Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[YoursTrue]

@Sharikind some person is saying something about running away. You observed for yourself that I responded to said person and they did not address the information. What is the term for that, would you say? I am not talking to someone who thinks they can ignore my posts, and only choose to respond to the ones that they can say anything they like. Am I being unreasonable?

I'm laughing out loud (not too raucously as I read your comment here). No, I don't think you are being unreasonable. Please read my last comment to SZ about global warming. I knew it was a threat when the warning came out about a decade ago, I know it's a threat now -- no smileys here since SZ says it could be considered "goading," but yes, I agree with you. Is knowing proof? Probably as much scientific proof as evolution.
The smiley there is agreement with you.

 

[nPeace]

I'm laughing out loud (not too raucously as I read your comment here). No, I don't think you are being unreasonable. Please read my last comment to SZ about global warming. I knew it was a threat when the warning came out about a decade ago, I know it's a threat now -- no smileys here since SZ says it could be considered "goading," but yes, I agree with you. Is knowing proof? Probably as much scientific proof as evolution.
The smiley there is agreement with you.

Please don't apologize for using Smileys on the forums. SZ as with everything else, makes up his own rules, and there are actually against the rules. There is a rule against proselytizing, but does he tell you this: ...attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions, or sect/denomination will also be considered a form of preaching.
He'll only tell you if you do it, but what is he always trying to do?
At one time, I was moved to ask him if he was a teacher - he always wants to teach you.
Anyway, any time you are uncertain about a rule, you can ask any moderator, and you can read the rules yourself - here.
Keep smiling.
I know it's to show you harbor no animosity, but sadly, because some persons are grumpy, and hateful, not only to God, but anyone that would choose to follow him, they hate your smile also.

@Sharikind By the way, everyone knows the difference between the smileys. This is not the same as this . This can either be playful, or taunting, but still not unfriendly. So is this . You will know how to use them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Sharikind some person is saying something about running away. You observed for yourself that I responded to said person and they did not address the information. What is the term for that, would you say? I am not talking to someone who thinks they can ignore my posts, and only choose to respond to the ones that they can say anything they like. Am I being unreasonable?

That is a lie too. If you refuse to learn after you have shown that you lack the ability to comment that is running away.

By the way, we can all see who is pretending to ignore posts here.

You were shown not to understand what is and what is not evidence. You refused to learn what is and what is not evidence. That is running away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmmm, reading this statement of yours, you are telling me that you don't think global warming is a threat? (Talk about conjecture ... but anyway ... thank you for mentioning that, because at this point I think our discussion about your views vs my views about what constitutes evidence & proof is basically over. It has been rather pleasant talking to you, and thank you again ((Bye for now...)) I might answer you in the future, I probably will, but again, thanks for the discussion. No smileys, even though I'm laughing.) Oh, and here is one reason I believe in God, because HE SAYS that the earth will be rescued before mankind completelyl destroys it.

You are demonstrating very very poor reading comprehension. I said the exact opposite. Perhaps that is a problem of yours. I have noticed an inability to understand fairly straight forward posts in the past. I said that at one point I did not accept AGW and argued against it. Like you I was a science denier. But unlike you I tried to learn. I found out that I was wrong.

And no, God never said anything. The Bible is a book written by men. Almost all of them anonymous. It does not even claim that one is to take it as being literally true. A mistake that those in various cults make. I use the word "cults" because those that tend to oppose the theory of evolution are in fact cults, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. When they use such evil tactics as to order their people to shun even family members they cross over into that category.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please don't apologize for using Smileys on the forums. SZ as with everything else, makes up his own rules, and there are actually against the rules. There is a rule against proselytizing, but does he tell you this: ...attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions, or sect/denomination will also be considered a form of preaching.
He'll only tell you if you do it, but what is he always trying to do?
At one time, I was moved to ask him if he was a teacher - he always wants to teach you.
Anyway, any time you are uncertain about a rule, you can ask any moderator, and you can read the rules yourself - here.
Keep smiling.
I know it's to show you harbor no animosity, but sadly, because some persons are grumpy, and hateful, not only to God, but anyone that would choose to follow him, they hate your smile also.

