Talking Snakes, Donkeys and Bushes

[Subduction Zone]

Okay.
What is one observation and repeatable experiment of evolution from one organism to another?
What is evidence?
How did DNA form on its own, or by random, or chance processes?

Your question is poorly formed and shows you do not know how either evidence works or how one observes events in the sciences. First off there is no "change in kind" in evolution. For example you share a common ancestor with ancestor with other great apes. That ancestor was an ape and you are still an ape. There was no change in kind. You have a creationist strawman version of evolution in your head. We can see evolution in action. For example ring species show speciation. When two groups can no longer breed with each other they are by definition different species.
Here is an article on just one example of ring species:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/devitt_01

Let me correct a very poor concept you have. Evolution need not be repeatable. That is not what the scientific method demands. Experiments must be repeatable. The collection of evidence must be repeatable. It would prove evolution wrong if you could repeat the evolution of a species. So your question was incredibly wrong.

But let's go over what is and what is not evidence. In the world of science evidence are observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis. If a person is too afraid or cannot form a testable hypothesis at the very least then by definition he has no evidence. Creationists will not form a testable hypothesis for their beliefs. One does not have to understand how God created the Earth to form a hypothesis, one must merely find a hypothesis that is consistent and explains the evidence. Creationists simply either can't or refuse to do that. Perhaps they got tired of having their hypotheses proved wrong all of the time.

Right now you do not even know enough to ask questions properly. That is why you need to work with the basics. First understanding what is and what is not evidence and understanding the scientific method.

And the answer to your DNA question is neither. Try to avoid false dichotomies in the future.

 

[gnostic]

Kind of reminds me of Aesop's Fables, except for the burning bush. I've seen a burning bush myself but can't really say it was doing any talking.

What it is saying, is "Burn...burn, baby...BURN!!!"

 

[nPeace]

Your question is poorly formed and shows you do not know how either evidence works or how one observes events in the sciences.

First off there is no "change in kind" in evolution. For example you share a common ancestor with ancestor with other great apes. That ancestor was an ape and you are still an ape. There was no change in kind. You have a creationist strawman version of evolution in your head. We can see evolution in action. For example ring species show speciation. When two groups can no longer breed with each other they are by definition different species.
Here is an article on just one example of ring species:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/devitt_01

Thanks. ...but you have not shown any evidence for any observations, or repeated experiments of evolution from one organism to another.

You resorted to showing what is obvious with changes in species - something we are not arguing against, and does not contradict creation.

Let me correct a very poor concept you have. Evolution need not be repeatable. That is not what the scientific method demands. Experiments must be repeatable. The collection of evidence must be repeatable. It would prove evolution wrong if you could repeat the evolution of a species. So your question was incredibly wrong.

But let's go over what is and what is not evidence. In the world of science evidence are observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis. If a person is too afraid or cannot form a testable hypothesis at the very least then by definition he has no evidence. Creationists will not form a testable hypothesis for their beliefs. One does not have to understand how God created the Earth to form a hypothesis, one must merely find a hypothesis that is consistent and explains the evidence. Creationists simply either can't or refuse to do that. Perhaps they got tired of having their hypotheses proved wrong all of the time.

Right now you do not even know enough to ask questions properly. That is why you need to work with the basics. First understanding what is and what is not evidence and understanding the scientific method.

And the answer to your DNA question is neither. Try to avoid false dichotomies in the future.

So, please help me understand, since I am totally ignorant. Please give me an example of an experiment that can be repeated to show that evolution from one organism to another is true.
If it can be observed, please show how.

 

[ChristineM]

None

Really, i am surprised

No. I am not closing my eyes to reality, and I am trying to point out what I believe most of you keep missing.
Most of what is evidence in science are based on hypotheses - hypotheses that are often changed or thrown out.

Your comment seemed to indicate that you ignore that and feel that everything said by scientists, or called science is true.
Sure they can say it's true, but on what basis is it true?
Where are the observations and repeated experiments?

You should actually be thanking me that I am looking out for your interest, When the blind leads the blind, you know the outcome for both.
Matthew 15:14
If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.

