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

[Subduction Zone]

Explain. And so you're saying scientists have seen new and distinct varieties of organisms evolve under the microscope and continue with a variety of the previous form? (I don't think so, but -- if you think so, please be so kind as to explain. Thanks.)

Yes, they have. One such experiment is the Long Term E. coli Experiment:


E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia

 

[YoursTrue]

But nobody uses DNA as a reason for life coming about, and the ToE was not based on any knowledge of DNA.
Your major premise is unsupported. What Israelites in the wilderness? Show me some evidence supporting the exodus story.

That is correct, the Theory of evolution was not premised on DNA, which of course, Darwin had no knowledge about, so he couldn't have predicated his assumptions on that. But even if the DNA counts were available at that time, it wouldn't make a difference in presuming that each type (I say this about 'kind,' such as fish, land animals, birds) were results of evolution from the beginning of life burgeoning on the earth. Why? Because -- other than presumption, dna counting, there's nothing to show that things evolved as Darwin had it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is correct, the Theory of evolution was not premised on DNA, which of course, Darwin had no knowledge about, so he couldn't have predicated his assumptions on that. But even if the DNA counts were available at that time, it wouldn't make a difference in presuming that each type (I say this about 'kind,' such as fish, land animals, birds) were results of evolution from the beginning of life burgeoning on the earth. Why? Because -- other than presumption, dna counting, there's nothing to show that things evolved as Darwin had it.

Do you even know what evidence that Darwin relied on? And DNA is extremely strong evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is dead. It does not add to the evolutionary process.

It doesn't add to the evolutionary process? It is legitimate? Do souls evolve with the body of any sort? What are you saying is dead? The fetus?
If a person believes the soul migrates yes, it is a legitimate question about where the soul goes -- it waits? until another item is fertilized and lives? Where does it wait? And yes, this involves evolution. It sure does. Because now the question comes up as to souls in those who came before (evolved?) humans. (I don't believe that 'souls' transmigrate anyway, but the theory of soul transmigration does lean upon the line of evolution needing to be explained, especially IF a person believes that. So yes, a respectfully legitimate question is: how would soul migration be involved with evolution?
Many people believe in soul migration. Is it true? Many people testify to its truthfulness. Just like many testify to the truthfulness of the Bible and/or evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you even know what evidence that Darwin relied on?

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.

And DNA is extremely strong evidence for the theory of evolution.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It doesn't add to the evolutionary process? It is legitimate? Do souls evolve with the body of any sort? What are you saying is dead? The fetus?
If a person believes the soul migrates yes, it is a legitimate question about where the soul goes -- it waits? until another item is fertilized and lives? Where does it wait? And yes, this involves evolution. It sure does. Because now the question comes up as to souls in those who came before (evolved?) humans. (I don't believe that 'souls' transmigrate anyway, but the theory of soul transmigration does lean upon the line of evolution needing to be explained, especially IF a person believes that. So yes, a respectfully legitimate question is: how would soul migration be involved with evolution?
Many people believe in soul migration. Is it true? Many people testify to its truthfulness. Just like many testify to the truthfulness of the Bible and/or evolution.

This question is just strange. Why the focus on fetuses. And we do not even know if souls are real..

 

[YoursTrue]

This question is just strange. Why the focus on fetuses. And we do not even know if souls are real..

The Bible explains that a person is a soul. Not that he has a soul, but we are living souls if we're alive. A person that dies is, according to what I read in the Bible, a dead soul. So the idea that some have, that the soul leaves the body upon death, and lives somewhere in another body or something like that is unsustainable by a clear examination of the Bible.
The reason I focused on fetuses is because if a fetus has a soul according to some beliefs, what happens to the soul if the fetus dies? Does it go into where? According to some beliefs a fetus isn't a person until some time has passed in the womb. I think I remember something about the Dalai Lama and their beliefs that I think maybe at the instant he dies, his soul goes ? into a new person? And how does this connect with evolution? Because what gives? What evolved? the soul? the body? the soul and the body?
Let's take the brain for a moment. Some people have malfunctioning brains. Is that evolution? No. It's the course of chemistry.

 

[YoursTrue]

This question is just strange. Why the focus on fetuses. And we do not even know if souls are real..

