New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[BilliardsBall]

Personally or based on what Christians link to love?

This was the rub Hitchens didn't make clear. There are two ideas (there are more) of love going around in the question to him, one from a Christian view and one from a non-Christian view. Your objection was due to Hitchens not accepting the idea of love you follow instead of the idea of love he follows.

I don't understand. What do you mean, "the love he follows"?

Someone gets thousands of letters of love, and then they know Christians love them. It was just stubborn to say "I have no evidence of Christ's love". At least the man could have said, "Christians love me but I don't think their Christ exists."

We can use a sort of teleological argument to extrapolate that when thousands of your enemies, people you make fun of, for a living, to sell books, send you well wishes, that either they are all crazy or Christ is real.

And what kind of crazy makes your enemies loving, compassionate, considerate?!

 

[BilliardsBall]

You said stretched as is past tense not stretching thus would be expanded, past tense, not expanding.

My bad. There are Bible verses in present tense. "He stretches" as matches the observed phenomena!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nobody said they weren't human. The point was that our children are not clones of ourselves, rather, they're a combination of two peoples' genes. That's why every creature is actually a transitional form. That's what we need to demonstrate that evolution occurs. Small changes over long periods of time lead to larger changes. Evolution in no way suggests that you should give birth to a monkey or a dog or anything other than a human. Creatures don't give birth to offspring of a different species - it just doesn't work that way. Instead, over time, as small changes add up to larger ones and populations diverge and move around and are subject to different environmental pressures, small changes become larger and larger ones until the populations are different enough from the earlier ones that they can no longer interbreed with each other. No half-formed creatures or monkeys giving birth to humans are required.

If our children were just clones of ourselves, that would be some pretty good evidence against evolution.

Every creature has genetic differences, just as every grain of sand and every snowflake is different--praise God! When you consider how many grains of sand there are...

... My children are different than me genetically, which does not mean they are regressing or progressing to become closer to non-homo sapiens!

I think you are misusing "transition" in the Darwinian sense. Perhaps I misunderstand your point?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Evolutionary theory doesn't say that cats become dogs. Again, it doesn't work that way.

I read a lot. As you probably should.

The "cats and dogs" bit is convenient. Why cannot cats become dogs, over time, given incremental changes?

You seem to have evolution in a box and God in a box.

You may read more than me, but I seem more open-minded.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Independently verifiable evidence from various independent sources.

I see no point in being open-minded towards things that lack any good evidence. I'll be more open-minded when some decent evidence is presented to me.


I doubt it. Regardless, I don't know what that has to do with me.

Prove yourself right.

What evidence should I present, then? I have a lot of evidence from outside-the-Bible, various independent sources.

What would be helpful to you?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Are you saying that people writing letters to Christopher Hitchens is evidence of god or Jesus?

It is evident to me, and I hope to you, that when you make a living mocking theists to sell books, and these whom you exploit send you thousands of letters extolling your brilliance, letting you know they beg God for your healing . . .

. . . "Crazy" and "delusioned" tends to not make enemies your friends, and loving. Religious cults make people nice (Mormons, JWs) but it doesn't convert enemies to loving you, being evangelical to you.

Loving Hitchens isn't smoking gun evidence for Jesus. Although I would say my ability to love and enemy is quite good evidence.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Incidentally, have you remembered exactly where and when this comment was made? I find it very odd that you are able to recall very specific information about what was said but fail to record things like where it was, when it was, who broadcast it, etc.

Why is it odd? I was completely blown away when I caught this interview. I remember a lot of things without remembering the day or date.

I hereby give you my personal witness that I don't lie to you, but speak to you from my best recollection of events, what I've read, science, what I know, what I believe and love.

 

[ChristineM]

The "cats and dogs" bit is convenient. Why cannot cats become dogs, over time, given incremental changes?

You seem to have evolution in a box and God in a box.

You may read more than me, but I seem more open-minded.

