Proof of evolution -at last-

[Valjean]

The Bible is compatible with facts, can’t help if you believe the alternative theories. You’ll just have to experience the judgement and then that’s it, what will you do when you stand before God at that point? Try and tell Him how much you know ? You gonna blame someone else? We can go back and forth all day long but when a person dies that’s when reality hits you.

The Bible is a cobbled together, heavily edited, contradictory, factually inaccurate collection of ancient writings -- by theologins with an agenda. This is a demonstrable fact.

ElishaElijah said: ↑
Start in Genesis and read through to the end. The Bible speaks for itself but just in Genesis chapter 1, corresponds to life on Earth. Sowing and reaping, man’s rule over Creation.

Which Genesis? They tell different stories; they contradict each other.
Maybe you should go back and read them.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Which Genesis? They tell different stories; they contradict each other.
Maybe you should go back and read them.

You say a contradiction because you don’t understand them, you see contradiction and I see a further explanation.

 

[Valjean]

Already did and am correct, so have you and just give yourself some time, you’ll either submit to God or curse Him.

You have not supported your belief, here. You have not countered F1fan's post. You've just made an assertion. It carries no epistemic weight.

Unless you can defend this position, you're just preaching.

 

[Valjean]

You say a contradiction because you don’t understand them, you see contradiction and I see a further explanation.

Anyone reading the bible objectively sees contradictions. Biblical scholars see contradictions.
Go back to your Genesis challenge (#403) They're not only contradictory, but they're scientifically absurd.
Book of Genesis - RationalWiki
Biblical contradictions - RationalWiki

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Actually I use the dictionary definition of ape which I sent to you. Anyone who would dispute that human beings are the rulers and have authority on the earth as stewards of God’s creation over animals isn’t worth any further discussion. The comments were ridiculous in that. If we couldn’t even agree on the obvious I don’t see any reason to waste time discussing anything else at all. I have found a different avenue and community. Been fun but for now not worth any more time.

Let me see... I'm no teacher, but I'll try to lay this down as simple as I can get it using imagery and bold/color text:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Definition of ape
(Entry 1 of 3)

1a: any of various large tailless semi-erect primates of Africa and southeastern Asia (such as the chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, or gibbon)
— called also anthropoid, anthropoid ape

— compare GREAT APE

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note how the word "apes" and the word "simians" are in quotations, also note the first three words within the definition of your choice are "any of various", for such words are generalizations. (See above)

Anthropoidea is a classification of a creature with a specific set of biological and anatomical traits. Hominoidea is a classification of a creature that has the traits of Anthropoidea creatures. Cercopithecoidea is a classification of a creature that also has the traits of Anthropoidea. In addition to their shared traits, Cercopithecoidea and Hominoidea have traits unfamiliar to one another, but both are Anthropoidea. (See below)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In conclusion, you are a homo sapiens sapiens and thus a hominid. You are a hominid and thus an anthropoid. You are an anthropoid and thus an animal. "You're such a BEAST! You animal, you!"

 

[ElishaElijah]

Let me see... I'm no teacher, but I'll try to lay this down as simple as I can get it using imagery and bold/color text:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Definition of ape
(Entry 1 of 3)

1a: any of various large tailless semi-erect primates of Africa and southeastern Asia (such as the chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, or gibbon)
— called also anthropoid, anthropoid ape

— compare GREAT APE

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note how the word "apes" and the word "simians" are in quotations, also note the first three words within the definition of your choice are "any of various", for such words are generalizations. (See above)

Anthropoidea is a classification of a creature with a specific set of biological and anatomical traits. Hominoidea is a classification of a creature that has the traits of Anthropoidea creatures. Cercopithecoidea is a classification of a creature that also has the traits of Anthropoidea. In addition to their shared traits, Cercopithecoidea and Hominoidea have traits unfamiliar to one another, but both are Anthropoidea. (See below)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
View attachment 61354
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Appears to be great example of an active imagination of a mind that has rejected the truth and descended into madness.
Im sticking with The Genesis 1 account of Creation, it makes more sense.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Appears to be great example of an active imagination of a mind that has rejected the truth and descended into madness.
Im sticking with The Genesis 1 account of Creation, it makes more sense.

On another thread I was lead to this book you speak of, and found this:

(NKJV) Matthew 5:20 "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

My translation of it is: "You aren't on the path, unless you walk a path a cut above the written word and clergy/courts."
Which would mean you are no more or less correct than those of us using a book which helps us describe the natural world we exist within.
You're wrong, I'm wrong, the members of ¹evangelical/dogmatic scientism are wrong.

Don't lean on a book, for goodness' sake! Don't rely on powerholders to properly guide, for goodness' sake. Your heart of hearts is in your head, so follow your head, for goodness' sake!

