The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[rrobs]

They are basing the conclusion on your posts. Your claim of knowledge in the field is contradicted by the content of your posts. This could mean you didn't receive an education in the material, but there are other possible explanations for the poor knowledge you use.

I did get an education in the material, so not having an education can be ruled out as a possible cause. Assuming you believe me on that, what else do you think it might be that makes me see evolution as insane?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn't, nor am I inclined at this time to disagree with Genesis

This makes no sense in light of your prior statements and the evidence that contradicts acceptance of the Genesis story.

Recognizing Genesis is myth is neither an assault on nor rejection of God.

 

[rrobs]

Well, maybe my standards are too high, but I think people ought to read with less of an agenda, in order to really hear .

It's so much more humble, but also vastly more rewarding.

If we can read like this -- true and full listening -- we are transported.

Changed.

No longer the same as we used to be.

If an individual does, the last thing they would care about is silly debates about small details not even addressed at all in the scripture -- small details about creation like geology or biochemistry, the age of Earth (never said in the Bible), and all of those.....distractions that prevent hearing the scripture.

The useless debates that block, prevent, kill, destroy what is being given -- something so much better than small details.

We learn in other places, like the beginning of the Gospel of John that God created all things, not only some, and we shouldn't have trouble understanding that means God not only can use chemistry, but also He created all the natural laws, physics, and anything that happens from those laws of nature is His creation, unfolding perfectly over time, like a flower from a seed.

It's like, you only need faith, to see that, in time. Or, faith and willingness to stop arguing about evolution, and just truly listen, without painting a doctrine on top of the scripture, so that it does the talking instead of us doing the talking, and it happens to us, instead of us happening to it, and it changes us, instead of us changing it.

Well said! I'll be taking it to heart and making this the final reply in this thread. It'd be better to find folks who want to hear the truth without argument. Thanks!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you are right about that, but most of the folks here are convinced I learned nothing. How they can know that is unclear, but maybe they are just super discerning. It's possible.

Your posts tell us that.

it has been quite a few pages, but many of your arguments lead to either one of two conclusions. You are either lying or you have almost no understanding of evolution at all. Personally I do not believe that you are lying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

These forums are full of contradictions. What's new?

Do you care to try again?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well said! I'll be taking it to heart and making this the final reply in this thread. It'd be better to find folks who want to hear the truth without argument. Thanks!

Wait a second. You have been the one that does not want to "hear the truth". I know that you falsely claimed 'Ad Hominem ' earlier. Were the lessons threatening your belief in myth?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I did get an education in the material, so not having an education can be ruled out as a possible cause. Assuming you believe me on that, what else do you think it might be that makes me see evolution as insane?

So now you see it as insane. That belies claims of being open and ready to learn. Sounds like you have a conclusion and are unwilling to veer from it.

Any reasonable conclusion about your claimed educational history on the basis of what you have posted as knowledge on the subject, would call the claim into question. Maybe there was no depth to it. Just a cursory review that allows you to claim it, but left no understanding. Maybe it was a subject you had trouble with. Perhaps it was so long ago you lost any details you had. Perhaps you were never educated on the subject, but only claim it. Perhaps you merely believe you have expertise. All I can know is what I see here. What I see is not good enough for you to draw the conclusions you are. Those conclusions come from what you want to believe despite the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was just thinking that without having a firm grip on the origin of life, it would be difficult to construct a theory of how it progressed. Seems important to know if our building is built on sand or solid bedrock.

But we can get back to evolution. I think my OP says what I wanted it to say, i.e. it takes no less faith to believe evolution than the scriptures.

There is no need to know how trains were invented to learn engine repair. Does an artist need to know chemistry in order to paint?

So far you have failed to make a case for the OP. Consider the implications of you could. No science would stand. You do not get that, it is clear, but that is what your argument tests on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No we aren't.

You made that up.

Unfortunately not the only example of that either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no need to know how trains were invented to learn engine repair. Does an artist need to know chemistry in order to paint?

So far you have failed to make a case for the OP. Consider the implications of you could. No science would stand. You do not get that, it is clear, but that is what your argument tests on.

