Proof of evolution -at last-

[metis]

So what is a supposed hypothesis with very little supporting evidence, has reached factual status in the
minds of some….minds of many?

Two main pieces, with one that shows the fossil record narrowing and only containing single-cell organisms as we go back prior to the Cambia Explosion, and also the genome evidence that seemingly indicates that all current life forms may have emanated from a single source somewhere around 3 & 1/2 billion years ago. Obviously, that's not proof, but there are these two factors with no factors indicating that this might be wrong.

 

[metis]

The first in these families, were created. Their descendants then gradually evolved into more species.

But how do you supposedly know that these families were "created"?

Also, what evidence can you provide that shows that the evolutionary process will stop at some point?

IOW, if you're going to debate science, then debate science, not religious concepts not based on objectively.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That is ridiculous. It is just a variation in that "You just want to sin" twaddle.

No, it’s not ‘twaddle.’ I just showed that Aldous Huxley used this excuse as a reason. Voltaire, whom some consider the “father of modern atheism,” did too.

But I didn’t mean to imply it’s the only reason people adopt to reject the Bible.

If any thing, biblical morality does not meet my minimum standards.

The counsel for Christians, in the Greek Scriptures (NT), exceeds almost everyone’s .
That’s what I was referencing.

 

[ppp]

No, it’s not ‘twaddle.’ I just showed that Aldous Huxley used this excuse as a reason. Voltaire, whom some consider the “father of modern atheism,” did too.

How does that not make what you said twaddle?

[Atheists don't rely on the Bible] because of its standards on sexual morality, i.e., ‘have sex only with your spouse, and keep it there.’ Not saying that this applies to you; but it does to many.

A less artful response to the question would have been, For a variety of reasons; ranging from personal motivations to practical or philosophical disbelief to finding the Bible to be morally unreliable or inadequate. Or some combination thereof.

But I didn’t mean to imply it’s the only reason people adopt to reject the Bible.

What you implied is that your claim is mostly true, or even broadly true. Which was the twaddle to which I referred. I won't thank you for retracting the implication, because it is unclear as to whether you have actually retracted it.

The counsel for Christians, in the Greek Scriptures (NT), exceeds almost everyone’s .
That’s what I was referencing.

You cannot have the NT without the OT. And the NT certainly considers both the OT (and itself) to be a bastion of divine morality. Whether or not the morality or either testament is divine, it is most certainly strewn with iniquitous actions and orders from the major and minor protagonists. As a book written by a human society attempting to elevate itself from a lower state, I can respect the authors and the society for what they attempt to do with the understanding that they had - for the most part. As a book written, or even inspired by an omni-being, I could not be more disappointed.

I think that most people are more moral than either testament.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, but it is conjecture. Fossils do not prove evolution. While this concept may be difficult for some to accept, it is nevertheless true. Similar to the idea that Einstein had trouble accepting the idea that the universe is expanding, but finally had to give way to that idea.

It's completely bizarre at this point that you still believe that fossils are the only evidence for evolution, or that fossils cannot demonstrate that species evolve over time, given the amount of evidence that has been described to you.
Completely bizarre. Your record player has been stuck on the same song since you got to this forum, it seems. Time to change it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can only imagine you think your great +++ grandparents go waaaaaayyyyyy back to -- um -- gorillas? (oh no, can't say -- because it's an unknown 'common' ancestor so some scientists conjecture) or maybe bonobos? noooooo again -- unknoiwn somewhere inbetween. Come on -- lol take a guess -- maybe under a treestump somewhere -- sad, but shaking my head here while briefly laughing at the same time. Sad.

