The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[cladking]

And I will keep pointing it out whether you ignore it or not, so that anyone can see your phoniness laid bare.

All you have is an endless stream of ad hominins, word games, and irrelevant beliefs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yet you keep ignoring the fact I have said repeatedly that every single experiment ever performed supports sudden change in species. You do not address my arguments, you change the subject.

I could do a far better job arguing for "Evolution" than you do.

LOL!

 

[rrobs]

In the attempt to discredit science and marginalize the theory of evolution, I see straw man arguments used by anti-evolution creationists all the time. It makes sense. They have no legitimate argument against the theory based on evidence, so they have to turn to tricks, intentional or in error.

Science is not a straw man and there is no means to make that appellation fit honestly. The fact that conclusions and explanation in science change based on evidence is a strength and not the weakness that anti-science antagonists pretend it is.

The fact is that in all my time involved in discussions about science and evolution, I have rarely, if ever, seen arguments from the creationist side that start with what statements of theory that are actually being used in science. Scientists start with what is known, describe what they intend to demonstrate, show how they did it and their conclusions. If it is the norm for scientists to meet those standards, why is it not the norm for people claiming to hold "Thou shalt not bear false witness" as one of their core values? If there is no call to maintain ignorance, then why not disagree with the actual instead of some third rate manufactured and false narrative?

I'll try to break the streak here. I'm going to attempt to give you a statement that starts with what the theory says and go from there.

At the risk of over simplifying things and being labeled whatever, Natural Selection is part of evolution. The scriptures have no problem with that. Science has directly observed that. What the scriptures do deny is one "kind" over as much time as you want gradually becoming another "kind." In other words the offspring with a genus will always be the same genus. It may be a more fit (therefore better able to survive and adapt) example of that genus, but it will still be the same genus.

By the way, if you had been a victim of the scientific theory of blood letting, you might think differently about the supremacy of science just because it constantly changes. It is good that it changes with new evidence, but who knows if we've ever examined all the evidence about anything. If we've neglected evidence (knowingly or otherwise) then we don't have the real deal..

Gravity is often brought up to prove the rock solid certainty of science. I get, "well if you don't believe in science then I guess you don't believe in gravity." Besides being a genuine straw man argument, it ignores the fact that even gravity is under scrutiny in the scientific community. Gravity is in no way completely understood.

So if we don't fully understand gravity, something we experience every moment of our lives (except for astronauts of course), how can you say for certain anything about evolution which is way more esoteric (hopefully that word passes muster), than gravity?

 

[Jose Fly]

What the scriptures do deny is one "kind" over as much time as you want gradually becoming another "kind."

Where does it say that?

In other words the offspring with a genus will always be the same genus.

Do you understand how that's different than what you described above?

 

[rrobs]

Yet you keep ignoring the fact I have said repeatedly that every single experiment ever performed supports sudden change in species. You do not address my arguments, you change the subject.

I could do a far better job arguing for "Evolution" than you do.

Not addressing the argument and changing the subject is the very meaning of a straw man. There really isn't much you can do with that. If the guy ignores your statements and twists them around then no progress will be made

 

[rrobs]

Where does it say that?

Do you understand how that's different than what you described above?

What I said was that the scriptures declare that every thing is "after its kind." That is in Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, and 25. The word "kind" in those verses is the Greek word "genus" in the Septuagint. Hence my correlation between "kind" and "genus."

In general, the Hebrew word for "kind" is used 28 times in the scriptures. Before coming to any conclusions as to what God meant by "kind" I would think it prudent to look up and study all 28 usages. That way, like science, it would be possible to come up with a conclusion. One must first investigate. Too many know what the Bible says without having read and studying it. The key word is "study." That takes much time and effort, something few here seem willing to do.

I studied Evolution in college (albeit 1,000,000 years ago ), and that was before I was Christian so I had no preconceived ideas about it. It still seemed to me to be stretching the "evidence" quite a bit. Having subseguently studied the Bible (with the same intensity as studying for the Bar exam for example, not just a casual read of the law), I feel as though I was in a position to make an informed decision.