@Sharikind By the way, everyone knows the difference between the smileys. This is not the same as this . This can either be playful, or taunting, but still not unfriendly. So is this . You will know how to use them.

Proselytizing is spreading religion which is based on faith. This is basic science. There is no attempt to convert someone from their religion. In this case you may not be lying, but you are laughably wrong.

But then it is your religion that does keep you from being able to deal with reality. Which unfortunately makes your use of modern devices that rely one the same scientific method that tell us evolution is a fact quite hypocritical. I am merely trying to discuss the scientific method and the concept of evidence and both of you are afraid to do so.

You should be asking yourself why you are afraid of reality. Why are you afraid to even learn what is and what is not evidence. That fear indicates that you know that you are wrong. You know that there is valid evidence for the theory of evolution and the only way to keep your beliefs is to pretend to not understand.

Here is why I was able to learn when I was wrong. I was not afraid of the results if I was wrong. I opposed AGW largely because of my political views. But I do not put a false extreme value on those views When others posted evidence that I could not refute I began to realize that I was wrong. As I looked at both the evidence and the methods of debate I realized that one side was debating honestly and properly and the other was not.

Tell me, why are both of you afraid to even discuss the nature of evidence?

 

[YoursTrue]

I have been. The definition of evidence I gave and linked a.source. Haven't you been paying attention?

An apology would be nice since you just made another false accusation.

You know, it's interesting because many claims and accusations are being passed around in political circles these days, one says one thing, the other says something else, then they look for corroboration, but that doesn't always tell the truth either.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are demonstrating very very poor reading comprehension. I said the exact opposite. Perhaps that is a problem of yours. I have noticed an inability to understand fairly straight forward posts in the past. I said that at one point I did not accept AGW and argued against it. Like you I was a science denier. But unlike you I tried to learn. I found out that I was wrong.

And no, God never said anything. The Bible is a book written by men. Almost all of them anonymous. It does not even claim that one is to take it as being literally true. A mistake that those in various cults make. I use the word "cults" because those that tend to oppose the theory of evolution are in fact cults, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. When they use such evil tactics as to order their people to shun even family members they cross over into that category.

So can you sum up what you said about global warming? Perhaps I didn't quite catch it. I will go over it again later.

Proper use of them is fine. But any tool may be abusesd.

What I would like to see is people trying to learn instead of running away. Look at what happened when I took her claim of conjecture seriously. She realized it was indefensible and ran away.

How about you? Do you think that you can learn enough so that you can support your beliefs?

The problem you pose is that you insult, then claim to be right without justification except your appeal to those you feel are correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know, it's interesting because many claims and accusations are being passed around in political circles these days, one says one thing, the other says something else, then they look for corroboration, but that doesn't always tell the truth either.

And?

I have been trying to help you to understand the concept of evidence. I already defined and linked a source for you once. Here it is again:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

So can you sum up what you said about global warming? Perhaps I didn't quite catch it. I will go over it again later.

I said that in the past I did not accept it. I used that to show that I too was a science denier, at least in that subject. But unlike the creationists I read the evidence that went against my beliefs. I found that I was wrong. And when I admitted that I was wrong people accepted it and did not hold a grudge against me. It was so unusual that I did have to repeat that a few times for people. It is surprising how many people hold certain beliefs so dearly that they can never admit that they are wrong.

The problem you pose is that you insult, then claim to be right without justification except your appeal to those you feel are correct.

I insult only if a person goes out of his or her way to earn insults. And I never "pose". If you can be honest, and most creationist simply cannot honestly face their fears, then I can be polite. That is why I so often ask people that have made dishonest posts if they can be honest. For example you use the false accusation of "conjecture". At first I corrected you on that. You kept making that claim. Then I said "your claim your burden of proof". Was it obvious to you that you could not prove "conjecture". That it was just a claim that you got from creationist sites?