Because evolution rarely works backwards

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why is it odd? I was completely blown away when I caught this interview. I remember a lot of things without remembering the day or date.

Or the channel, or the interviewer, or the show, or the context, or any details which may actually be useful in finding the quote.

Not that it matters, since already know for a fact that the quote is not accurate. He has spoken about negative messages he received from Christians during his struggle with cancer.

I hereby give you my personal witness that I don't lie to you, but speak to you from my best recollection of events, what I've read, science, what I know, what I believe and love.

Nevertheless, you can still be wrong, and judging from the evidence, you are. I believe you are mis-remembering.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm not stretching words to point out that about one dozen Bible writers, writing across different cultures and time periods, all said the Heavens were (or are!) actively stretched by God long before we were surprised to learn that space is expanding, and rapidly.

Your purpose seems to be to argue that biblical science is so eerily prophetic and prescient that we should attribute its authorship to a source with what would have been super-human knowledge at the time the words were written. Is that correct?

If that comment is incorrect or incomplete, would you please modify it so that it expresses your larger point accurately.

 

[Polymath257]

The "cats and dogs" bit is convenient. Why cannot cats become dogs, over time, given incremental changes?

Because the required changes would be first, regressive back to the common ancestor, and then have to follow the same mutations to get to dogs. While not strictly impossible, it is incredibly unlikely.

Once a line branches, the separate branches don't re-unite.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't understand. What do you mean, "the love he follows"?

Someone gets thousands of letters of love, and then they know Christians love them. It was just stubborn to say "I have no evidence of Christ's love". At least the man could have said, "Christians love me but I don't think their Christ exists."

We can use a sort of teleological argument to extrapolate that when thousands of your enemies, people you make fun of, for a living, to sell books, send you well wishes, that either they are all crazy or Christ is real.

And what kind of crazy makes your enemies loving, compassionate, considerate?!

You just called those Christians enemies. Why would they be Hitchens' enemy? Because he criticizes Christianity?

As the poster indicated, what Hitchens calls love is different from what you are calling love. Sending friendly emails doesn't rise to the level of love.

 

[Shad]

My bad. There are Bible verses in present tense. "He stretches" as matches the observed phenomena!

No the verses are past tense. Even stretches does not indicate it is currently happening only that it happened during the verses time-frame. For example I am stretching a towel now does not mean I am stretching it in 10 years

 

[Shad]

I don't understand. What do you mean, "the love he follows"?

A Christian perception of love does not mean Hitchens must accept perception. This is called projection in which the Christian view of love is everyone's perception of love

Someone gets thousands of letters of love, and then they know Christians love them. It was just stubborn to say "I have no evidence of Christ's love". At least the man could have said, "Christians love me but I don't think their Christ exists."

Said example of projection. Hitchens acknowledge Christians showing love, he does not accept this is evidence of Jesus' love.

We can use a sort of teleological argument to extrapolate that when thousands of your enemies, people you make fun of, for a living, to sell books, send you well wishes, that either they are all crazy or Christ is real.

Empty assertion based on nothing. If Muslims show you love does that mean Muhammad was truly a prophet? This is the logic of your argument. If a Norse pagan shows you love does this mean Odin is real? Your logic here.

And what kind of crazy makes your enemies loving, compassionate, considerate?!

You are presenting a false dilemma here (CS Lewis argument it appears or based on his horrible liar, lunatic, lord argument). People could hold a view that is based on mythology (fiction) that they believe is true but isn't. This does not make them crazy just uncritical of the basis of said belief.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Every creature has genetic differences, just as every grain of sand and every snowflake is different--praise God! When you consider how many grains of sand there are...

... My children are different than me genetically, which does not mean they are regressing or progressing to become closer to non-homo sapiens!

I think you are misusing "transition" in the Darwinian sense. Perhaps I misunderstand your point?

The problem is that you are discussing a very small change in the gene pool of the human race in the case of your children compared to their parents, and they might not be in the direction that the human race will eventually evolve. In that sense, you might say that your children are not transitional forms.