One thing I have seen with people that make that kind of argument is that the will find another reason not to accept reality if their objection is solved. It is a clear sign of someone that is looking for excuses and not answers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Who cares? This is 2020.

How do you know?
Do you speak cat?

At what point will you present actual evidence for ANYTHING you have claimed?

So 4500 plus years ago shortly after the development of writing, they didn't have words for every concept or maybe hadn't yet bothered to write about them.

I was thinking of another animal with a three letter name.

it hasn't happened yet. It's close though. Any day now. I super duper know it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

One thing I have seen with people that make that kind of argument is that the will find another reason not to accept reality if their objection is solved. It is a clear sign of someone that is looking for excuses and not answers.

I know, that train just keeps a rollin' on.

 

[tas8831]

Unfortunately not the only example of that either.

Funny how often one side in this debate engages in such behavior.

 

[tas8831]

So now you see it as insane. That belies claims of being open and ready to learn. Sounds like you have a conclusion and are unwilling to veer from it.

Any reasonable conclusion about your claimed educational history on the basis of what you have posted as knowledge on the subject, would call the claim into question. Maybe there was no depth to it. Just a cursory review that allows you to claim it, but left no understanding. Maybe it was a subject you had trouble with. Perhaps it was so long ago you lost any details you had. Perhaps you were never educated on the subject, but only claim it. Perhaps you merely believe you have expertise. All I can know is what I see here. What I see is not good enough for you to draw the conclusions you are. Those conclusions come from what you want to believe despite the evidence.

I had a 2 classes in World History as an undergrad. I guess that means I am an expert in Ancient Language.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well said! I'll be taking it to heart and making this the final reply in this thread. It'd be better to find folks who want to hear the truth without argument. Thanks!

Based on this evidence, a conclusion is warranted that you do not understand the subject, had no intention of learning about it or what others know and the only conclusion you wanted was preconceived without evidence and closed for review. It would further be genuine to see your efforts here as disingenuous.I

You leave quite the legacy behind you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Funny how often one side in this debate engages in such behavior.

I wish that funny were all that could be found about it.

it seems this entire thread was created in the very same behaviour. The evidence was left for all to see.

It would appear the main, naive, view of this OP was that it was going to draw in mostly believers that would just reinforce each other with nonsense. It doesn't appear there was any preparation for valid questions or criticisms. How common.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I had a 2 classes in World History as an undergrad. I guess that means I am an expert in Ancient Language.

Ah yes, the Ancient Language that was around, but never found. Your credentials place your expertise on an international level. But my own attendance in creative writing will give you a run for your money.

 

[tas8831]

I wish that funny were all that could be found about it.

it seems this entire thread was created in the very same behaviour. The evidence was left for all to see.

It would appear the main, naive, view of this OP was that it was going to draw in mostly believers that would just reinforce each other with nonsense.

Rather like alt-right YouTube channels, I suppose.

It doesn't appear there was any preparation for valid questions or criticisms. How common.

Yes. I often wonder if, in at least some cases, YECs start threads in this fashion so they can go back to their like-minded pals and whine about how mean everyone was to them, and how wicked the evilutionists are, in the hopes that their peers consider them a martyr, or sorts.

 

[tas8831]

Ah yes, the Ancient Language that was around, but never found. Your credentials place your expertise on an international level. But my own attendance in creative writing will give you a run for your money.

Well yes indeed!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Funny how often one side in this debate engages in such behavior.

It find it increasingly difficult to engage the Dunning Kruger graduates in lengthy debate. Trudging through the repetition, closed minds, ignorance, egotism, delusion and deceit that are a continual requirement in such exchanges is tiresome. Some I see no point to engaging, but I am trying to transition to just dealing with points they raise exclusive of the mire they raise them in.

Most of the arguments still seem to be some variation of gap argument. Since science does not offer absolutes any view can exist in the gap, therefore view x is correct. That or just keep repeating something regardless of questions or criticism. Ignore, ignore, ignore is considered honesty.