Theory in Crisis

[Ouroboros]

It's not enough for me to figure that means the organisms moved in the direction of homo sapiens, with their distinguishing mental characteristics, which seems quite evident to me. (Talking about evidence.)
The skulls are said to be similar and moving from one type to another type of "population," if that's the expression, but that does not mean the organisms came about without the mechanisms implanted or enabled by a higher power. And I know that the Bible says that God said, "Let us make man in our image." That is after it is said He made all other types of living matter. And that, even according to evolution, coincides with the progression of events. Funny they knew that thousands of years ago.

Well, after seeing all the different "human" sub-species, God didn't make man in his image, but rather many men after his many images. There's plenty of very different branches of homo (human) species, and they're quite different. And the oldest ones are extremely similar to the ones that later because the other ape species.

Please note, that although I surely cannot explain it all, I am not denying that it is possible genetically that the varying organisms were affected by means of transmission. I read the following quote and summation in "Science,"
"The unnecessarily long path of this nerve is shared by all vertebrates and only makes sense when considering the origin of vertebrates is from a fish-like ancestor," he said.
"We are just very highly evolved fish!" Bergman concluded."
Bergman is a lecturer in computational and evolutionary biology at the University of Manchester. He concludes that we are highly evolved fish, but that missing specimen of a "fish-like ancestor" is yet not discovered, is it. (A "fish-like ancestor, as yet undetermined I suppose.)

Yeah. Well, if there's a pattern...

Furthermore, there is nothing to say that God could not have developed things from His perspective or had the Bible related from HIS perspective. The Bible does say that God took man (Adam) from the ground, and I believe that. As I remember it, our bodies are composed of elements of the earth. Do I believe that God made one man from the soil? Yes. Eve came from his rib. I believe that, too. When further understanding comes about that, I will accept that. But right now I believe the Bible in terms of creation rather than evolution from a unicellular organism to human being.

And I believe that if there's a God he/she/it/they would've used evolution as the perfect solution to produce life of all kinds. It's very smart to do so. But then, maybe he/she/it/they weren't that smart but had to hand craft every single one without better judgment.

If I was God, I most definitely would use a procedure to create life and surprise me, instead of having to come up with every single one. Intelligent design would be to use intelligent solutions.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I have pointed out when you have posted lies. And I have told when you posted lies and explained them. After the third or fourth time an explanation is no longer necessary. Now you may not know that some of the claims you posted were lies or falsehoods. In that case you would not be a liar, but since what you posted was false witness against others it would be a case of breaking the Ninth Commandment.

And I did not claim that a God existed either. Black and white reasoning often leads to an error. It is best to avoid it.

Then perhaps you might take off your profile that you are an atheist. Otherwise someone might think you are not being truthful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then perhaps you might take off your profile that you are an atheist. Otherwise someone might think you are not being truthful.

Why would I do that? When you go into a debate one should be at least a little familiar with the subject matter.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, after seeing all the different "human" sub-species, God didn't make man in his image, but rather many men after his many images. There's plenty of very different branches of homo (human) species, and they're quite different. And the oldest ones are extremely similar to the ones that later because the other ape species.


Yeah. Well, if there's a pattern...


And I believe that if there's a God he/she/it/they would've used evolution as the perfect solution to produce life of all kinds. It's very smart to do so. But then, maybe he/she/it/they weren't that smart but had to hand craft every single one without better judgment.

If I was God, I most definitely would use a procedure to create life and surprise me, instead of having to come up with every single one. Intelligent design would be to use intelligent solutions.

I believe what the Bible says. While chimpanzees and lions die, humans are the only ones looking for solutions to sickness leading to death. Using things like microscopes. Chimpanzees and lions do not. DNA evidence of that type of behavior? Maybe it is in the DNA. Evolution by natural godless selection? I think not.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would I do that? When you go into a debate one should be at least a little familiar with the subject matter.

You say on your profile you are an atheist. Who's asking you to debate that? You say it about yourself.
Ohhh you mean you don't believe there is a God. Even though there might be. Got it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You say on your profile you are an atheist. Who's asking you to debate that? You say it about yourself.

I do not make the mistake of claiming that you are not a Christian because you have a tough time understanding the Ninth Commandment. You should not attack others based on your lack of knowledge of what atheism is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe what the Bible says. While chimpanzees and lions die, humans are the only ones looking for solutions to sickness leading to death. Using things like microscopes. Chimpanzees and lions do not. DNA evidence of that type of behavior? Maybe it is in the DNA. Evolution by natural godless selection? I think not.

Chimpanzees lack the intelligence to do so. That is all. And there is only evidence for evolution. You should learn what evidence is. It will make you a better debater.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would I do that? When you go into a debate one should be at least a little familiar with the subject matter.

Ok, I looked up one definition of atheism. Which is: "Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.
Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."
So to sum up, you have a lack of belief in gods. So according to that, it's not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods. It means that one who is an atheist lacks or does not have or possess belief in gods or God. So you don't say there is no God. Or gods. You say you don't have a belief in gods or God. Is that closer to your view about what it means that you say you are an atheist?