And I have never claimed to be right without justification. I have given evidence. I have supported my claims. You have demonstrated that you do not even understand what is or is not evidence, that is why I said we need to go over the basics so that you would not repeat the false claims of "there is no evidence" or "that is not evidence". If you understood the concept of evidence you would have to admit that what I posted was evidence. Creationists are taught the lie of "no evidence" so much that they cannot let it go.

I assume that you do want to be honest. That your errors are due to what was indoctrinated into you, not due to malice on your part. Some creationists do have malice as a motivator. Reality gets too scary for them and they think it is okay to attack with any means possible.

 

[YoursTrue]

And?

I have been trying to help you to understand the concept of evidence. I already defined and linked a source for you once. Here it is again:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Thank you. I do not accept the theory as truth, therefore any purported evidence is not something I accept as evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

I said that in the past I did not accept it. I used that to show that I too was a science denier, at least in that subject. But unlike the creationists I read the evidence that went against my beliefs. I found that I was wrong. And when I admitted that I was wrong people accepted it and did not hold a grudge against me. It was so unusual that I did have to repeat that a few times for people. It is surprising how many people hold certain beliefs so dearly that they can never admit that they are wrong.




I insult only if a person goes out of his or her way to earn insults. And I never "pose". If you can be honest, and most creationist simply cannot honestly face their fears, then I can be polite. That is why I so often ask people that have made dishonest posts if they can be honest. For example you use the false accusation of "conjecture". At first I corrected you on that. You kept making that claim. Then I said "your claim your burden of proof". Was it obvious to you that you could not prove "conjecture". That it was just a claim that you got from creationist sites?

And I have never claimed to be right without justification. I have given evidence. I have supported my claims. You have demonstrated that you do not even understand what is or is not evidence, that is why I said we need to go over the basics so that you would not repeat the false claims of "there is no evidence" or "that is not evidence". If you understood the concept of evidence you would have to admit that what I posted was evidence. Creationists are taught the lie of "no evidence" so much that they cannot let it go.

I assume that you do want to be honest. That your errors are due to what was indoctrinated into you, not due to malice on your part. Some creationists do have malice as a motivator. Reality gets too scary for them and they think it is okay to attack with any means possible.

Clearly you are taking offense at a statement that was never meant to be offensive when I spoke about the problem you "pose." That should not have been taken as personal affront, but rather the problem I have is the idea you embrace and want to promote to me. It SHOULD be impartial or neutral but unfortunately it is not. Please have a good night, and if I see anything I agree with in the concepts you present, I will let you know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you. I do not accept the theory as truth, therefore any purported evidence is not something I accept as evidence.

But this is a dishonest stance to take. One may say that one is not convinced by the evidence, but it is a lie to claim that there is no evidence. That is why I supplied the definition of evidence for you.

It is also why I ask creationists if they can be honest. To be honest at the very least they do have to admit that there is evidence for evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Clearly you are taking offense at a statement that was never meant to be offensive when I spoke about the problem you "pose." That should not have been taken as personal affront, but rather the problem I have is the idea you embrace and want to promote to me. It SHOULD be impartial or neutral but unfortunately it is not. Please have a good night, and if I see anything I agree with in the concepts you present, I will let you know.

You really should start to work on the concept of Scientific Evidence. The reason it has that definition is because scientists are human too and at times when they saw an idea that they did not like they too would claim "no evidence". The definition is based both on the scientific method. That is that an idea must be testable. And observation. If a repeatable observation does support a theory or hypothesis then whether one accepts it or not they do have to admit that there is evidence for that concept. To do otherwise puts a huge burden of proof upon the person denying the evidence. It is not good enough to say "I don't believe it". For example, if the theory of evolution predicts the general form of a fossil that should be found in a certain strata and that fossil is found that would be very clear evidence for the theory. On the other hand there must be reasonable tests that the theory could fail. And one of those is a fossil severely out of order. A fossil for a mammal found before its predecessors existed would be a clear fail for the theory, but no such fossil, for any species or class of organism, has ever been found.