 

[cladking]

Not addressing the argument and changing the subject is the very meaning of a straw man. There really isn't much you can do with that. If the guy ignores your statements and twists them around then no progress will be made

This is why I already have one person on ignore. On other sites I have the some of the same guys here on ignore.

I like your posts! You make lots of good points even if I don't always agree. People can't seem to accept that science has natural limitations caused by its axioms and definitions. They don't understand that something that can't be defined can not be understood or controlled by experiment. If you make an argument that includes things that science can't define them they cannot address it by any means other than presentation of experimental fact that appears to contradict that argument. So they change the subject and attack the person presenting the argument. There are many things addressed in the Bible that I believe much more closely represent reality than what believers think is solid "theory". Without so much as a proper observation they believe in gradual change in species caused by fitness. Meanwhile modern beliefs and the extinguishment of older beliefs have brought us to a precipice. We pay a few to trash the planet for profit. Instead of running the clowns out of town on a rail Congress showers them with riches.

 

[rrobs]

In the attempt to discredit science and marginalize the theory of evolution, I see straw man arguments used by anti-evolution creationists all the time. It makes sense. They have no legitimate argument against the theory based on evidence, so they have to turn to tricks, intentional or in error.

That may be true, but it still does not qualify as a straw man.

Science is not a straw man and there is no means to make that appellation fit honestly. The fact that conclusions and explanation in science change based on evidence is a strength and not the weakness that anti-science antagonists pretend it is.

I didn't say science is a straw man. Quite the opposite. What I said was that if we accept a "straw man" as merely disagreeing with something (which is exactly what I'm accused of, i.e. I don't believe in the current theory of evolution), then any scientist who discovered something new would be accused of using a straw man argument. In other words, merely disagreeing with something is not a straw man.

 

[Marcion]

How about skipping the "interpretation" and just say the guy is going to the store to buy a loaf of bread?

You cannot not interpret scripture. You mean that you do so in a fundamentalist way.

 

[rrobs]

You cannot not interpret scripture. You mean that you do so in a fundamentalist way.

I'd prefer I do it in a "newspaper" way. I just read what's written.

I guess people must think God has a good time tricking people by making things so complicated that the simplest concepts, e.g. God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1), are not easily comprehended. They think He likes all the confusion I guess. I'm not sure why because Genesis 1:1 ought to be understood by anyone with a 5th grade reading level.

 

[metis]

Putting doctrine aside, it is not hard to see the Roman Catholic practice of martyring anybody who disagreed with them ought to be reason enough for anybody to run away as fast as they can. It's mind boggling to me that they have even 1 adherent, let alone millions. And at this stage, I don't see protestant doctrine much different. The RC church has itself firmly embedded in society. They are the ones who have permeated society with non scriptural ideas, beginning with the trinity (a pagan god-man creature) and going downhill from there.

I want to be clear that I'm not criticizing all Roman Catholics. They only know what they've been taught. I blame the institution, not the people in it. I'm sure most are sincere God seeking individuals who have be hood winked. If anything, it points out the incredible slyness of the devil.

We live in the 21st century, and thank God not everyone judges me for some of the things I did in the past. Sorta reminds me of Whomever is without sin should cast the first stone [paraphrased].

BTW, at each mass, we ask for the forgiveness of our sins, and we also pray for God's guidance for us and also the Church during the "Prayers of the Faithful".

 

[Jose Fly]

What I said was that the scriptures declare that every thing is "after its kind." That is in Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, and 25. The word "kind" in those verses is the Greek word "genus" in the Septuagint. Hence my correlation between "kind" and "genus."

I don't see where the Bible says anything like no genus will ever give rise to a different genus, even if it occurs gradually over millions of years (which, as I pointed out before, is different than an individual from one genus giving birth to an individual from another genus).

So where specifically does the Bible say that?

 

[Marcion]

I'd prefer I do it in a "newspaper" way. I just read what's written.

You don't give it much thought. Just like a fundamentalist. Spirituality and indeed the teachings of Lord Jesus are wasted on fundamentalists. That's why they burn outsiders on the stake or chop off their heads without even blinking an eye.

