What if it was created by God to evolve?

[Hockeycowboy]

I’m not going to reply to each in vidual commenting on my “Cambrian“ post, too many.

Let me say this:

When you Google ‘Cambrian’ along with ‘ “sudden appearance” ‘ in quotations, you’ll get so many sites. (‘Cambrian “abrupt appearance” ‘ will also work, and add even more, )

“Sudden” does not mean rapid. It means “immediate”.

The reason for the 10 to 15 million years, was the time for these life forms to populate the oceans… indeed, they’re found just about everywhere.

But of these thousands of species, each one “appeared suddenly.” With no obvious precursors.

I’m tired of people misrepresenting the evidence, in an effort to downplay its significance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m not going to reply to each in vidual commenting on my “Cambrian“ post, too many.

Let me say this:

When you Google ‘Cambrian’ along with ‘ “sudden appearance” ‘ in quotations, you’ll get so many sites. (‘Cambrian “abrupt appearance” ‘ will also work, and add even more, )

“Sudden” does not mean rapid. It means “immediate”.

The reason for the 10 to 15 million years, was the time for these life forms to populate the oceans… indeed, they’re found just about everywhere.

But of these thousands of species, each one “appeared suddenly.” With no obvious precursors.

I’m tired of people misrepresenting the evidence, in an effort to downplay its significance.

Do you know what an equivocation fallacy is?

Once again, please learn what is and what is not evidence. Abusing definitions is not evidence. Abusing definitions does not help you to win any araguments.

 

[Brian2]

Skeptics make up nothing about gods. That's what theists do, and skeptics field their claims.

And how hard does one need to work to make the god of the flood look bad? The story depicts moral and intellectual failure on the part of the deity. I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't drown all terrestrial life over my mistake with one species that I could magically fix without torturing the planet, and I bet I could figure out to not use the same breeding stock that I just about exterminated to repopulate the earth.

Skeptics didn't make that story up. Ancient theists did, and yes, the god looks very bad in that story. It seems to be mentally sluggish, quick to anger and partial to smiting.

Taking more than 100 years is not quick to anger.
We weren't there and don't know what humans were doing to make God want to wipe out humans.

That's in incoherent comment. It contradicts itself. A tri-omni god is also omni-responsible. Take that argument to a court of law. "Yes, I left the keys in a running car full of beer, and yes, this outcome was foreseeable, but I'm not responsible for what others do." "Yes, you are. Judgement is for the woman your son crippled drunk driving your car."

God is the judge of everyone and all incidencts,,,,,,,,,, the biggest court there is.
And yes the father shares responsibility with the son in your example, but your example might have been a bit better if you had God as the manufacturer of the car and the manufacturer of the alcohol.

Bad idea. What you are calling God is just words people wrote. You're trusting THEM.

I'm trusting that the fulfilled prophecies were fulfilled by God and not humans.

Truth is not whatever a person has chosen to believe by faith, least of all unfalsifiable claims. And theists have found no error in critical judgment, just a nuisance to claiming whatever they like and going unchallenged like the good old days when skeptics like Brahe and Scopes were simply punished or killed with almost no blowback. If you disagree, is it for a reason other than faith? Do you have an actual error of skepticism to report?

I hear that Tycho Brahe was supported by the church.
I also don't know of punishment for Scopes.
I know what you think of my truth but I was saying that there is truth and error in skeptic arguments and it is best to see them both. That is something that you seem unwilling to believe. Skepticism is only correct in your view. I can understand that view from a skeptic.

If it takes faith to believe something, it should not be believed.

Well I should not be surprised at that statement, and I am not.
I was giving an error of skepticism and of course you can't see that error.
But most things take faith to believe. After all I am told that science does not prove anything.

Two more unfalsifiable religious claims. The universe wasn't designed as best we can tell. It evolved naturalistically from a hot, dense, initial state. And life appears to need no intelligent designer, either.

Science knows nothing about whether the universe was designed. Science also does not know where life came from.
These of course are corollaries of being an atheist and so you would lean towards believing that the universe had no designer or life giver even if science does not tell us that.
That's almost faith but worded to eliminate saying that is what you believe. But even if science decided the universe had no designer or life giver and you ended up believing that, it would be faith since science does not prove anything,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, especially about stuff like that.

I don't believe that anybody has.

So you believe nobody has experienced the supernatural and miracles from God.

No, believing them is the error. All unfalsifiable claims can be ignored. No credible witness ever reported a resurrection.

Who in your mind would be a credible witness for such an event?
It is not the credibility of the witness or witnesses but the event itself that is the problem for you.
What God gave as witness to Jesus is dismissed because of supposed unreliability of the witnesses.
And yes they did suffer for that witness and many lost their lives for that witness.

 

[Brian2]

Valjean said:
Before reïterating, explaining or interpreting a mythology, shouldn't the reality of the myth be established?
That would seem reasonable. Otherwise Christian mythology would be epistemically no different from Norse, Aztec, or Greek mythology.

And you really think that the point of the post is wanting to establish the reality of the gospels?

 

[YoursTrue]

Dryopithecus is considered as the common ancestor of the great apes and man. These are believed to have lived during Miocene(about 16 million years ago). The fossils of Dryopithecus were discovered from many parts of Africa, Europe and Sivalik hills of India

https://www.toppr.com/ask/question/namethe-common-ancestor-of-the-great-apes-and-man/

That's what some think from a fossil. But they don't know. And they also don't know when each type of ape burgeoned out and stay in that form. Such as gorillas or chimpanzees, etc. They will guess perhaps but that's about it. I can only imagine that the posture will be that it happened over millions of years and is imagined. Even though there's no evidence of that because so many bones are lost. But that's probably the way it happened, scientists may say, even if they discover something that changes their minds once again. And the conjectures start again.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh good. You posted it again. And a good thing you did.