¹Before I get flak; science is not dogmatic, people are dogmatic. A dogmatic person can wield or practice science in a fashion uncouth to science's own nature.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Appears to be great example of an active imagination of a mind that has rejected the truth and descended into madness.
Im sticking with The Genesis 1 account of Creation, it makes more sense.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You have not supported your belief, here. You have not countered F1fan's post. You've just made an assertion. It carries no epistemic weight.

Unless you can defend this position, you're just preaching.

I did defend my position, gave you the 2 Scenarios, which demonstrate a creation apart from God is imposssible.
The demonstration of my position as written in Genesis and throughout the Bible is right in front of you daily. Go outside and look, all the laws we have were not a result of chance but from the Author of life out Creator.
The absurdity of your views is no different than walking up to a vehicle and believing the parts just put themselves together over billions of years and then saying wow even the key works, push the button see what happens.

 

[ElishaElijah]

On another thread I was lead to this book you speak of, and found this:

(NKJV) Matthew 5:20 "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

My translation of it is: "You aren't on the path, unless you walk a path a cut above the written word and clergy/courts."
Which would mean you are no more or less correct than those of us using a book which helps us describe the natural world we exist within.
You're wrong, I'm wrong, the members of ¹evangelical/dogmatic scientism are wrong.

Don't lean on a book, for goodness' sake! Don't rely on powerholders to properly guide, for goodness' sake. Your heart of hearts is in your head, so follow your head, for goodness' sake!

¹Before I get flak; science is not dogmatic, people are dogmatic. A dogmatic person can wield or practice science in a fashion uncouth to science's own nature.

I take Matthew 5 to mean that the only way to enter the kingdom of Heaven is to obtain a righteousness of perfection and above the best of the best.
So when Jesus says I am the Way, the Truth and the Life no one come to the Father except through me. I take it to mean no one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven by their own righteousness. A person needs Jesus’ righteousness of perfection. That’s what I have been given, so my trust is in Jesus Christ who is the Word made flesh. John 1.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Anyone reading the bible objectively sees contradictions. Biblical scholars see contradictions.
Go back to your Genesis challenge (#403) They're not only contradictory, but they're scientifically absurd.
Book of Genesis - RationalWiki
Biblical contradictions - RationalWiki

Was going to say that’s where I thought you were getting your information.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Then there’s this: very comical that people would believe that evolution processes could come up with this sequence. By chance no less
Completing the human genome sequence

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then there’s this: very comical that people would believe that evolution processes could come up with this sequence. By chance no less
Completing the human genome sequence

What is the chance part that you mention here? Where exactly does chance come into play in this?

 

[wellwisher]

When it comes to evolution, Atheists have the habit of using revisionists history. Revisionist history is where you attribute modern things and insights to the past and judge the past by the present. The DNA and the modern biological cataloging were not known by the ancient people. This is new science fad. You cannot just assume, because they were not with the modern program, this means they did not understand the same concepts in a different way.

For example, early in the Bible, genealogy is recorded, based on blood lines that come from Adam and Eve. Bloodline was an ancient parallel concept, similar to modern DNA. They understood a direct connection between procreation, individuality, species and even collectivism, that we now assign to DNA. They called this idea of an integrating life principle, bloodline. In modern genealogy we can take a blood test for our DNA to show the specific geographical places of our ancestors; collectivism. They knew this thousand of years ago.

A bloodline came from a certain group of connected humans, often traced back to specific very people or persons. They recorded how the DNA or the bloodline evolved. Their empirical results add up the same way, as if they used the idea of DNA instead of bloodline. The modern concept of DNA and Genes probably derived from the idea of bloodlines. Modern tools gave it a definitive chemical but did bot alter the basic concepts.

The story of Noah and the Ark, where Noah gathers two of each animal; male and female, showed they had a good handle on how the genes common to each species, were sufficient to recreate that entire species from just two units; male and female. The did this without the need for concept of DNA. They understood the concept of bloodline must also apply to the animals.

This metaphor also shows that human intervention became involved in a new generations of natural species; selection by Noah. The lions would still breed true as lions, but the new bloodline, would not longer necessarily be directly rooted in the original selected bloodline of natural selection. Noah did not have to gather the two top dogs of each species implicit of Darwin's of natural selection. Any two would do. This tells us the new branch of each species would be impacted by human selection; unnatural potentials created by the rise of the new the civilization that would appear after the flood; new era of civilization.

The metaphor of the flood, wipes out the earlier natural animal family tree, and the new species that begins, were selected by the new human potentials. As the environment was developed and exploited, the potentials of nature were not longer the same. The lion, for example, who could hunt human the best in the old world, would be killed by the humans, and tigers that knew to stand clear of humans, would be left to be naturally selected.

If we traced the roots of genealogy, and add the years, the total dates back to about 6000 years ago. A human selection potential, based on the goal of a specific pure human bloodline; maternal DNA, would cause a subset of all natural humans, to move into a different evolutionary path, apart from natural selection. This new type of human was not exactly the product of natural selection, but rather based on human and divine selection; will and choice based on human rules and civilization.

