ElishaElijah
Return
I know it because it doesn’t line up with the false theory of evolution from ape to human beings. You have to get rid of all dissenting voices and evidence by any means possible.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Shroud of Turin is from first AD.
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is your definition. And it is an irrational one. By your definition there are no "facts" in the world.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
LOL! We know that evolution is a fact. I understand why you hate that fact.
How does it "not line up"? Where in the theory of evolution does it say anything about civilization arising.
I could make a good speculative explanation why civilization arose when it did. I doubt if you can.
ElishaElijah
Return
It’s a fact you believe you are a monkey.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Incorrect. And I suggest that you stop making false claims. I know that I am a monkey. I know that you are a monkey. I can support that claim with evidence.
You on the other hand appear to believe in a magic sky daddy. You all have not properly supported any of your beliefs. It appears that you want to lower people to your level to justify your false beliefs.
Let's get back to human civilization. Do you know what started it?
Sheldon
Veteran Member
What deception?
Your bare denial is a lot less compelling than a broad global scientific consensus.
What evidence, are you claiming doesn't support what? And what objective evidence have you for this claim?
Genesis is an unevidenced myth, and not remotely an historical event.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
A scientific fact is irrefutable based on the objective evidence, it is not an absolute, the absurdity of failed absolutes is for religion.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Humans are apes, this is a scientific fact, and dissenting voices can claim the moon is made of cheese, but scientific facts are overwhelmingly supported by objective evidence.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
ElishaElijah
Return
Such double talk…Are you a monkey or not? Your buddy says he is a monkey.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
A scientific fact is irrefutable based on the objective evidence, it is not an absolute, the absurdity of failed absolutes is for religion.
ElishaElijah
Return
Do you agree with @Subduction Zone that you are both monkeys?
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Are you denying that species evolution is an irrefutable scientific fact, based on the objective evidence, and that it is not an absolute?
ElishaElijah
Return
What I am saying is that human beings have always been human beings, created by God and didn’t come from an evolutionary process over millions or billions of years.
I see this from the historical evidence of civilization all abundance of life that coincides with the Genesis timeline. I haven’t seen human beings change or evolve for thousands of years. Haven’t seen any evidence of chimps, monkeys, apes changing in thousands of years either.
Now I will take your non answer of Do you agree with @Subduction Zone that you are a monkey?
That you are afraid to answer that, it’s a yes or no.
He said he knows he is a monkey, do you share that view? Are you?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, but the Genesis creation story is a myth and we know that evolution is a scientific fact. true. You could know too if you got over your fears.
I still cannot understand why you insist that God is a liar.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
So yes then, you're denying the scientific fact of species evolution.
There is no evidence for this, and Genesis is an unevidenced myth, it has no historically verifiable timeline. All the evidence from over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny support species evolution and natural selection.
The fossil record alone evidenced speciation. Human taxonomy is a verifiable scientific fact and we are part of a family of great apes, as these are our closes evolutionary relatives. Which is why we share a far higher amount of our DNA with the other great apes than any other species. Humans are also primates–a diverse group that includes some 200 species. Monkeys, lemurs and apes are our cousins, and we all have evolved from a common ancestor over the last 60 million years.
The fact you haven't seen this doesn't seem to be a barrier to you believing the creation myth of the bible, or did you see that? The main difference is that the biblical creation myth is entirely unsupported by any objective evidence, whereas all the scientific evidence from over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny supports species evolution as a scientific fact.
Last edited:
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Just as we experience hormonal changes that promote social bonding and subjectively call it love, I think when a person experiences the highest levels of, say, the moral hierarchy, that is subjectively spirituality.
Truth is the quality that facts possess, facts being linguistic strings (sentence or paragraph) that accurately maps out a portion of reality. If I say that I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier, if walking five blocks south and three blocks west from my front door gets me to the pier, then we can say that the claim is a fact. The moment it was demonstrated to be a fact, it was also demonstrated to be irrefutable. It is now impossible to make a true statement about the relationship of my house and the pier using any other combination of cardinal directions and numbers of blocks that isn't the equivalent, that is, that eventually takes me five blocks south and three blocks east even if circuitously. Add that by this reckoning, knowledge is the collection of facts.
