The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[Valjean]

I don't agree, but \have a different viewpoint than you do, about life, how it started and how it is.

And what is your disagreement and different viewpoint based on?

 

[Esteban X]

So I wonder -- what parts of the Bible would you consider to not be mythical?

Mythical is not necessarily untrue. The entire Bible is Mythical.

 

[YoursTrue]

Mythical is not necessarily untrue. The entire Bible is Mythical.

I do not agree, but I asked that particularly to someone else. To reiterate though, are there any parts you do not consider mythical?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

you can beleive what you like but that doesn't change the experiences of those of us who have had some sort of personal experience. You can label me a liar or mentally ill if it makes you feel better. I cannot demonstrate anything as i have no idea just what I did, or if I even did anything at all to have this small handful of experiences.

Of course, I don't know what your experiences have been, but I understand your sentiment because I've also had personal experiences and have done so since I was a small child. However, I've long since resolved not to argue and debate with skeptics about my experiences with supernatural phenomena. I say this is because other people's skepticism doesn't invalidate these experiences. I don't feel the need to have others validate them. If I have an encounter when I'm with others and they validate it, then that's fine with me. However, I don't purposely seek validation. I'm not interested in convincing skeptics that what I've experienced since I was a small child is real, nor do I feel it is my responsibility to convince them. I simply present what I consider to be sufficient proof of my experiences or the paranormal in general, and then let the chips fall where they may. I do this in real life and here on RF (e.g., see my posts).

What is Evidence?

I never spoke for others. I simply list simple facts. Which part of my speech made you think that I speak for others, please point it out. Thanks. Who knows how many pages back. Post the whole thing if you're curious.

www.religiousforums.com

Second Coming

I believe that Paul/Saul was a sincere convert in as much as he believed Jesus is the Jewish Messiah .. many beliefs expressed in Pauline works are those of his own, and often misunderstood.. ..taken out of context. Paul/Saul was not a prophet, despite his visions/dreams. He didn't claim to be...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[metis]

So I wonder -- what parts of the Bible would you consider to not be mythical?

I consider that all of it is "myth", but again that doesn't mean false.

 

[YoursTrue]

I consider that all of it is "myth", but again that doesn't mean false.

How does that figure, can you explain how you might believe all of the Bible is myth yet maybe not false. (??)
P.S. I looked up the definitions of myth vs. truth, etc., and the definitions themselves are evasive or not understandable as far as I am concerned, imo.

 

[YoursTrue]

And what is your disagreement and different viewpoint based on?

I believe now that life comes from God. Right now that's the best I can answer you. Do I believe that medicine and operations can sometimes help people? Yes. Do I believe that God makes disabling mutations? No, I do not. Do I believe that there are variables in appearances of people such as skin color, length of arms and legs, and other such things? Yes, I do. Do I believe God enables such things? Yes. Do I know exactly how He did these things? No, and I don't think any scientists knows either. A scientist may see the mechanisms sometimes, and that's good, but that's really where it stops.

 

[Astrophile]

ok, I'm not sure of everything you are saying, but thank you for stating you do not believe that Mary was a virgin when she got pregnant. Maybe when I have time I'll go into more of your post. I don't think you claim to be a Christian, do you, or attend a church that claims affiliation with Jesus as part of a Trinity born to a virgin, do you?

If there was as much evidence for the virgin birth of Jesus as there is for evolution, I should believe it.

 

[Valjean]

I believe now that life comes from God. Right now that's the best I can answer you. Do I believe that medicine and operations can sometimes help people? Yes. Do I believe that God makes disabling mutations? No, I do not. Do I believe that there are variables in appearances of people such as skin color, length of arms and legs, and other such things? Yes, I do. Do I believe God enables such things? Yes. Do I know exactly how He did these things? No, and I don't think any scientists knows either. A scientist may see the mechanisms sometimes, and that's good, but that's really where it stops.

No, you're just reïterating the point in question. I'm asking why you believe this. What empirical facts or line of reasoning led you to this conclusion?

Disabling mutations, ie: birth defects, do occur. So where do they come from? Are they different from the variables that you do believe in?

I understand you believe in a god who meddles in human and cosmic affairs, but I still don't understand what empirical facts, or critical analysis thereof, led you to this conclusion.
I suspect none did. I suspect your belief is socially or psychologically based.

 

[metis]

How does that figure, can you explain how you might believe all of the Bible is myth yet maybe not false. (??)

Because "myth" theologically means a story for teaching purposes. Note, it does not intrinsically mean the story really happened as written, such as with Jesus' parables. Did the "Good Samaritan" actually exist? It doesn't matter, as it's the moral message provided by the myth that's most important.

 

[YoursTrue]

Because "myth" theologically means a story for teaching purposes. Note, it does not intrinsically mean the story really happened as written, such as with Jesus' parables. Did the "Good Samaritan" actually exist? It doesn't matter, as it's the moral message provided by the myth that's most important.