Since you did, even though your posts lacked any citation, I'm now convinced that evolution is a hoax and that Goddidit.

Thank you for setting me straight.

Ok you made me laugh with that one. Good for you!

 

[YoursTrue]

You dont "trust god".
You trust your own capacity to determine / choose
what beliefs about which god are true.

As such you are hardly the one to recommend others
open their eyes.

No one is right all the time about anything.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Hockeycowboy Perhaps @Dan From Smithville did not see the question--

While that is my belief, there is a little problem of evidence. There is none for a creator/designer and no indication one was needed.

Hockeycowboy asked @Dan From Smithville So, why do you believe it, then?
I wonder if @Dan From Smithville saw the question and if he will answer. Dan?

 

[ChristineM]

That's what some think from a fossil. But they don't know. And they also don't know when each type of ape burgeoned out and stay in that form. Such as gorillas or chimpanzees, etc. They will guess perhaps but that's about it. I can only imagine that the posture will be that it happened over millions of years and is imagined. Even though there's no evidence of that because so many bones are lost. But that's probably the way it happened, scientists may say, even if they discover something that changes their minds once again. And the conjectures start again.

I said considered. Most anthropologists consider the dryopithecus to be our common ancestor. You said they know nothing, that is not true and evidence is mounting

Apes don't stay in that form they evolve. In 2200 years the human ape has evolved... see my avatar, a 22000 year old human skull. Thicker bone structure and larger brain pan than.modern humans.

Educated guessing based on research, you have a problem with that?

And thats how science works. Evidence can alter a theory. Unlike religion where the whole thing is based on no evidence and unwillingness to change your mind

 

[John53]

@Hockeycowboy Perhaps @Dan From Smithville did not see the question--

Hockeycowboy asked @Dan From Smithville So, why do you believe it, then?
I wonder if @Dan From Smithville saw the question and if he will answer. Dan?

Why don't you worry about answering the numerous questions asked to you instead of trolling Dan.

 

[YoursTrue]

I said considered. Most anthropologists consider the dryopithecus to be our common ancestor. You said they know nothing, that is not true and evidence is mounting

Apes don't stay in that form they evolve. In 2200 years the human ape has evolved... see my avatar, a 22000 year old human skull. Thicker bone structure and larger brain pan than.modern humans.

Educated guessing based on research, you have a problem with that?

And thats how science works. Evidence can alter a theory. Unlike religion where the whole thing is based on no evidence and unwillingness to change your mind

First of all, there is a premise to scientific educated guessing. In other words, a conjectural basis for forming or positing a belief from a fossil. Or a living creature.

 

[YoursTrue]

I said considered. Most anthropologists consider the dryopithecus to be our common ancestor. You said they know nothing, that is not true and evidence is mounting

Apes don't stay in that form they evolve. In 2200 years the human ape has evolved... see my avatar, a 22000 year old human skull. Thicker bone structure and larger brain pan than.modern humans.

Educated guessing based on research, you have a problem with that?

And thats how science works. Evidence can alter a theory. Unlike religion where the whole thing is based on no evidence and unwillingness to change your mind

As far as "know," unless you think conjecture is knowing, we can stop there.

 

[ChristineM]

First of all, there is a premise to scientific educated guessing. In other words, a conjectural basis for forming or positing a belief from a fossil. Or a living creature.

Being religious and honest are you saying thats not how religion works?

Actually its not really guessing, but feel free to massage your own ego. What it is is hypothesis built on some form of evidence. Note that some form of evidence.

Just because you don't understand that method does not mean that's not how it is. But luckily, science does not need your approval

 

[ChristineM]

As far as "know," unless you think conjecture is knowing, we can stop there.

As far as we lnow in that some evidence exists, enough evidence to make a "considered" opinion

 

[SalixIncendium]

@Hockeycowboy Perhaps @Dan From Smithville did not see the question--

Hockeycowboy asked @Dan From Smithville So, why do you believe it, then?
I wonder if @Dan From Smithville saw the question and if he will answer. Dan?

Let's please not try to dictate if, when, and how people choose to respond to one another, especially in an exchange that doesn't involve you.

 

[SalixIncendium]

No one is right all the time about anything.

Are you being ironic?

 

[Subduction Zone]

First of all, there is a premise to scientific educated guessing. In other words, a conjectural basis for forming or positing a belief from a fossil. Or a living creature.

That is simply wrong. Science is based upon forming models and then testing them. Why do you keep forgetting that? You could claim before the testing that it was "conjecture". But once models have been endlessly tested and confirmed it is no longer conjecture at all.

I know, the sect that you are in lies to you constantly. They have to lie to their members because with their endless ridiculous claims they would have lost everyone a long time ago if they did not combine lies with threats. Christianity is overall not an evil religion, but you are unfortunately stuck in one of the more evil sects of Christianity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I see that you also make the error of seeing God as like a human with super powers,

No. I see the bible god as the moral agent he is supposed to be. Regardless of being human or anything else.
As a moral agent, the character is immoral, psychopathic and every other nasty thing under the sun.

and have no belief in the whole story of what God is doing in making a bad situation into a good one in the end.

The supposed bad situation is 110% his own responsibility.

 

[YoursTrue]

Let's please not try to dictate if, when, and how people choose to respond to one another, especially in an exchange that doesn't involve you.

Actually I was just asking because it's a point of interest. If a person makes a comment it's open to questions. Since Dan professes to believe in a God of sorts, and John53 and subduction zone do not, yes, a legitimate question is why? Sorry some of you do not feel that way.

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you being ironic?

What motivates you to ask that?