Jesus was part of this original 6000 year old bloodline. He become a lateral branch in that bloodline tree after about 4000 years. He add new selective pressures to humans; faithful, based on a new belief system. This was a different type of human selection, that would lead human DNA a new way.

If you look at the early Christians, following their faith and then being killed, instead of running away, something was trumping their natural survival instinct. This was a new type of human; advance model based on thousands of years of preliminary changes. They could leave the animal fear of the here and now and react out of time; in the utopia of the future.

The bible is a study of a 6000 year old experiment in evolution, connected to human and divine selection apart and coexistent with natural selection. Natural selection continues for many plants and animals since they lack will and choice. But modern humans use will and choice to cheat the fate of animals; medicines. This impacts the new modern direction of selection. Natural animals do not have meds.

The persistence of religions is due to these natural experiments in evolution known to take time to occur, since the DNA is very conservative and change requires long term selective persistence. Science has a treasure trove of applications of human evolution right at its disposal, if it did not try to throw it away. This is true whether we factor out God or not.

 

[ElishaElijah]

What is the chance part that you mention here? Where exactly does chance come into play in this?

There is no chance but only a Creator.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually I use the dictionary definition of ape which I sent to you. Anyone who would dispute that human beings are the rulers and have authority on the earth as stewards of God’s creation over animals isn’t worth any further discussion. The comments were ridiculous in that. If we couldn’t even agree on the obvious I don’t see any reason to waste time discussing anything else at all. I have found a different avenue and community. Been fun but for now not worth any more time.

So you just get to make assertions and everyone is just supposed to accept them without any demonstration or evidence, but we're supposed to reject science, which actually backs up its claims with demonstrations and evidence?

No thanks. That doesn't sound like anyone who is interested in getting to the truth of the matter to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Maybe do a post and ask how many people on here practice witchcraft or consider themselves witches?

How exactly would that demonstrate that demons exist?

The number of people who believe in a thing has no bearing on whether or not it's actually true.

Also, witches aren't demons.

But Jesus cast out demons, I was oppressed by them but no more.

Jesus cast out your demons? Are you being metaphorical now?

So your scientific facts and personal observations lead you to believe that human beings do not rule the animals on the Earth?

I do not believe that humans "rule the animals on Earth." Ever get into a tussle with a lion? How about a shark?

 

[SkepticThinker]

And God saith, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.'

It appears you have the incorrect meaning of rule over and what is considered an animal.

How do we know God said that?



Definition of rule

1a: a prescribed guide for conduct or action
b: the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members
c: an accepted procedure, custom, or habit
d(1): a usually written order or direction made by a court regulating court practice or the action of parties
(2): a legal precept or doctrine
e: a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct
2a(1): a usually valid generalization
(2): a generally prevailing quality, state, or modefair weather was the rule yesterday— The New York Times
b: a standard of judgment : CRITERION
c: a regulating principle
d: a determinate method for performing a mathematical operation and obtaining a certain result
3a: the exercise of authority or control : DOMINION
b: a period during which a specified ruler or government exercises control
4a: a strip of material marked off in units used especially for measuring : RULER sense 3, TAPE MEASURE
b: a metal strip with a type-high face that prints a linear designalso : a linear design produced by or as if by such a strip
Definition of RULE


Rule-over definition

(idiomatic) To be a ruler of, to command.

Rule-over Definitions | What does rule-over mean? | Best 1 Definitions of Rule-over


Definition of animal

1: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (such as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (such as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation
2a: one of the lower animals (see LOWER entry 3 sense 3) as distinguished from human beings
b: MAMMALbroadly : VERTEBRATE
3: a human being considered chiefly as physical or nonrationalalso : this nature
4: a person with a particular interest or aptitudea political animalHe's a party animal.
5: MATTER, THINGthe theater … is an entirely different animal— Arthur Miller

Definition of ANIMAL

 

[ElishaElijah]

How exactly would that demonstrate that demons exist?

The number of people who believe in a thing has no bearing on whether or not it's actually true.

Also, witches aren't demons.


Jesus cast out your demons? Are you being metaphorical now?


I do not believe that humans "rule the animals on Earth." Ever get into a tussle with a lion? How about a shark?

I would use other means like a trap, tranquilizer gun etc. Don’t see them ruling over human beings do you? Not happening
How does science deal with consciousness?
And witchcraft is demonic, I wasn’t possessed but controlled by the demonic spiritual realm as explained in Ephesians 2.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I did defend my position, gave you the 2 Scenarios, which demonstrate a creation apart from God is imposssible.
The demonstration of my position as written in Genesis and throughout the Bible is right in front of you daily. Go outside and look, all the laws we have were not a result of chance but from the Author of life out Creator.
The absurdity of your views is no different than walking up to a vehicle and believing the parts just put themselves together over billions of years and then saying wow even the key works, push the button see what happens.

And I countered your assertion by pointing out that if abiogenesis as you describe it, is impossible, then it would have been impossible for your God to have created anything.
Weird how you didn't respond to that.