 

[rrobs]

We live in the 21st century, and thank God not everyone judges me for some of the things I did in the past. Sorta reminds me of Whomever is without sin should cast the first stone [paraphrased].

BTW, at each mass, we ask for the forgiveness of our sins, and we also pray for God's guidance for us and also the Church during the "Prayers of the Faithful".

I know God would never judge you for what the RC church did in the past. Besides, like I said before, I don't criticize or judge individual Catholics. I'm sure you're a sincere person whom God loves enough to send His only begotten son to suffer and die so you could have everlasting life. I'm certainly not going to argue with God on that.

I attended Catholic school for 12 years. I took 1 hour of religion classes 5 days a week for the entire time. I knew the doctrine fairly well. In fact I don't recall getting anything but an "A" in those classes and that was when you had to do more than just show up to class to get a good grade. I think it also worth mentioning that we never once opened the actual Bible during the whole time. We concentrated on the "church fathers," the Catechism, and church history.

Shortly after graduating, I ran into a couple of folks that showed me one thing after another that the RC said that was pretty much diametrically opposed to the scriptures.

As far as judging individuals, I recognize that we are all guilty and deserving of death. We all sin because we were born with a sin nature and there is nothing we can do to change that. That's exactly why we needed a savior. The scriptures say death comes by sin, but that life comes from Jesus Christ, the only man born without Adam's sin nature, who, by his own free will, remained sinless for his entire life.

Jesus didn't want to die. Remember in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus asked God if there was some other way to redeem man than to suffer the cross? He knew there wasn't so he said, "not my will, but thine be done." That's true love. I would it think might raise the question of Jesus being God, as the RC teaches. I don't see how that is possible when we just saw Jesus had a completely different will than God. I only brought that up to point out one difference between the scriptures and RC doctrine. In truth, I find it stunning just how opposed to the scriptures the RC church is on point after point. Again, it's the institution I judge, not the individuals within that institution.

 

[rrobs]

You don't give it any thought. Just like a fundamentalist. Spirituality and indeed the teachings of Lord Jesus are wasted on fundamentalists. That's why they burn outsiders on the stake or chop off their heads without even blinking an eye.

You're equating me with the persecution of the dark ages? That's got to be bordering on hate speech. Not that I mind, just noting it.

To change my statement that I just read what's written to I don't give it any thought is a class A1 perfect example of a straw man. You twisted what I said in order to make attacking me easier for you. Since nobody here has actually defined a straw man, I offer the following:

"The straw man is a fallacy in which an opponent's argument is overstated or misrepresented in order to be more easily attacked or refuted. The technique often takes quotes out of context or, more often, incorrectly paraphrases or summarizes an opponent's position." What Are Some Examples of the Straw Man Fallacy?​

 

[rrobs]

I don't see where the Bible says anything like no genus will ever give rise to a different genus, even if it occurs gradually over millions of years (which, as I pointed out before, is different than an individual from one genus giving birth to an individual from another genus).

So where specifically does the Bible say that?

"After his kind" is the key, and it makes no mention of time. You might also investigate the use of "seed" in Genesis chapter one, particularly the phrase, "whose seed is in itself."

An apple has seed in itself that will always produce another apple. I don't care how much time or how many generations pass, and apple is an apple. A dog also has seed (semen) in itself and that will do exactly what the apple seed does. It will result in another dog regardless of time. It'll be one dog after another for as much time as you like. Sure, they will be different sizes, colors, disposition, behaviors, etc, but they'll all be dogs. They'll never somehow start birthing something else that eventually results in a cat. Time is irrelevant.

All you have to do is read the first chapter of Genesis and note the usage of the words "kind" and "seed."

Any farmer or animal breeder ought to understand what I'm saying. It's a pretty simple concept. I guess most people have just never given it any consideration. But it's been right there in Genesis for some 3,500 years or so.

 

[Jose Fly]

"After his kind" is the key, and it makes no mention of time. You might also investigate the use of "seed" in Genesis chapter one, particularly the phrase, "whose seed is in itself."