The possibility of evidence against a theory and not finding that evidence is extremely important too. If one can't think of a test for one's ideas, a reasonable test that it could conceivably fail, then one does not have a hypothesis and by definition cannot have any scientific evidence for it. The theory of evolution has passed many such tests. When it was first proposed the fossil record was nowhere near as complete as it is today and the concept of a "Precambrian Bunny Rabbit" was a very real thing. No such examples have been found. Meanwhile when creationists are asked to form a reasonable test on what is not now known they always fail. One cannot base a proper test on what we do know already. One must be willing to brave the unknown and I have yet to see a creationist do that.

 

[YoursTrue]

I said that in the past I did not accept it. I used that to show that I too was a science denier, at least in that subject. But unlike the creationists I read the evidence that went against my beliefs. I found that I was wrong. And when I admitted that I was wrong people accepted it and did not hold a grudge against me. It was so unusual that I did have to repeat that a few times for people. It is surprising how many people hold certain beliefs so dearly that they can never admit that they are wrong.

Obviously I must have misunderstood you. I am not home, am on my phone now, so it does not give me easy enough access, but the question is, did you say that at first you denied the possibility of global warming and its dire consequences? (But then you changed your opinion and now believe the earth is in a period of global warming?)

 

[YoursTrue]

QUOTE

You deny reality. The details do not really matter.

And why do you keep bringing up the fact that you do not understand figurative speech. Try to drop the false accusations please.

Looking over, you astoundingly say details don't matter? Then they obviously (in your way of looking at things) don't matter in speciation as involved in evolution. You might again say that changes of clothing is part of genetic evolution. So far, it doesn't add up. Now thinking about it again, I am thinking our definitions or analyses of evolution and life are different.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, but a beginning as we know it is only evidence of a beginning. Not of a god.

Do you believe that life had a beginning?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously I must have misunderstood you. I am not home, am on my phone now, so it does not give me easy enough access, but the question is, did you say that at first you denied the possibility of global warming and its dire consequences? (But then you changed your opinion and now believe the earth is in a period of global warming?)

I did say that at one time I denied it, but the same post made it clear that was not the case now. You accused me of not.accepting it in the present.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Looking over, you astoundingly say details don't matter? Then they obviously (in your way of looking at things) don't matter in speciation as involved in evolution. You might again say that changes of clothing is part of genetic evolution. So far, it doesn't add up. Now thinking about it again, I am thinking our definitions or analyses of evolution and life are different.

Let's try to keep it in context. When I said that the details do not matter that was in reference to your creationist beliefs. You gave more than enough details for people to know that you are wrong.

If you want to ask questions about evolution I will try to answer them. And incorrectly asked questions will be answered after an attempt at correction. Incorrectly asked questions tend to have incorrect assumptions within them. The classic example being "Have you quit beating your wife yet?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you believe that life had a beginning?

Yes, but that is a separate problem from evolution. It is why moving the goalposts to abiogenesis is admitting defeat by the creationists. It does not matter where or how life arose. We know that it evolved once that it was here.

 

[YoursTrue]

But this is a dishonest stance to take. One may say that one is not convinced by the evidence, but it is a lie to claim that there is no evidence. That is why I supplied the definition of evidence for you.

It is also why I ask creationists if they can be honest. To be honest at the very least they do have to admit that there is evidence for evolution.

I am speaking of the theory of evolution. And there are many who believe that evolution and creation are somewhat combined, as if God started the whole thing and then it took off on its own after that, millions of years required for the evolution of a snake or an ape or a plant or a human being. Here is what I believe: There was a beginning. Exactly what that beginning was (is) I can't say now, but I believe-go with this: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1. I know you don't believe that, BUT -- don't you imagine what the "beginning" is? What empirical evidence do you have?
So I will ask you, because you have more knowledge about evolution than I do, what evidence is there of links between, let's say, tigers and humans?