That's a wonderfully simple and useful way to conceive of facts, knowledge, and truth, called the correspondence theory of truth. From Wiki:
"In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other."
Notice the implications of this: Any idea that does not meet this requirement is not a fact, and cannot be called true (I prefer correct for semantic reasons, since "truth" vexes so many with its absolute, objective, and ultimate formulations) or knowledge. It means that the proclamations of faith are none of these things - not truth, fact, or knowledge - and therefore cannot be called answers or explanations, either.
Once again, this issue has been refuted. You have been shown to be incorrect. That you didn't respond is irrelevant. All you would have needed to do and can still do if you ever choose to rebut anything is to make a statement that demonstrates that my conclusion about facts being irrefutable is false. My claim is falsifiable and until falsified, can be considered correct. Simply produce a (scientific) fact and successfully refute it. I gave you several examples in the recent past, such as that under usual circumstances, pure water freezes at 0 deg C, and light moves about 300,000 km/sec. Go ahead and show how those are wrong. You can't. And if you could, you would be showing that it was never a fact, since you would be doing that by showing empirically that the linguistic strings just suggested do not correspond with reality.
You're never going to learn the science, are you? I just want to repeat, since we've been through this already, that I don't expect you to agree with the science, but one would hope that you could eventually learn what it is that you are disagreeing with.
The only dissent seems to be coming from creationists, and the scientists can't hear them. I've explained that to you as well, but we know how that goes. They don't care what anybody who isn't an expert in some aspect of evolutionary science has to say, even scientifically literate lay people who agree with them. This is another one of the false problems or crises that apologists keep warning us about, but can never explain why anybody should consider there to be a problem.
Remember the metaphor of the perfectly running car, where some critic of it keeps telling us what problems that car has as we go driving along year after year? That's you in these discussion, telling science what it has to do, and urgently - by any means possible - yet it goes on down the road year after year anyway without crisis.
You didn't need to repeat any of that. Your audience learns what you believe the first time you post it. But you've never clarified what that evidence is, or how you think it supports your creationist beliefs, so the claim has no persuasive power and needs no rebuttal. You're in the same situation as anybody who offers as evidence that which doesn't doesn't support his conclusion, usually as a vague generalization, such as offering the Bible or the world as evidence of God. "Which parts," one asks. "All of it."
Which parts of the "historical evidence of civilization" do you think support your claim? All of it? If that's your answer, then you should be able to name a few specific facts that support creationism over evolution, but you can't.
Then you also haven't looked: 7 strange and surprising ways that humans have recently evolved
What difference does it make to you or anybody else how he answers that question? State your position explicitly. I'll guess what it is: you have been taught that you did not evolve from earlier primates, and also have been taught to be offended by the idea and to deride others for believing it, so that is your purpose - to ridicule the belief in the defense of your contradictory religious beliefs. Does that sound correct, or did you want to amend that? Maybe you're offended because you suspect that he considers you to be a monkey as well.
Last edited:
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Excellent post, well reasoned, and meticulously explained. This is also pertinent for @ElishaElijah, whether he acknowledges these facts and understands what they mean is up to him of course.
"The coccyx, or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost tail. All mammals have a tail at some point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis. This tail is most prominent in human embryos 31–35 days old."
So not only did humans share a common ancestor with monkeys, we still have the remnants of the tail we have now lost, and this tail is present during the early stages of gestation in the womb.
ElishaElijah
Return
You’re so eloquently wrong and seems this 2016 article should have been taken off the internet. We are the most medicated, overweight society around should’ve been the statement not disease resistant. I wish it were so especially with Covid. Doesn’t seem like we are too disease resistant now does it. The mantra was we are all going to die and the fear across the world. Problem with evolutionist is they are what they think - animals. This has contributed not to a better society but a hopeless, faithless, prayerless, Godless society with no vision or purpose.
That’s just 1 in the list.
Why is everyone pushing the vaccine regiment if this so and from birth? What is it now, almost 100?