An apple has seed in itself that will always produce another apple. I don't care how much time or how many generations pass, and apple is an apple. A dog also has seed (semen) in itself and that will do exactly what the apple seed does. It will result in another dog regardless of time. It'll be one dog after another for as much time as you like. Sure, they will be different sizes, colors, disposition, behaviors, etc, but they'll all be dogs.

All you have to do is read the first chapter of Genesis and note the usage of the words "kind" and "seed."

Any farmer or animal breeder ought to understand what I'm saying. It's a pretty simple concept. I guess most people have just never given it any consideration. But it's been right there in Genesis for some 3,500 years or so.

You're not really helping here. Remember, you said "What the scriptures do deny is one "kind" over as much time as you want gradually becoming another "kind.""

Now you seem to be backing off of that when you say "it makes no mention of time". So please show specifically where the Bible says what you claimed (not just vague statements like "it's in Genesis"). If you can't, then that effectively means your original claim was incorrect.

 

[Marcion]

You're equating me with the persecution of the dark ages? That's got to be bordering on hate speech. Not that I mind, just noting it.

To change my statement that I just read what's written to I don't give it any thought is a class A1 perfect example of a straw man. You twisted what I said in order to make attacking me easier for you. Since nobody here has actually defined a straw man, I offer the following:

I just read what you wrote, i.e. that you just read the texts.
If you just read it and don't want to interpret what you read, then you are a fundamentalist.
Scripture is often about spirituality, which means you have to pay careful attention to what the author means to say.

So no, I was not using a straw man, I was just reading what you wrote and interpreting what that implies.
You are a fundamentalist who does not want to think about the deeper motives of the authors of religious scriptures and the meaning of their texts.
That suits you well, because if you did interpret those texts in the proper way, you would never be able to cling to your dogmatic fundamentalist way of thinking, you would be humbled to let go of that nasty dangerous ideology.

 

[rrobs]

LOL!

I thought of something you may misunderstand about my beliefs. You mentioned your frustration with fundamentalists who supposedly interpret the Bible literally.

I've said many times here that it's vitally important to understand that the OT was written to an ancient Near East culture several millennia ago. Hence no mention of atom smashers.

Having said that though, I don't see how anything at all I've said would preclude that I also understood cultures and times. Nor does it preclude the ancients understood the meaning of the words "seed" and "kind" as used in Genesis in the same way that we do today. A farmer still knows what seeds do and an animal breeder knows what mating does. I'd think we all know that.

The word "seed" is used 6 times in the first chapter of Genesis and the word "kind" is used 10 times. That ought to grab anybody's attention. What was God saying here? He sure wanted us to know and I don't see how in the world evolution of any Darwinian sort comports with what God said. If not, it doesn't change the fact that the words were so emphasized by God. It would only remain to come up with a plausible explanation. Well, I supposed it could be dismissed as unimportant, but why bother at all with a book full of unimportant stuff?

Bottom line, I don't think the concept of seed or kind has changed since Genesis was written. And neither concepts require a whole lot of scientific education. It's something they just couldn't help but notice.

Anyway, kudos to you for understanding the reproductions of reading a 3,000 year old Middle Eastern document in our 21st century West. Failing to do that can lead to a whole can of worms to say the least. Maybe that's part of the problem you mentioned about all Christians thinking differently, which problem will persist until Jesus comes back as Lord of Lords and King of Kings. Then you and I and everybody else will finally know as He knows us. Something to look forward to.

 

[gnostic]

There are explanations for the apparent contradiction, but it requires first that one believes that it was God, not men, who authored the Bible.

God didn’t write anything down, because if he did, there wouldn’t be so many contradictions, flaws and mistakes in the Bible.

When you read the timeline of creation in Genesis 1 and 2, there are contradictions there. The orders are different, so they both cannot be right.

And they (these 2 chapters) aren’t right, when you compare them against science.

Human cannot be made from “dust”, like soil of silt or clay, because the human body isn’t made out of clay or silt. And people are born from natural reproduction, not turning dust INSTANTLY into fully gown adult male.

What Genesis 2 say about how Adam and Eve were created aren’t biology but magic that cannot possibly happen.