All science is based on hypothesis, which, when sufficient repeatable observation, experiment and peer review show the hypothesis is valid it becomes a theory. Only then does it make he grade of science.. even so new data may require adjustment to the theory. Science is ongoing as knowledge accumulates. You seem to be ignorant of the scientific method simply because it pops your bubble.

Oh thanks.

Good. Thanks for that.

You are welcome

Can scientists create DNA? Where did it come from?
I believe you are an educated person, so I don't expect you will tell me anything containing the words "random" or "chance"... but then, we live in a crazy world, so anything is possible.
...and if that's not magic, then I don't know what is.

On the other hand, if you were to say, 'more likely an intelligent entity', then I might think I am hallucinating - but at least I would be listening to what seems to make sense.

What I hear though, is, "I don't know." That's to be expected.
We can't prove it, but the evidence suggests there is an intelligent creator.
After all, when did you ever see a machinery factory build itself, with everything in the right place for it to work, and a set of precise instructions to go with it?

The fact that it takes a scientist with a mind to try to build a cell using the materials available to him, is enough evidence to tell us how life got started. Don't you think?

Can you?
Gaps filled with guess.. what evidence? The evidence of childhood leukemia, the mosquito, claimed omnipotence show a creator is an impossibility and the evidence cosmology indicate that no god is required.

However i regularly see creationist claiming evidence of god but never see said evidence presented.

 

[nPeace]

Really, i am surprised



All science is based on hypothesis, which, when sufficient repeatable observation, experiment and peer review show the hypothesis is valid it becomes a theory. Only then does it make he grade of science.. even so new data may require adjustment to the theory. Science is ongoing as knowledge accumulates. You seem to be ignorant of the scientific method simply because it pops your bubble.

Oh thanks.

Now I am surprised.
I didn't realize you were aware.
Only, you seem to have gotten a bit confused.
Why? Science is a study. So at what point does anything become proven science or as you put it "make [t]he grade of science"?
Never. It starts as science and ends as science - a study.
Keep that in mind.

While you do that, see if this one can fit somewhere in there as well - some hypotheses remain just that - hypotheses. They never graduate.
So how could a non-graduate ever make the grade?

There is no bubble here to burst.

You are welcome



Can you?
Gaps filled with guess.. what evidence? The evidence of childhood leukemia, the mosquito, claimed omnipotence show a creator is an impossibility and the evidence cosmology indicate that no god is required.

However i regularly see creationist claiming evidence of god but never see said evidence presented.

Any person can try to deny a creator - contrary to your claim, they can never show it.

Like I said before, Jesus said.
"If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit"
I don't think I have to explain what blind means. Do I?

 

[ChristineM]

Now I am surprised.
I didn't realize you were aware.
Only, you seem to have gotten a bit confused.
Why? Science is a study. So at what point does anything become proven science or as you put it "make [t]he grade of science"?
Never. It starts as science and ends as science - a study.
Keep that in mind.

While you do that, see if this one can fit somewhere in there as well - some hypotheses remain just that - hypotheses. They never graduate.
So how could a non-graduate ever make the grade?

There is no bubble here to burst.

Did i say ''proven science' or are you making stuff up to massage your ego?

Your deliberate insults are becoming boring considering they are based on ignorance and bias.

Of course some hypothesis never graduate, why, usually because the scientific method prevents them. You would do well to learn of the scientific method before applying your bigotry to what you seem to misunderstand

Any person can try to deny a creator - contrary to your claim, they can never show it.

Like I said before, Jesus said.
"If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit"
I don't think I have to explain what blind means. Do I?

Wrong, the problem is ignorance of evidence.

Do you have corroborated scientific evidence to show jesus said anything? Ahh now we get to the root of the matter.

Considering i have a sight defect i consider your insult about blindness to be just that, an insult. But what am to to expect?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks. ...but you have not shown any evidence for any observations, or repeated experiments of evolution from one organism to another.

Of course I have. Please pay attention and try to correct your errors.

You resorted to showing what is obvious with changes in species - something we are not arguing against, and does not contradict creation.

that was what you asked for. Try to ask better questions. When you ask "stupid questions" of course you are not going to like the answers.

