On Evolution & Creation

[The Hammer]

Yeah.. that's Jesus, We know what we know, And we know what we don't know.
We know what Jesus thought and what Jesus knew, and we know what we don't know is who will be a figurative sheep or goat at the soon coming time of separation as taught at Matthew chapter 25
We know there is going to be a coming saying of " Peace and Security...." but those rosy-sounding words can just lead people down that old primrose path instead of to safety to world-wide troubles, how does evolution explain that

In your opinion yes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm afraid you have not read a textbook about evolution lately. There are statements all over the place with nothing but statements as to what the authors think.

Digression:

You remind me of the people pulled over by law enforcement for traffic violations that feign interest in having a discussion with law enforcement, but actually just want to be contrarian. The cop is trying to explain how the law works but is hit with an endless litany of distractions that are both incorrect and irrelevant to his investigation such as, "Did you take an oath to the Constitution?" and "Look at my sovereign citizen paperwork and false claims," or my favorite, "I want a supervisor out here" as if that person weren't trained exactly the same way as the officer at the scene. It's all just delay tactics to distract from reality.

You do the same - endless pointless questions and deflections rather than addressing what you've been told. "How do you know this?" and "How do you know that?" without giving any serious attention to the answers followed by another irrelevant question. Just as I often wish those officers were of the no-nonsense variety and would just lay down the law and say, "This isn't a debate, I'm not here to answer your questions or be interviewed by you, you have no authority or expertise here, so just be quiet, get out of the vehicle, and place your arms behind your back or I'll pull you out."

I'd approach you and your endless questions and claims "It's just conjecture," the same way. "No. You're wrong. This isn't up for debate, you're uniformed, and your words are all verbal litter" and then be done with it.

But just as many of those cops let such people lead them on and on for a half hour before taking decisive action, so too with you. You will lead people willing to let you around in pointless circles until they simply say, "that's enough. This discussion is over. Your opinions are uninformed and incorrect. Here's how it is" and then tell them without fielding questions.

If interested, here are a few examples of these contrarian people who don't understand who has the credentials and who is uninformed and is just wasting time until somebody puts a stop to it. look at for how long these officers play patty cake with the woman in the first segment before finally insisting that she comply.

The analogous behavior for RF posters attempting in vain to teach evolution to contrarian creationists who aren't actually interested in in the answers to their questions is a similar no-nonsense approach that doesn't involve fielding dozens of pointless questions.

They don't get this first time water out of the car for about 18 minutes. I'd have had her out in under five. We shouldn't treat time wasters arguing just to argue with no real arguments the way we treat serious discussants once we recognize what we're dealing with:

The second segment, which begins at, 25:27, is more like what I'm talking about. He's in cuffs before the 29-minute mark:

 

[YoursTrue]

Digression:

You remind me of the people pulled over by law enforcement for traffic violations that feign interest in having a discussion with law enforcement, but actually just want to be contrarian. The cop is trying to explain how the law works but is hit with an endless litany of distractions that are both incorrect and irrelevant to his investigation such as, "Did you take an oath to the Constitution?" and "Look at my sovereign citizen paperwork and false claims," or my favorite, "I want a supervisor out here" as if that person weren't trained exactly the same way as the officer at the scene. It's all just delay tactics to distract from reality.

You do the same - endless pointless questions and deflections rather than addressing what you've been told. "How do you know this?" and "How do you know that?" without giving any serious attention to the answers followed by another irrelevant question. Just as I often wish those officers were of the no-nonsense variety and would just lay down the law and say, "This isn't a debate, I'm not here to answer your questions or be interviewed by you, you have no authority or expertise here, so just be quiet, get out of the vehicle, and place your arms behind your back or I'll pull you out."

I'd approach you and your endless questions and claims "It's just conjecture," the same way. "No. You're wrong. This isn't up for debate, you're uniformed, and your words are all verbal litter" and then be done with it.

But just as many of those cops let such people lead them on and on for a half hour before taking decisive action, so too with you. You will lead people willing to let you around in pointless circles until they simply say, "that's enough. This discussion is over. Your opinions are uninformed and incorrect. Here's how it is" and then tell them without fielding questions.

If interested, here are a few examples of these contrarian people who don't understand who has the credentials and who is uninformed and is just wasting time until somebody puts a stop to it. look at for how long these officers play patty cake with the woman in the first segment before finally insisting that she comply.

The analogous behavior for RF posters attempting in vain to teach evolution to contrarian creationists who aren't actually interested in in the answers to their questions is a similar no-nonsense approach that doesn't involve fielding dozens of pointless questions.

They don't get this first time water out of the car for about 18 minutes. I'd have had her out in under five. We shouldn't treat time wasters arguing just to argue with no real arguments the way we treat serious discussants once we recognize what we're dealing with:

The second segment, which begins at, 25:27, is more like what I'm talking about. He's in cuffs before the 29-minute mark:

No, it's not digression. Many people take what their textbooks say without questioning the source or veracity. Just as some here say they believe the "experts," no matter who they are without doubting them.