So, as my uncle would say, "what's the story"? Furthermore, on the topic of evolution for a change, nothing anyone has offered here shows, demonstrates, or proves (yes, proves as in evidence) that God was not & is not involved in the production and continuation of life. Also, while you may speak of the Pope believing in evolution, he also firmly believes that Mary was a virgin. So?
And yes, the evidence offered by some as if evolution continues today is still that moths remain moths no matter their coloration, same with birds -- they remain birds.

 

[YoursTrue]

Because "myth" theologically means a story for teaching purposes. Note, it does not intrinsically mean the story really happened as written, such as with Jesus' parables. Did the "Good Samaritan" actually exist? It doesn't matter, as it's the moral message provided by the myth that's most important.

The story of the "Good Samaritan" was obviously an illustrative story that JESUS told. Now you can believe that account (of Jesus telling the illustration) was mythical, that the man Jesus is mythical, too, but I do not agree. I assume you are fairly rational, therefore I leave the rest basically up to you. Since the Bible also bespeaks of future events, I look forward to the fulfillment. Thank you for coming forward, as in the old song by Etta James ... "At Last..." You did a good job.

 

[Pogo]

So, as my uncle would say, "what's the story"? Furthermore, on the topic of evolution for a change, nothing anyone has offered here shows, demonstrates, or proves (yes, proves as in evidence) that God was not & is not involved in the production and continuation of life. Also, while you may speak of the Pope believing in evolution, he also firmly believes that Mary was a virgin. So?
And yes, the evidence offered by some as if evolution continues today is still that moths remain moths no matter their coloration, same with birds -- they remain birds.

Another non-sequitur fail showing again that you understand nothing presented to you in the last three years.
For the umpteenth time, evolution is a scientific theory, it does not deal with anyone's god at all, and it does not prove things, especially things that are not only unprovable but undemonstrable as well.

 

[YoursTrue]

Another non-sequitur fail showing again that you understand nothing presented to you in the last three years.
For the umpteenth time, evolution is a scientific theory, it does not deal with anyone's god at all, and it does not prove things, especially things that are not only unprovable but undemonstrable as well.

so...according to you, evolution is a scientific theory, it does not deal with anyone's god at all, and it does not prove things, especially things that are not only unprovable but undemonstrable as well." So, seems you are saying that the theory of evolution is unprovable and undemonstrable as well. Perhaps you might want to clarify that remark. Because -- yes -- gorillas remain gorillas -- humans remain humans -- etc.

 

[Pogo]

so...according to you, evolution is a scientific theory, it does not deal with anyone's god at all, and it does not prove things, especially things that are not only unprovable but undemonstrable as well." So, seems you are saying that the theory of evolution is unprovable and undemonstrable as well. Perhaps you might want to clarify that remark. Because -- yes -- gorillas remain gorillas -- humans remain humans -- etc.

Try reading and learning, your god is undemonstrable and thus cannot be part of evolutionary theory and again if gorillas did not remain gorillas then evolution would be disproven, that you think this is a gotcha is yet another evidence of your inability/unwillingness to learn.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't agree, but \have a different viewpoint than you do, about life, how it started and how it is.

You have a religion opinion.
I have scientific knowledge.

 

[YoursTrue]

Try reading and learning, your god is undemonstrable and thus cannot be part of evolutionary theory and again if gorillas did not remain gorillas then evolution would be disproven, that you think this is a gotcha is yet another evidence of your inability/unwillingness to learn.

Perhaps you might try reading your answer again and rephrase. Yes, gorillas stay as gorillas so far. Humans stay humans . Nothing to show otherwise.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have a religion opinion.
I have scientific knowledge.

My opinion rests on reality. Science does not and cannot explain how it is that the first cells formed. And how they seemingly by scientific opinion multiplied. Other than saying yes, they did. No proof. No demonstrable experiment showing how it happened either. Miller Urey constructed the experiment. It (the fuzz) didn't happen without their construction and there's nothing scientists can do to refute that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My opinion rests on reality. Science does not and cannot explain how it is that the first cells formed. And how they seemingly by scientific opinion multiplied. Other than saying yes, they did. No proof. No demonstrable experiment showing how it happened either. Miller Urey constructed the experiment. It (the fuzz) didn't happen without their construction and there's nothing scientists can do to refute that.

No, it does not. Your opinion is based upon myths. You are too afraid to look at reality properly. One has to employ the scientific method when one is looking at reality and you have refused to learn even the basics of science. But it is nice to see you admit that evolution is a fact.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have a religion opinion.
I have scientific knowledge.

Of what? Certainly you do not have KNOWLEDGE of how the so-called first cells multiplied. Only conjecture. Furthermore, there is absolutely no basis of knowledge to rest the idea that finches change/evolve/morph to anything but finches.