So, please help me understand, since I am totally ignorant. Please give me an example of an experiment that can be repeated to show that evolution from one organism to another is true.

Now what did I just tell you about asking that sort of question? And I gave you an example. For the strawman.

If it can be observed, please show how.

I showed you how. Please pay attention.

You want to see some sort of evolution that would negate the theory of evolution. What sort of change do you think that you will see over a short time period?

Since you have no clue let's go back to basics and learn what is and what is not evidence. Until you realize and admit that creationists have no evidence there is no point in going any further.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Atheists seem to have a difficult time with distinguishing the difference between the literal and the figurative.

Either the writers themselves didn't know when or how to distinguish between literal or figurative storytelling, or Theists are picking and choosing which is which based on convenience. Either way, there's a really big problem with your argument.

 

[nPeace]

Of course I have. Please pay attention and try to correct your errors.


that was what you asked for. Try to ask better questions. When you ask "stupid questions" of course you are not going to like the answers.

Of course, you have... not.
The only error I need to correct is the one where I asked you to show me anything.
How can you answer a stupid question with a proper answer. So what you provided then was not an answer to my question? Figures.

Now what did I just tell you about asking that sort of question? And I gave you an example. For the strawman.

There you admit it too. Thanks.

I showed you how. Please pay attention.

You want to see some sort of evolution that would negate the theory of evolution. What sort of change do you think that you will see over a short time period?

Since you have no clue let's go back to basics and learn what is and what is not evidence. Until you realize and admit that creationists have no evidence there is no point in going any further.

You showed me nothing.
Thanks for nothing.

BTW I must commend you for at least making a change to your former meatless cynics. The last post was an improvement, although it didn't go anywhere.
It would have been good, if you did answer the question on evidence, and Abiogenesis, but still, it was more than I expected.

 

[nPeace]

Did i say ''proven science' or are you making stuff up to massage your ego?

Where did I say you said 'proven science'? Oh right, I probably made it up, so it's somewhere in my mind - and you read it.

Your deliberate insults are becoming boring considering they are based on ignorance and bias.

"Deliberate insults"? What next?

Of course some hypothesis never graduate, why, usually because the scientific method prevents them. You would do well to learn of the scientific method before applying your bigotry to what you seem to misunderstand

So am I right to assume that means it's okay for you to apply your bigotry to what you feel you understand. How we do like to give advice to the ignorant. Is it because we feel we know so much?
Or is it because we like to threaten, but hate to feel threatened.

Wrong, the problem is ignorance of evidence.

Do you have corroborated scientific evidence to show jesus said anything? Ahh now we get to the root of the matter.

Considering i have a sight defect i consider your insult about blindness to be just that, an insult. But what am to to expect?

What am I wrong about?

You feel threatened and insulted by Jesus' words? Why?
If you don't believe in him, why should his words bother you?

He makes a general statement about spiritual blindness, and you consider it an insult.. and yet you claim to understand what the Bible is about? Interesting.

 

[ChristineM]

Where did I say you said 'proven science'? Oh right, I probably made it up, so it's somewhere in my mind - and you read it.

You said, and i quote

So at what point does anything become proven science or as you put it "make [t]he grade of science"?

Memory failing?

"Deliberate insults"? What next?

You make 'em i will reply in kind.

So am I right to assume that means it's okay for you to apply your bigotry to what you feel you understand. How we do like to give advice to the ignorant. Is it because we feel we know so much?
Or is it because we like to threaten, but hate to feel threatened.

When you threaten me in any way then i will reply in kind. Interesting that you fail to see your abusive threats as anything other than normal conversation.

What am I wrong about?

You feel threatened and insulted by Jesus' words? Why?
If you don't believe in him, why should his words bother you?

He makes a general statement about spiritual blindness, and you consider it an insult.. and yet you claim to understand what the Bible is about? Interesting.

When you prove jc actually said anything then you can make claims citing what he said. As it stands there is not even any proof he existed as depicted in the bible.

You made the statement i was referring to, you can of course blame it on your myth god, it makes no difference to the fact he was not writing the post but you were.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course, you have... not.
The only error I need to correct is the one where I asked you to show me anything.
How can you answer a stupid question with a proper answer. So what you provided then was not an answer to my question? Figures.