It's blatantly obvious that you are not interested in any evidence, or in learning anything new, whatsoever. You're just here to mock something you don't understand, which is .... weird, to say the least.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

may have

seemingly indicates

Thank you, metis, for adding those suppositions! I appreciate that.

the genome evidence

As you know, science can’t get genome data from fossils. So it can only look at modern organisms.
Instead of saying all organisms ‘share’ genes, to imply a relationship between, plants and animals, I’d say God just used the same blueprint….He simply recreated those genes, embedding them in their proper places on their chromosomes, or what’s termed loci.
Of course, genes are shared within families of organisms. They are related. I think for the most part Family taxa, due to their morphological differences, are unrelated. I see no substantial evidence revealing that mechanisms of evolution, no matter what pressures are exerted, will effect the origin of features like the Bact. Flagellum, or even the more basic Secretory injector system, which still require the exact implacement of several proteins at once to function.

Maybe the LTEE by Lenski will prove me wrong, but I doubt it.

Obviously, that's not proof, but there are these two factors with no factors indicating that this might be wrong.

“No factors”? I don’t agree,…

There have been several radiations (explosions) throughout the remote past — you mentioned one, the Cambrian. I think it (the Cambrian)is the best to provide evidence for a Creative event, because there have been no obvious precursors found in the lower strata.

And IMO, the evidence of gene similarity throughout all organisms, is just evidence for one Creator (not several), using one “blueprint,” if you will. (Not denoting relationship, necessarily.)

Hope you and yours stay well.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

How does that not make what you said twaddle?

OK, so it is twaddle…my bad, LOL.
But seriously…
It still stands as one reason people reject the Bible (per Aldous Huxley)….nobody enjoys being told what not to do….especially something pleasurable.

As far as morality & treatment of others according to the 600+ Mosaic Laws, Jesus said it’s content could be summed up in “Love your neighbor as yourself.” When reading the Laws given by Moses, see the wisdom in its words, too.

As far as God’s actions in the OT… those are His actions and not for us to copy, since He is said to read hearts & resurrect the dead; we can’t.

 

[ppp]

It still stands as one reason people reject the Bible (per Aldous Huxley)….nobody enjoys being told what not to do….especially something pleasurable.

What you implied is that your claim is mostly true, or even broadly true. Which was the twaddle to which I referred. I won't thank you for retracting the implication, because it is unclear as to whether you have actually retracted it.

Am I making broad generalizations about Christianity by citing the Quakers, or Westboro Baptists? No. Why not? Because I don't cite a tiny minority as representing the known or unknown majority.

As far as morality & treatment of others according to the 600+ Mosaic Laws, Jesus said it’s content could be summed up in “Love your neighbor as yourself.” I see the wisdom in its words, too.

Jesus was either wrong, or had a perverted notion of love.

As far as God’s actions in the OT… those are His actions and not for us to copy, since He is said to read hearts & resurrect the dead; we can’t.

I am not interested in special pleading*. His depicted actions are immoral. And many of the laws that he purported gave to humans to enact are similarly immoral.

*Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard.
- Special pleading - Wikipedia

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I am not interested in special pleading*. His depicted actions are immoral. And many of the laws that he purported gave to humans to enact are similarly immoral.

It’s not ‘special pleading’; I gave you the reasons. (It seems I’m wasting my time, though.)

Maybe you will understand an analogy: that an adult has different rights than a child? Of course an adult, due to experience & maturity both mental & emotional, has more capabilities & more responsibilities than a child.
As such, adults drive, sign documents, enter into contracts, etc.
Would you expect or even allow a child to? Of course not.

It’s the same between God and us… He has capabilities that we just don’t possess: He can & will undo all the injustices that mankind has suffered, even those that you & others perceive were injustices at God’s hand.

In fact, that’s the reason why Jehovah God sent His Son as the Messiah.*
As the Apostle John stated, “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.”
* An event which most misunderstand why it was necessary.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

BTW…

without justifying the special exception.

I just did.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It’s not ‘special pleading’; I gave you the reasons. (It seems I’m wasting my time, though.)

Maybe you will understand an analogy: that an adult has different rights than a child? Of course an adult, due to experience & maturity both mental & emotional, has more capabilities & more responsibilities than a child.
As such, adults drive, sign documents, enter into contracts, etc.
Would you expect or even allow a child to? Of course not.

