and DNA.

You're not paying attention.

"One form categorically turn into another" would falsify evolution. Evolution doesn't show that this should happen.
You need to stop repeating this because it is not an argument against evolution. Rather, it shows a complete lack of understanding on your part, of the process of evolution. In other words, you're just declaring your ignorance on the subject over and over again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Humans are humans and not ... lions. They stay humans. No matter skin color or hair changes by genetics. They stay as humans.

So what????

 

[SkepticThinker]

First of all, Genesis speaks of the beginning. The days of creation do not say how or even whether animals or fish or plants changed after millions of years. What I am calling Darwinian evolution is that of the simple and sheer mechanical method of the burgeoning of the different kinds or types of animals and plants as if no higher intelligence effected any possible change. Again -- no evidence showing or proving that type or any type of Darwinian evolution. It is not simply change of color by genetic transference by descent. That is genetics--not really evolution, as of the Darwinian theoretical outline.

I don't really think you're in the position to be stating what evolution is or isn't, given that you don't understand anything about it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, there certainly is not. But you can say there is. That's your prerogative. There is the theory. And then there is that which is considered by some as evidence. But it, as has been said, does not PROVE evolution. Although some say it really must mean evolution, isn't that true? And frankly, what is considered as evidence is pushed into the theory. But it does not prove evolution, and really by that which is said to be evidence, is not evidence of -- evolution. If a tooth is uncovered from the dirt, and is said to look like a human tooth 35,000 years old, it is not proof that it is that which is described. No, it is not proof either of evolution, or that it is a human tooth 35,000 years old.

You know that "evolutionists" don't date fossils, right? That would be geochronologists.

The thing about the evidence for evolution is that it comes from so many different fields of of science (like biology, geochronology, paleobotany, chemistry, physics, biochemistry, microbiology, zoology, anatomy, just to name a few), and all of it points in the exact same direction - towards the fact that evolution occurs. In fact, in over 150+ years nobody has ever managed to produce any evidence that would falsify evolution. Not one thing. It is the most well evidenced theory in science. Even more so than germ theory or gravitational theory, which I have a feeling you accept just fine.

So how can you explain that? Why is it that all evidence collected from all fields of science by multiple independent researchers all across the world over a long period of time, all points to the same conclusion that evolution is a fact of life?

 

[Bear Wild]

The Bible doesn't really go into a detailed description of Adam and Eve, but I think most believers of European descent believe they looked like white Europeans. Maybe blondes.

I am sure that Hollywood can fix that.

 

[Bear Wild]

I'm thinking you misunderstood what I said. God can choose to know or not know. Does that make it clearer?
And, if you believe that Jesus came to the earth, and if you believe he knew what he was saying, and that he raised the dead and he himself was raised from the dead, then there is a reason he came as a human. Isn't there? But that's if you believe that he did those things. Otherwise, then what? That he was just a good man perhaps, and told mythical stories, but that you don't believe he was raised from the dead and/or raised others from the dead?
Now there is no real point in saying one is a Christian while also saying Jesus was not really raised from the dead -- that he did not also raise dead persons. Because that would mean -- that one does not really believe in Jesus as having done those things or the things he said as having come from heaven. See? And then that would mean that he didn't need to come from heaven as a human.

I hate to tell you but there are lots of Christians who have just as much faith and spiritually who believe Jesus was born and died on earth. They see the resurrection story as symbolic and not factual. They see all of the stories in the bible as elements of teaching never intended to be taken literally and actually believe literal interpretation degrades the message. They are just as Christian as anyone else in the faith unless you have the power to condemn them!

 

[Bear Wild]

And from what I have read, that is true about white European descent. (Which is also sadly interwoven in the history of Darwinian evolution theory, later rather rejected by the changing ideas of racism and evolution.) However, a considered examination of the Bible does not bear that out about the superiority of white European racial elements, but you're right about that, racial superiority is certainly misunderstood by many claiming to be Bible believers, and that theory had been linked by evolutionists in the past.

Sadly was a bad statement on your behalf! Darwinian theory of evolution said absolutely nothing about white European descent. Anyone trying to use this argument is clearly ignorant of what evolution actually says.

Now Christians claiming justification in the bible within Europe's history had no problem of massacring people who did not conform to their belief and had no problem justifying slavery. Bible believers killing others to wipe out the nonbelievers. That does not sound so good for those who hold bible for their justifications.

You have been asked this before but have not clearly answered.
So which evidence is better - the creation made by god or book written by humans?

 

[ecco]

Humans are humans and not ... lions.

Congratulations on that astute observation.

 

[ecco]

But God Almighty knew when He created them, that they would eat from the tree. He Knew! Before He created them to His exact specifications! Specifications that He had all of eternity to figure out. And then he blamed them for doing what He designed them to do and what He knew they would do.

And you know this how?
He obviously knew they could disobey Him. He put the ability to obey or disobey Him within them. Otherwise He would not have given them a choice. You bring up an interesting point, which in fact, involves the theme of the whole Bible. Yet although God gave them a CHOICE, some insist that God knew or programmed it in them to sin. No, He did not know beforehand that they would sin.

So, now you are admitting that your god is not omniscient. You are admitting that your god does not know everything that has happened, everything that is happening, and everything that will happen.

Hmm.

Obviously God knew that part. But He did not know beforehand. He is God and can know beforehand what He wants to know. He is never deceived. And whatever is done againt His will is something He can and will remedy. No, it is not written that He knew Adam would sin like that, deliberately.

You are really hedging. Where did you get the "insight" that your god can choose what to know and what to not know? Obviously, that is something that you just made up to desperately try to maintain your position. You have no way of knowing this. Christians believe their god, your god, is omniscient. period. "Omniscient" does not mean "choose to know". It means "know".

He also knew that he was going to horrifically kill almost every man woman child and fetus along with almost all the animals. He knew!

 

[tas8831]

So weird that a certain creationist windbag never replied to ANY rebuttals of his laughably naive rant... Hmmm....
I was so looking forward to learn what "nebulous DNA" is, who claimed that "human DNA" was around 1 million years ago, etc....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So weird that a certain creationist windbag never replied to ANY rebuttals of his laughably naive rant... Hmmm....
I was so looking forward to learn what "nebulous DNA" is, who claimed that "human DNA" was around 1 million years ago, etc....

I too would like to know what "nebulous DNA" is.

 

[tas8831]

I too would like to know what "nebulous DNA" is.

I understand that it is the WORST kind of DNA!

 

[Astrophile]

Sadly was a bad statement on your behalf! Darwinian theory of evolution said absolutely nothing about white European descent. Anyone trying to use this argument is clearly ignorant of what evolution actually says.

Darwin actually said in Chapter VI of The Descent of Man that the common ancestor of humans and apes lived in Africa.

 

[Bear Wild]

Darwin actually said in Chapter VI of The Descent of Man that the common ancestor of humans and apes lived in Africa.

So true! Darwin was most humble from all I have learned. He could identify with other forms of life and their struggle. He still remains as one of the most influential people of my life. So does Humboldt with is insight in to the environment. Personally I find other non-human apes part of family after reading so many studies of them in their natural habitat.