There you admit it too. Thanks.



You showed me nothing.
Thanks for nothing.

BTW I must commend you for at least making a change to your former meatless cynics. The last post was an improvement, although it didn't go anywhere.
It would have been good, if you did answer the question on evidence, and Abiogenesis, but still, it was more than I expected.

If you can't be honest there is no point in continuing. As I already pointed out you do not know enough to even ask proper questions. Even when corrected you asked the same sort of rather idiotic question and complained when it was answered properly. That not only demonstrate gross ignorance it also shows a bit of dishonesty since you asked the same question again after being corrected.

Can you be honest? If you can be honest I will try to help you. Your statements about me are lies and you really should try not to repeat them. Just because something is far above your understanding does not mean that it is "meatless".

 

[nPeace]

You said, and i quote



Memory failing?

This is not meant to be an insult, but how do you read?

So at what point does anything become proven science

or as you put it "make [t]he grade of science"?

Or
conjunction

1. (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives):

The first phrase is separate from the second.
"as you put it" is not in the first phrase.

You make 'em i will reply in kind.



When you threaten me in any way then i will reply in kind. Interesting that you fail to see your abusive threats as anything other than normal conversation.

You are missing my point.
Besides, where did I threaten anyone?
I could explain, but that won't be helping you. So try reading it again along with what you said, and see if you get it in its correct context.

When you prove jc actually said anything then you can make claims citing what he said. As it stands there is not even any proof he existed as depicted in the bible.

You made the statement i was referring to, you can of course blame it on your myth god, it makes no difference to the fact he was not writing the post but you were.

That is quite interesting.
So if I said that Abraham Lincoln said. "blah blah blah." You would only accept the words as coming from him, if you heard them or saw them yourself, or if you believed the person actually existed.

So if I quoted a man I actually knew, but is dead now, you would ask me for proof that the person existed, and said those words?
Trust me... I am having a hard time believing this is true.

Anyways, I believe what Jesus said, and if those words came from anyone else, including a little child, i would accept them, because it's logically true. If a blind man leads a blind man both will fall into a pit - literally or spiritually.

I think that's the difference between a closed minded person, and one who is open minded.

 

[nPeace]

If you can't be honest there is no point in continuing. As I already pointed out you do not know enough to even ask proper questions. Even when corrected you asked the same sort of rather idiotic question and complained when it was answered properly. That not only demonstrate gross ignorance it also shows a bit of dishonesty since you asked the same question again after being corrected.

Can you be honest? If you can be honest I will try to help you. Your statements about me are lies and you really should try not to repeat them. Just because something is far above your understanding does not mean that it is "meatless".

I think you mentioned the problem - You think you know more than "anyone else" that doesn't believe what you do. ...and so you are again showing your usually character.

My reference to meatless had to do with your previous posts that just contained your usual pure cynicism without anything else.
However, carry on, and have a good day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you mentioned the problem - You think you know more than "anyone else" that doesn't believe what you do. ...and so you are again showing your usually character.

My reference to meatless had to do with your previous posts that just contained your usual pure cynicism without anything else.
However, carry on, and have a good day.

Wrong, I merely know much more than you do. That is obvious. There are many people that know more than I do. As I pointed out you can't even ask proper questions and hypocritically complain when your poorly asked questions are answered for you.

Once again, can you be honest?

 

[ChristineM]

This is not meant to be an insult, but how do you read?

Or
conjunction

1. (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives):

The first phrase is separate from the second.
"as you put it" is not in the first phrase.

You made a statement, you denied making that statement. Sorry it upsets you to get caught out

You are missing my point.
Besides, where did I threaten anyone?
I could explain, but that won't be helping you. So try reading it again along with what you said, and see if you get it in its correct context.

Nope, i am not missing your point, you attempt post after post to insult my intelligence and just end up making yourself look more christian (believe me, its not a good look)

That is quite interesting.
So if I said that Abraham Lincoln said. "blah blah blah." You would only accept the words as coming from him, if you heard them or saw them yourself, or if you believed the person actually existed.

So if I quoted a man I actually knew, but is dead now, you would ask me for proof that the person existed, and said those words?
Trust me... I am having a hard time believing this is true.

