The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[rrobs]

Nope.

You're avoiding the question and the point though.

That's because you were making a circular argument. If you don't know what a circular argument, look it up.

 

[rrobs]

Nonsense.

That's not how knowledge is obtained.


Not sure why you're asking this question but I've read the Bible cover to cover. Also, I used to be a Christian.

This doesn't address my question though. We're in a thread about the believability of a scientific theory, and you're quoting the Bible at people. I'm wondering what on earth the Bible has to do with scientific theories. What do ancient holy texts have to do with any of this? Why quote them?


I'm sorry but I have no idea what this has to do with questions.

Who cares if anyone has read the Bible with an open mind or not? Why should anyone do that? What does the Bible have to do with scientific theories? Why is the Bible more special than any other ancient holy text?



Nonsense. It's got nothing to do with God, same as gravity or germ theory.

It's man's attempt to understand what's going on in the world around us. Like every other field of scientific study.

Nonsense.

 

[rrobs]

Nope.

You're avoiding the question and the point though.

What's the question again? All I remember is that is was based on a circular argument.

I read it. Don't see an answer.

Well, the gist of whole post is about the Bible vs evolution. Given that, I don't understand your consternation about me quoting the Bible.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's because you were making a circular argument. If you don't know what a circular argument, look it up.

Well first of all, what I did was ask you a question. A question you ignored and didn't answer.
That was, "You think there are other explanations that would explain your genetic connection with your ancestors that doesn't involve common ancestry with them? Do tell."

No instead of just stating that it's "a circular argument" (it's a question, not an argument), could you explain how and why you think that is so. And perhaps you could actually answer the question, while you're at it. I know what a circular argument is, thanks. Go ahead and point out why it's circular, please, so that I can correct myself.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nonsense.

Wow, you went really deep there.
Thanks for your insights.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What's the question again? All I remember is that is was based on a circular argument.

Well, the gist of whole post is about the Bible vs evolution. Given that, I don't understand your consternation about me quoting the Bible.

I asked you a question which you claimed was a circular argument.
I re-posted it just now.

The question I asked you about the Bible is why does anyone care what the Bible says when we're talking about matters of science?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge.

Will you be discussing the believability of evolution in your believability of evolution thread?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're making a circular argument.


Read the OP for that.

Can you explain to me the point of reading the OP? Is this the prelude you have been waiting for to begin your discourse on the topic?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm really sorry to say this, but you are one of the most closed minded people I've ever come across. You just can't get through your head what I'm saying. You keep misrepresenting what I say. You're either incredibly thick minded or you're playing games.

How so? How many people have you come across? What is the scale you are using to come to this conclusion? Have you confused close-minded with confusion? Would that be a correct way to view close-minded?

What have I misrepresented? I would like to know? How was it misrepresented?

Are you closing your mind to the possibility that you are unclear? Have you closed your mind to the possibility that you do not understand what I am posting? Have you closed your mind to the possibility that you are wrong?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are sooooo right in your own eyes. Pitiful really.

So you cannot answer the question or do not want to answer it? Are you closing your mind to it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Citation please.

I apologize. I know it is a serious request, but I could not help but burst into laughter when I saw it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're making a circular argument.

How is asking you for the alternatives a circular argument?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All you have to do is fear (old English for "respect") God and you'll get the answer.

Seriously, how can you make a judgment on what a book says without having read the book? To be sure, I don't mean a casual reading, but an actual study. I know you may tell me you have read it, but it's obvious you didn't do so with an open mind or with any degree of objectivity.

The theory of evolution is a pitiful attempt by man to put man on the throne, to raise man to the level of a god. That's nothing new, just a different wrapper.

So all you have is an opinion with no evidence regarding the theory at all.

You could just say that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge.

Is it showing God respect to use the abilities He gave us and then to deny what we find with those abilities?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All you have to do is fear (old English for "respect") God and you'll get the answer.

Can you show me that God is not guiding me? Can you show me where the theory tells us to deny God?

Seriously, how can you make a judgment on what a book says without having read the book? To be sure, I don't mean a casual reading, but an actual study. I know you may tell me you have read it, but it's obvious you didn't do so with an open mind or with any degree of objectivity.

I read the Bible all the time. I have just finished reading the books of Judges, Ruth and 1 & 2 Samuel. Again. This is part of my ongoing study.

The theory of evolution is a pitiful attempt by man to put man on the throne, to raise man to the level of a god. That's nothing new, just a different wrapper.

Use of the laws and theories of gravity allow us to soar through the heavens. They have even allowed us to walk on the surface of another world. That seems rather god-like. Our ancestors would surely think that so.

The scientific theories underpinning computers and modern telecommunications give us the ability to talk to someone without them ever seeing us. Some could consider that god-like. You and I and others here are using that gift right now.

How is it that a theory that shows our relationship to the biological world over time giving anyone the appearance of god-like abilities? What throne is it? Where is this ascension written of in the theory? For that matter, why have you chosen not to publish what is actually stated in the theory and start your discussion with that truth?

 

[rrobs]

I asked you a question which you claimed was a circular argument.
I re-posted it just now

The way I read it, you wanted me to explain a common ancestry that does not involve a common ancestry.

The question I asked you about the Bible is why does anyone care what the Bible says when we're talking about matters of science?

The OP was about science AND the Bible.

 

[rrobs]

Will you be discussing the believability of evolution in your believability of evolution thread?

You haven't gleaned that I don't believe in evolution? I think I've been clear on that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis. What I don't understand is how that same intelligent individual has no problem whatsoever believing everything we see in the world somehow came from the so-called primordial soup.

See here. You start right off by equating evolution with the origin of life. Those two are not the same. The theory of evolution does not explain the origin of life. It has become a time honored tradition to remind anti-evolution creationists of this fact that they never seem to tire at confusing.

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora? That is more believable than Genesis?

And you ask me why I mentioned 'straw man' argument in a recent post when you started this thread with them. Here you claim that the evidence is forced into the theory and then make the correct claim below that science is based on observation. Yet you do not seem to know that the theory arose from those very observations and was not concocted a priori and the evidence forced to fit it.

There are no required sequences to force the evidence into. The sequences are delineated based on observation and evidence.

Science is based on observation.

True in part.

Who has ever seen one genus becoming another?

No one. But no one expects a magical change like that. The theory doesn't explain it that way. Of course, your readers may not know that since you did not bother to include any actual statements of the theory.

Nobody! It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing.

Please explain how inference is just guessing. I infer that you are a real person based on a lot of evidence. Am I just guessing and you are not a real person?

It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.

This is just the opposite of what you claim above. In your words above everything you say is that the evidence has to be forced to fit the theory. Now you are saying some of the evidence fits. You can see my problem understanding what you are claiming here.

So, it is just a model. At least you changed it up from the usual dismissal of "it's just a theory".

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

And you close with a continuation of your confusion over the origin of life and the evolution of life. So, I was correct, you think God wants us to remain ignorant and just say we do not know rather than use His gifts to learn. If one does not believe then just wave any attempt to understand away.

I have not twisted your words. I have read what you posted and drawn the logical conclusions of your words.

Explain to me how you are keeping your mind open here and I am not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You haven't gleaned that I don't believe in evolution? I think I've been clear on that.

I know you don't believe in evolution and you want to keep your mind closed to understanding it or giving it real consideration.

 

[rrobs]

Can you explain to me the point of reading the OP?

The same point as reading anything else on a forum. A forum is meant to discuss one's views with others.

Is this the prelude you have been waiting for to begin your discourse on the topic?

Odd question, but no, it's not a prelude to anything at all.