We're talking about evolution and people's beliefs. Therefore I question that. To exemplify, the Bible uses the word life sometimes from the Hebrew word for soul. Genesis 1:20 - "Then God said, “Let the water swarm with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” The words living creatures there come from the basic word for life, or soul. Plus nothing there about evolution. God commanded it and it came about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible explains that a person is a soul. Not that he has a soul, but we are living souls if we're alive. A person that dies is, according to what I read in the Bible, a dead soul. So the idea that some have, that the soul leaves the body upon death, and lives somewhere in another body or something like that is unsustainable by a clear examination of the Bible.
The reason I focused on fetuses is because if a fetus has a soul according to some beliefs, what happens to the soul if the fetus dies? Does it go into where? According to some beliefs a fetus isn't a person until some time has passed in the womb. I think I remember something about the Dalai Lama and their beliefs that I think maybe at the instant he dies, his soul goes ? into a new person? And how does this connect with evolution? Because what gives? What evolved? the soul? the body? the soul and the body?
Let's take the brain for a moment. Some people have malfunctioning brains. Is that evolution? No. It's the course of chemistry.

No, the Bible claims that. It does not explain that.

 

[Valjean]

Explain. And so you're saying scientists have seen new and distinct varieties of organisms evolve under the microscope and continue with a variety of the previous form? (I don't think so, but -- if you think so, please be so kind as to explain. Thanks.)

Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[Valjean]

OK, you didn't get my point. I understand. I'm speaking about the Bible record.

But what about the Vedic record, or Lewis' Space Trilogy scriptures? They paint a different picture, don't they?

 

[Valjean]

That is correct, the Theory of evolution was not premised on DNA, which of course, Darwin had no knowledge about, so he couldn't have predicated his assumptions on that. But even if the DNA counts were available at that time, it wouldn't make a difference in presuming that each type (I say this about 'kind,' such as fish, land animals, birds) were results of evolution from the beginning of life burgeoning on the earth. Why? Because -- other than presumption, dna counting, there's nothing to show that things evolved as Darwin had it.

There's enough empirical evidence to fill the Library of Congress, YT. I'm sorry you're unaware of it, but until you learn why we believe in evolution, and the mechanisms outlined in the ToE, I don't see how you're qualified to hold an opinion.

I can link you to some sources, if you wish, but, somehow, I doubt you'd read them.

 

[sayak83]

OK, yes this is connected to our discussion. What happens if the fetus dies in the womb?

The jiva-atman , if it's there, goes somewhere else.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, the Bible claims that. It does not explain that.

Not sure what you're saying here.

 

[YoursTrue]

The jiva-atman , if it's there, goes somewhere else.

Ok and that's your belief. So the body, you think, is a different entity from the soul, according to your belief, they are two separate entities.

 

[YoursTrue]

There's enough empirical evidence to fill the Library of Congress, YT. I'm sorry you're unaware of it, but until you learn why we believe in evolution, and the mechanisms outlined in the ToE, I don't see how you're qualified to hold an opinion.

I can link you to some sources, if you wish, but, somehow, I doubt you'd read them.

Have you read them? I believe you believe in evolution because chemicals of the body change, organisms are affected by these changes and the philosophy of the theory convinces you that it just happened by rote that way.

 

[YoursTrue]

But what about the Vedic record, or Lewis' Space Trilogy scriptures? They paint a different picture, don't they?

Yes, apparently they do. The Bible says the soul can die. Frankly, that makes far more sense to me than the idea of a soul leaving a body and going into another body. Again, the change of genetics, such as hair color or tallness or shortness in a population, does not, to me, mean evolution of the Darwinian theoretical kind.
Ezekiel 18:20 - "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

 

[ratiocinator]

Have you read them?

You don't have to read every scrap of evidence to accept something but you do have to read some of it to understand why people believe it.

I believe you believe in evolution because chemicals of the body change, organisms are affected by these changes and the philosophy of the theory convinces you that it just happened by rote that way.

I don't believe anybody believes in evolution for those reasons (at least nobody who understands the first thing about the actual theory) - because they are a complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation.

 

[YoursTrue]

You don't have to read every scrap of evidence to accept something but you do have to read some of it to understand why people believe it.

I have read many of the reasons pro-evolution. Much of the conclusions are conjectural to fit them into a preconceived notion of emerging kind. Genetic transferences certainly have power to change the appearance of an individual, including populations or groups, such as skin color. Some call this evolution of the Darwinian kind, I no longer do. Humans with dàrk hair are still humans. They are not gorillas.

 

[sayak83]

Ok and that's your belief. So the body, you think, is a different entity from the soul, according to your belief, they are two separate entities.

Yes.