 

[Pogo]

No, it's not digression. Many people take what their textbooks say without questioning the source or veracity. Just as some here say they believe the "experts," no matter who they are without doubting them.

Wrong, intelligent people always question the source and veracity of new information. In the case of textbooks the source is people with great experience in the field who are presenting part of their knowledge base to persons who are unfamiliar with the subject. As for veracity, It is backed up by all of the research that has been done in the field. Textbooks are also reviewed by other experts in the field and critiqued for accuracy and presentation.

There is an exception to this, and that is textbooks published by religious organizations that rather than presenting human knowledge, present opinions based on their religious philosophy. People such as yourself actually do believe what is in these books without questioning, as made obvious by the fact that you have no understanding of the material and thus no idea of why your questions that these organizations and books present are so absurd.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wrong, intelligent people always question the source and veracity of new information. In the case of textbooks the source is people with great experience in the field who are presenting part of their knowledge base to persons who are unfamiliar with the subject. As for veracity, It is backed up by all of the research that has been done in the field. Textbooks are also reviewed by other experts in the field and critiqued for accuracy and presentation.

There is an exception to this, and that is textbooks published by religious organizations that rather than presenting human knowledge, present opinions based on their religious philosophy. People such as yourself actually do believe what is in these books without questioning, as made obvious by the fact that you have no understanding of the material and thus no idea of why your questions that these organizations and books present are so absurd.

You are so wrong about this. But anyway ...have a good day

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are so wrong about this. But anyway ...have a good day

That is quite wrong. Even in the high school classes that I took we were often taught the way to check the works of others.

 

[Valjean]

Which truth ? General truth, or divine truth as Jesus expressed at John 17:17 that Scripture is religious truth

Any truth. I wasn't aware that there were categories of truth.
Some believe whatever is pleasant or makes them feel good. Some accept whatever they're told by their peer group as truth. Some are team players and believe whatever their team believes. Some believe what will keep them in good grace with the authorities.
These approaches to truth never got us anywhere. It was only when we began analyzing tangible, observable phenomena, and forming and testing hypotheses, that we began to make significant progress in our understanding of the world.

So I repeat the question. What epistemic modality do you rely on, and what degree of confidence do you accept?

 

[Valjean]

Yeah.. that's Jesus, We know what we know, And we know what we don't know.
We know what Jesus thought and what Jesus knew, and we know what we don't know is who will be a figurative sheep or goat at the soon coming time of separation as taught at Matthew chapter 25
We know there is going to be a coming saying of " Peace and Security...." but those rosy-sounding words can just lead people down that old primrose path instead of to safety to world-wide troubles, how does evolution explain that

No. We don't know any of that. None of it is backed by reliable or tested evidence. There are a hundred different religions that could make just as well evidenced claims for their mythologies.

And what does any of this have to do with evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

Any truth. I wasn't aware that there were categories of truth.
Some believe whatever is pleasant or makes them feel good. Some accept whatever they're told by their peer group as truth. Some are team players and believe whatever their team believes. Some believe what will keep them in good grace with the authorities.
These approaches to truth never got us anywhere. It was only when we began analyzing tangible, observable phenomena, and forming and testing hypotheses, that we began to make significant progress in our understanding of the world.

So I repeat the question. What epistemic modality do you rely on, and what degree of confidence do you accept?

There are parables in the Bible that are not to be taken as literal truth but as illustrative truth

 

[YoursTrue]

No. We don't know any of that. None of it is backed by reliable or tested evidence. There are a hundred different religions that could make just as well evidenced claims for their mythologies.

And what does any of this have to do with evolution?

I believe, as I'm rather sure you do not, although I do not know what the future brings for you, Valjean, in this regard, that the one true God Jesus spoke of must reach a person's heart and mind . When this happens, that person will respond to it.

 

[McBell]

That is quite wrong. Even in the high school classes that I took we were often taught the way to check the works of others.

High school even prepared me for it...
By having us grade each others tests

But that was a really really long time ago

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are so wrong about this.

He's correct. You're wrong.

You keep asserting your opinions of fact from a position of abject ignorance, and by ignorance, I mean just of facts, but of critical thinking and what it can do for one. You demonstrate no familiarity with that method or even awareness that it exists, so you see yourself on an equal footing with others, who you project think like you do.

There's a name for being in that state. It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect. I discussed this with you before - once here and again here - but apparently and unsurprisingly, my words had no impact on you.

There are parables in the Bible that are not to be taken as literal truth but as illustrative truth

If a parable contains anything within it that can be called truth, it is a kernel that must be extracted from the parable like the moral of Aesop's fables. The rest of the story is not truth. It is fiction.