False equivalence.
Being an adult doesn't make it acceptable to engage in immoral behavior.
The signing of contracts, driving,... none of this has moral implications.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Being an adult doesn't make it acceptable to engage in immoral behavior.

Agreed.
But it was an analogy.
We’re not talking about God driving a car, either.

I was discussing capabilities, capabilities that God has in rectifying any injustices that many perceive were at God’s hand.

Plus, He can see what’s in a person’s heart: how they think, & genuinely feel about …whatever.

Another capability we don’t have.

IOW, His judgements are based on capabilities beyond ours.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Agreed.
But it was an analogy.

So...A false analogy

We’re not talking about God driving a car, either.

Indeed we aren't, so your analogy makes no sense.

I was discussing capabilities, capabilities that God has in rectifying any injustices that many perceive were at God’s hand.

Capabilities aren't a free pass to engage in immoral behavior either.

Plus, He can see what’s in a person’s heart: how they think, & genuinely feel about …whatever.

Well, that's your religious belief. But let's go with it...
So what? How is that a free pass to engage in immoral behavior?

Another capability we don’t have.
IOW, His judgements are based on capabilities beyond ours.

So you are saying that there is some context where genocide, infanticide, slavery, etc are morally acceptable?
Might makes right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Agreed.
But it was an analogy.
We’re not talking about God driving a car, either.

I was discussing capabilities, capabilities that God has in rectifying any injustices that many perceive were at God’s hand.

Plus, He can see what’s in a person’s heart: how they think, & genuinely feel about …whatever.

Another capability we don’t have.

IOW, His judgements are based on capabilities beyond ours.

None of which is demonstrable in any way. . And rather condescending to boot.

 

[ppp]

It’s not ‘special pleading’; I gave you the reasons. (It seems I’m wasting my time, though.)

It is special pleading. You are placing exempting God from moral censure.
And since your only response is to rage and throw a tantrum, then yes, you are are wasting your time. And mine.

 

[shunyadragon]

BTW…


I just did.

NO!!!

 

[shunyadragon]

Agreed.
But it was an analogy.
We’re not talking about God driving a car, either.

I was discussing capabilities, capabilities that God has in rectifying any injustices that many perceive were at God’s hand.

Plus, He can see what’s in a person’s heart: how they think, & genuinely feel about …whatever.

Another capability we don’t have.

IOW, His judgements are based on capabilities beyond ours.

Capabilities of God has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Nonetheless God is perfectly capable of Creating our physical existence billions or more ancient, possibly eternal, and the origins and evolution of life as determined by the 'objective verifiable evidence' of scientific methods in discoveries and research over the past 150+ years and more.,

 

[metis]

As you know, science can’t get genome data from fossils.

In some cases, we can if some of their organic material is embedded.

Instead of saying all organisms ‘share’ genes, to imply a relationship between, plants and animals, I’d say God just used the same blueprint…

But notice that you have again used your assumption that simply is not derived from any scientific or other objective source whatsoever.

“No factors”? I don’t agree,…

There have been several radiations (explosions) throughout the remote past — you mentioned one, the Cambrian. I think it (the Cambrian)is the best to provide evidence for a Creative event, because there have been no obvious precursors found in the lower strata.

OK, we have made nuclear reactors and [unfortunately] exploded nuclear bombs, and yet we supposedly don 't know how radioactivity works and can't allow for variations? You might want to rethink this.

Let me repeat this: I do believe in God, but the ToE in no way negates a belief in God. It neither supports nor refutes a belief in God(s). Thus, what bothers me is when ministers of the Gospel teach things that simply are untrue, and in this case it's that the ToE supposedly negates a belief in God-- it simply doesn't.

Hope you and yours stay well.

And much the same to you & yours as well. Take care.

 

[ppp]

Let me repeat this: I do believe in God, but the ToE in no way negates a belief in God. It neither supports nor refutes a belief in God(s).

This needs to be on a t-shirt.