 

[YoursTrue]

Ok, I looked up one definition of atheism. Which is: "Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.
Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."
So to sum up, you have a lack of belief in gods. So according to that, it's not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods. It means that one who is an atheist lacks or does not have or possess belief in gods or God. So you don't say there is no God. Or gods. You say you don't have a belief in gods or God. Is that closer to your view about what it means that you say you are an atheist?

Next time I'll just say you don't believe in God or gods. So either way you might stop telling me what my standing is with the God I believe in that you keep telling me about. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Chimpanzees lack the intelligence to do so. That is all. And there is only evidence for evolution. You should learn what evidence is. It will make you a better debater.

I'm not looking to debate. Really only looking to understand your belief. That chimpanzees lack intelligence to build hospitals with equipment while humans do so shows (to me) there is a vast, vast (enormous) difference in the capability of their intelligence. I believe evolutionists may offer an answer. To say, as someone else said, it "happened." But no DNA evidence to show the real cognitive difference as thinking ability so-called evolved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, I looked up one definition of atheism. Which is: "Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.
Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."
So to sum up, you have a lack of belief in gods. So according to that, it's not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods. It means that one who is an atheist lacks or does not have or possess belief in gods or God. So you don't say there is no God. Or gods. You say you don't have a belief in gods or God. Is that closer to your view about what it means that you say you are an atheist?

Very good. I do not believe i God because there is not sufficient evidence for that belief in my opinion. If someone gave me reliable evidence I would probably change my mind. Most atheists here are roughly the same. Though there are some that actively state that there is no God. Atheism, like theism, is a big tent. There are quite a few variations of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not looking to debate. Really only looking to understand your belief. That chimpanzees lack intelligence to build hospitals with equipment while humans do so shows (to me) there is a vast, vast (enormous) difference in the capability of their intelligence. I believe evolutionists will offer an answer. But no DNA evidence to ascertain the real cognitive difference evidenced as thinking ability so-called evolved.

There really is not that vast of a difference. For quite a while man was not much more intelligent that chimps. Man, as homo sapiens, has been here for about two or three hundred thousand years. Only in the last ten thousand have we made these advances. Language was a start and then what started civilization was the next big step. The likely cause of the start of civilization can be expressed in one word. Are you curious?

 

[YoursTrue]

I do not make the mistake of claiming that you are not a Christian because you have a tough time understanding the Ninth Commandment. You should not attack others based on your lack of knowledge of what atheism is.

Do you believe that God spoke to Moses giving him the ninth commandment? You say you don't have belief in a global flood, and so you are saying the Bible is not true.

 

[YoursTrue]

There really is not that vast of a difference. For quite a while man was not much more intelligent that chimps. Man, as homo sapiens, has been here for about two or three hundred thousand years. Only in the last ten thousand have we made these advances. Language was a start and then what started civilization was the next big step. The likely cause of the start of civilization can be expressed in one word. Are you curious?

No huh, not a big difference between chimpanzees not seeking vaccines and the like and humans who are? Ok is all I have to say now. On the jury, I'd say you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you believe that God spoke to Moses giving him the ninth commandment? You say you don't have belief in a global flood, and so you are saying the Bible is not true.

No. Moses, like many of the characters in the Bible, was almost certainly mythical.

And I know that the Bible is not true. That does not mean that Christianity is wrong. Most Christians do not appear to believe the myths of Genesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No huh, not a big difference between chimpanzees not seeking vaccines and the like and humans who are? Ok is all I have to say now. On the jury, I'd say you are wrong.

But you do not understand the nature of evidence so your opinion of what a jury would find is without a valid basis.

 

[Ouroboros]

I believe what the Bible says. While chimpanzees and lions die, humans are the only ones looking for solutions to sickness leading to death. Using things like microscopes. Chimpanzees and lions do not. DNA evidence of that type of behavior? Maybe it is in the DNA. Evolution by natural godless selection? I think not.

We haven't used microscopes for the past millions of years until the past century. Does it mean Adam wasn't a human? There's evidence animals have some limited use of tools, just like early hominids did 2 million years ago. The use of tools has also evolved.

 

[Valjean]

No? If you did, then scientists would be able to duplicate or make a whale from scratch.

What?! Understanding the mechanism behind a natural phenomenon confers an ability to reproduce it artificially?
You have a remarkably high opinion of our technology.

 

[Valjean]

Evidence is such, I believe, that some of Haeckel's drawings were later proven to be untrue. This is not to say he was a bad man. Or deliberately misrepresented.
There have been trials demonstrating that the putting together of evidence DNA led the jury to the wrong conclusion. That is why under the Law of Moses, a false accuser was to receive the same penalty that was to be meted out for the wrongdoer. That is found in Deuteronomy chapter 19:16-19, a book I know you don't believe in as truth, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

The drawings were never evidence of evolution. They were meant to illustrate the process already described.
As Subduction Zone has said repeatedly, you don't seem to understand evidence or its application.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The drawings were never evidence of evolution. They were meant to illustrate the process already described.
As Subduction Zone has said repeatedly, you don't seem to understand evidence or its application.

I disagree a bit on this one. Since embryology is a valid science that supports evolution and the drawings still show similarities of embryos they are still evidence for evolution. Since recapitulation has been refuted they are not evidence for that. Today of course photographs are used and not drawn illustrations.