But if their differences offer survival advantages that are selected for and eventually establish themselves in the human genome, then they will have been transitional forms.

And you might have one of each type of child: one an intermediate in the direction that the species is evolving, and one an experiment in evolution that doesn't establish itself.

The concept makes more sense when discussing large populations over multiple generations. That's the scale being considered when examining fossils

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The "cats and dogs" bit is convenient. Why cannot cats become dogs, over time, given incremental changes?

You are talking about millions of specific, directed mutations, each of which has to confer a selective advantage. I think the tornado in the junkyard has a better chance constructing its 747 (Hoyle's fallacy)

You may read more than me, but I seem more open-minded.

I don't see that. Isn't faith based thinking the essence of closed-mindedness? It's the refusal to consider reason and/or evidence.

Maybe we should define our terms. Open-mindedness, to me, is the willingness to examine new evidence impartially combined with the willingness to be convinced by a compelling argument. A person that makes decisions based on reason and evidence is doing just that.

A faith based thinker does the opposite. During the Ken Ham - Bill Nye debate, each was asked by the moderator what would cause him to change his mind about a matter. Nye answered evidence. Ham said that he wouldn't believe anything that contradicted his understanding of scripture.

Those two epitomize open- and closed-mindedness. Which of those does SkepticThinker most resemble, and which is more like you?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Loving Hitchens isn't smoking gun evidence for Jesus. Although I would say my ability to love and enemy is quite good evidence.

Two people have tried to harm me in my adult life, both unjustly and unprovoked, neither succeeded. I don't know either any more, I never attempted to avenge their perfidy, I was never their enemies, and I am indifferent about them, having no emotion response to the thought of either. What would you have done differently that you are calling loving an enemy?

To me, those are just empty words that mean no more than to not harbor resentment or seek revenge (restitution is not revenge). Should I have sent them flowers? Put their kids through college?

And whatever you would do, how is that evidence for a god?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I hereby give you my personal witness that I don't lie to you, but speak to you from my best recollection of events, what I've read, science, what I know, what I believe and love.

I believe that, but not your report about Hitchens. There is too much evidence to suggest that Hitchens would never make such a comment, and just your recollection to the contrary.

But here's me being open-minded like many other skeptics here: Show the evidence, and I'll say, "Well look at that! I was wrong." Don't, and I will continue to reject the claim just as I reject your claim that you experience a god, a claim that I also consider sincere, but also a misinterpretation of your psychological state.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is evident to me, and I hope to you, that when you make a living mocking theists to sell books, and these whom you exploit send you thousands of letters extolling your brilliance, letting you know they beg God for your healing . . .

. . . "Crazy" and "delusioned" tends to not make enemies your friends, and loving. Religious cults make people nice (Mormons, JWs) but it doesn't convert enemies to loving you, being evangelical to you.

Loving Hitchens isn't smoking gun evidence for Jesus. Although I would say my ability to love and enemy is quite good evidence.

Why do you think such behaviours and kindnesses are strictly limited to Christians/Christianity? I don't see this dichotomy you're presenting here where the only explanation is that these people are either crazy or the Christian god must be real. Maybe they're just caring people, as many of us are. Maybe they respect the man for his ideas and oratory skills, and his championing of human rights enough to ignore his views on religion. Maybe they're following the dictates of their religious group. But, even if they are, that still doesn't point to the existence of any god(s). I don't see how you're drawing that connection.

Hitchens has also spoken and written about other people claiming to be Christians who have written him letters and emails wishing him ill will and suggesting that god is punishing him for speaking out about religion. What do we make of those?

I don't see how the ability to send love to someone you don't like when they are in need, is any kind of evidence for any god. It's evidence that humans have the ability to do so.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What evidence should I present, then? I have a lot of evidence from outside-the-Bible, various independent sources.

What would be helpful to you?

Yes it would. What's the best piece of evidence you've got?