Anyways, I believe what Jesus said, and if those words came from anyone else, including a little child, i would accept them, because it's logically true. If a blind man leads a blind man both will fall into a pit - literally or spiritually.

I think that's the difference between a closed minded person, and one who is open minded.

Straw man, you are not abe lincoln. And without corroborating evidence, sure i query its voracity

There is precisely as much evidence to say jesus was a anarchist, assassin and traitor, interesting how you deny that

How can it be logically true, logic requires stringent principals of validity. What you mean is you believe it to be true because you have faith.

Yes a close minded person will accept what they are told, an open minded person will query it.

 

[nPeace]

You made a statement, you denied making that statement. Sorry it upsets you to get caught out

You continually are mentioning the problem, but keep ignoring it.
You assume.... too much, I might add. I'm not upset about anything.
Or maybe you just say these things for the reason you accuse me of.

Nope, i am not missing your point, you attempt post after post to insult my intelligence and just end up making yourself look more christian (believe me, its not a good look)

Just like I said.
Sorry you assumed that.
I hope that last bit made you feel better.

YStraw man, you are not abe lincoln. And without corroborating evidence, sure i query its voracity

There is precisely as much evidence to say jesus was a anarchist, assassin and traitor, interesting how you deny that

How can it be logically true, logic requires stringent principals of validity. What you mean is you believe it to be true because you have faith.

Yes a close minded person will accept what they are told, an open minded person will query it.

What I mean is, it is an undeniable truth.
To test it, all you have to do is walk through an underground cave, and see.

Thanks for sharing with me how you feel though. It was meaningful to me, since it will help me in my choice of words in the future.
For that, I sincerely apologize for how I started.

 

[ChristineM]

You continually are mentioning the problem, but keep ignoring it.
You assume.... too much, I might add. I'm not upset about anything.
Or maybe you just say these things for the reason you accuse me of.

I have no problem, you made a statement .you denied making the statement, i quoted your post and proved you wrong?

Just like I said.
Sorry you assumed that.
I hope that last bit made you feel better.

No, not better, very sad really.

What I mean is, it is an undeniable truth.
To test it, all you have to do is walk through an underground cave, and see.

Thanks for sharing with me how you feel though. It was meaningful to me, since it will help me in my choice of words in the future.
For that, I sincerely apologize for how I started.

What you said was logically true .now you are saying undeniable truth... What next?

I spend much of my time in caves, so im assuming you are offering another straw man.

Ok. Maybe next time we can both be a little more civilized.

 

[viole]

Now, everyone who has read the Genesis account knows that the text, if taken literally at face value, would read that the serpent in the garden of Eden who deceived Eve was talking. But, at the same time we all know that not to be the case. Atheists seem to have a difficult time with distinguishing the difference between the literal and the figurative. I personally think this is a mock stupidity in order to make a point, for example, saying that the Bible has talking snakes when it is abundantly clear, even to a simple child, that it was Satan, not the literal serpent, that was speaking to Eve. The account is given in her perspective so the snake seems to be talking.

The same principle applies to Balaam's a s s and the burning bush. Numbers 22:28 / 2 Peter 2:16 / Exodus 3:2-5

In all of these cases it is't the snake, or the a s s or the bush that are speaking.

Not this atheist here. I believe the whole Bible is figurative. Including Jesus tales. I mean, having Messiahs taking off to heaven is not much more plausible than talking snakes, really.

Unless you have a reliable way to decide what is figurative and whatnot.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Dell]

Nowhere in Genesis that I can remember reading is meant to be taken figuratively with exception of dreams interpreted by Joseph. As it has been stated before the manner the serpent was cursed, that it was obviously a snake. This is a legend roughly written 3000 years ago, not 300 years ago. Peoples then fantasized of gods using birds, snakes, dogs, lions, etc.. Today we fantasize superhumans like superman, batman, wonder woman, spiderman etc.. nothing new under the sun.... you should research the Egyption book of the dead.. you make a big mistake thinking the bible writers wrote so figuratively, it's just not the way it was written at all. To say that is just damage control from holes punched through by science and reason.