The faithful usually call their unfalsifiable claims truth because they believe them and require nothing more of an idea than that to group it with their set of empirically derived and demonstrably correct beliefs such as that the sun lights the dawn sky in the east every morning. It's imprudent to call both of these kinds of belief by the same name and see them as the same thing.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. We don't know any of that. None of it is backed by reliable or tested evidence. There are a hundred different religions that could make just as well evidenced claims for their mythologies.

And what does any of this have to do with evolution?

Some things are understood individually and not everybody will understand them.

 

[Hooded_Crow]

A question for the creationists:
How can a snake talk?

Genesis 3 outlines a dialogue between a snake and a human. Given that we know that snakes do not possess the brain function nor the vocal apparatus that allows speech and its comprehension, how was that conversation possible?

 

[Valjean]

Some things are understood individually and not everybody will understand them.

Individual feelings are just that: individual. They're inconsistent and vary from person to person. If they cannot be explained or reproduced they're both epistemically useless and unreliable.

 

[YoursTrue]

Individual feelings are just that: individual. They're inconsistent and vary from person to person. If they cannot be explained or reproduced they're both epistemically useless and unreliable.

Better you talk to those who speak to the dead.

 

[YoursTrue]

He's correct. You're wrong.

You keep asserting your opinions of fact from a position of abject ignorance, and by ignorance, I mean just of facts, but of critical thinking and what it can do for one. You demonstrate no familiarity with that method or even awareness that it exists, so you see yourself on an equal footing with others, who you project think like you do.

There's a name for being in that state. It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect. I discussed this with you before - once here and again here - but apparently and unsurprisingly, my words had no impact on you.

If a parable contains anything within it that can be called truth, it is a kernel that must be extracted from the parable like the moral of Aesop's fables. The rest of the story is not truth. It is fiction.

The faithful usually call their unfalsifiable claims truth because they believe them and require nothing more of an idea than that to group it with their set of empirically derived and demonstrably correct beliefs such as that the sun lights the dawn sky in the east every morning. It's imprudent to call both of these kinds of belief by the same name and see them as the same thing.

Why not ask a fellow poster here who has dealings with dead persons, maybe you will get some closure. Unless you don't believe she can really talk with dead persons. Orrr, maybe they're not dead or maybe they're not telling the truth or...

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Any truth. I wasn't aware that there were categories of truth.
Some believe whatever is pleasant or makes them feel good. Some accept whatever they're told by their peer group as truth. Some are team players and believe whatever their team believes. Some believe what will keep them in good grace with the authorities.
These approaches to truth never got us anywhere. It was only when we began analyzing tangible, observable phenomena, and forming and testing hypotheses, that we began to make significant progress in our understanding of the world.
So I repeat the question. What epistemic modality do you rely on, and what degree of confidence do you accept?

Pilate asked ," What is truth ? " but he was speaking about 'truth in general'
Whereas, as I said Jesus taught confidently about 'religious truth' as found in Scripture
Agree, for many it is what feels good is truth, peer-group truth, team-players group, please authorities group, etc.
Progress in our understanding of the world or is it lack of understanding
* The world today is like watching a movie after one has read the book *
By ' read the book ' I mean after reading the Bible
We find No stability in today's world by seeing failing human rulerships
Political activism is Not uniting peoples
Often NEWS is not trusted but rather for some the use of blogs
The only global campaign Jesus taught was about God's kingdom government in Jesus' hands for a thousand years- Luke 4:43; Matt. 24:14
What Jesus taught is Bad news for the world's understanding including some religious understanding
False clergy are sending living people up in the sky even though Scripture teaches 'flesh' (physical) can't go to Heaven - 1st Cor.15;50
So, just as we are Not designed to 'fly' (without a plane) mankind has proven it can't successfully govern themselves - Jer. 10:23
1st Thess. 5:2-3 will prove true that when " Peace and Security..." is said those rosy-sounding words can lead people down that old primrose path Not to Safety but to the coming great tribulation of Rev. 7:14 before Jesus as King takes the needed action

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Individual feelings are just that: individual. They're inconsistent and vary from person to person. If they cannot be explained or reproduced they're both epistemically useless and unreliable.

To me the Bible can be explained (by topic and subject arrangement) and the Bible is always being reproduced ( in many languages )
Since the Bible does Not change it is reliable and useful as to what happened and what is going to happen - 1st Thess. 5:2-3

 

[URAVIP2ME]

.................................................................................................................................................................................................
There is an exception to this, and that is textbooks published by religious organizations that rather than presenting human knowledge, present opinions based on their religious philosophy. People such as yourself actually do believe what is in these books without questioning, as made obvious by the fact that you have no understanding of the material and thus no idea of why your questions that these organizations and books present are so absurd.

I find the Bible is chock full of human knowledge with its examples of ups and downs and why
Yes, there are many books based on religious philosophy
Turn on the TV and we see the pitch to always keep coming back returning for more new religious self-help books
That example does Not make the Bible as wrong