What We Thought

[YoursTrue]

It's not an opinion as we well know that animals copulated long before humans ever showed up. We do not know when the first organisms copulated as this would have gone back hundreds of millions of years ago or more.

Certainly it is an opinion about the order of sexes and how and if they evolved. Plus then the sac and the embryo. Nothing whatsoever to back that up insofar as evolution, the theory of, is concerned.

 

[Jose Fly]

lol, I've asked and examined the teaching as much as I could. I find no substantial basis for the truthfulness of the theory. It does not stand, except in the minds of those wishing it to be true. There is no real-life, real-time basis for it.

I've received one answer from someone here about the two sex theory, absolutely unsubstantiated except by opinion. And then of course, there's the situation of pregnancy. Carrying an embryo. My, my, quite yes a distance from that first cellular structure that just popped up.

I don't think you're appreciating the situation here. Given what's at stake for you and the extreme bias it creates, I don't care what you think about evolution.

 

[metis]

The Bible does say that humans were the last creation in Genesis. So I can definitely agree with you there about the sequence in that regard,
Again -- the more I think about it, it does not make sense that -- somehow -- animals and whatever else just 'began' to copulate. Like sometimes male and female. No matter how far back a scientist wants to go, metis, in his imagination, it no longer makes sense to me, in part because there is nothing whatsoever beyond man's imagination that this happened as if suddenly a new branch appeared, if you know what I mean.
Anyway, have a nice day.

Since neither of us were there, any assumption is just that-- an "assumption". Somewhere along the line is must have happened, and it makes sense biologically that more complex forms of life would need cross-fertilization.

 

[metis]

Nothing whatsoever to back that up insofar as evolution, the theory of, is concerned.

100% percent false, and this is certainly not speculation, as all material objects tend to change over time and genes are material objects. All "evolution" is systematic change over time. This is why even when I was in high school, I well knew that I was not being told the truth in the fundamentalist church I grew up in.

 

[YoursTrue]

100% percent false, and this is certainly not speculation, as all material objects tend to change over time and genes are material objects. All "evolution" is systematic change over time. This is why even when I was in high school, I well knew that I was not being told the truth in the fundamentalist church I grew up in.

I have researched this to the best of a layman's ability, and so far I see no evidence of viruses remaining anything but viruses, and chimpanzees, ostensibly and reasonably (especially according to the biblical account), becoming anything other than chimpanzees. Etc. But thanks for your input. Perhaps your fundamentalist church taught you that God created everything in a 24-hour day. But you probably know that the word day in the Bible does not systematically equate to a 24-hour period. Thanks anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

100% percent false, and this is certainly not speculation, as all material objects tend to change over time and genes are material objects. All "evolution" is systematic change over time. This is why even when I was in high school, I well knew that I was not being told the truth in the fundamentalist church I grew up in.

furthermore, I don't see anything but suggestion and leaning on conjecture that at a certain point the various sexes were established according to "natural selection." ) Oh, well. In fact, I change the word 'leaning on' to 'relying upon' conjecture, as if scientific conjecture makes it true. (Oh well again...) If you have knowledge showing the establishment of the various organisms becoming male and female and copulating, please maybe you can provide it in an understandable way? Beyond that is, conjecture. Thank you again.

 

[YoursTrue]

Since neither of us were there, any assumption is just that-- an "assumption". Somewhere along the line is must have happened, and it makes sense biologically that more complex forms of life would need cross-fertilization.

It does? Please at least show some scientifically researched opinion about this regarding the establishment of cross-fertilization...of animals.That is, of course, regarding the Darwinian mode of the theory of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think you're appreciating the situation here. Given what's at stake for you and the extreme bias it creates, I don't care what you think about evolution.

So then no need to be concerned about it. I care what I think about evolution. I'm so glad I studied the Bible WITH Jehovah's Witnesses and learned why creation and not evolution, is true. Have a good day.

 

[metis]

furthermore, I don't see anything but suggestion and leaning on conjecture that at a certain point the various sexes were established according to "natural selection." )

Natural selection could not have done it by itself, but mutations and genetic drift could have been involved.

Oh, well. In fact, I change the word 'leaning on' to 'relying upon' conjecture, as if scientific conjecture makes it true.

We use the word "hypothesis".

It does? Please at least show some scientifically researched opinion about this regarding the establishment of cross-fertilization...of animals.That is, of course, regarding the Darwinian mode of the theory of evolution.

Again, what I mentioned was a "hypothesis". The fact of the matter is that we don't know with any certainty when or how this is likely to have appeared, but the reality is that you don't either even if you think you know.

 

[metis]

I have researched this to the best of a layman's ability, and so far I see no evidence of viruses remaining anything but viruses, and chimpanzees, ostensibly and reasonably (especially according to the biblical account), becoming anything other than chimpanzees.

Based on what we have observed, your position is rather easy to refute.

If we look at the fossil record going back 1 billion years ago, only single-celled organisms are found, and yet today look at all the various forms of animal and plant life.

Perhaps your fundamentalist church taught you that God created everything in a 24-hour day. But you probably know that the word day in the Bible does not systematically equate to a 24-hour period. Thanks anyway.

In Hebrew, the word "yom" means day, thus not "epoch", "centuries", etc. Only when used symbolically can "yom" stand for longer periods of time.

All material objects appear to change over time, and genes and all life forms are material objects. This you cannot logically refute unless one uses blinders to ignore reality. Christianity should be enlightening, but when some use it to ignore reality, it is not enlightening-- it's darkening. Fortunately, most theologians and denominations realize this today, so maybe find a church that teaches that which is "enlightening".

 

[YoursTrue]

Based on what we have observed, your position is rather easy to refute.

If we look at the fossil record going back 1 billion years ago, only single-celled organisms are found, and yet today look at all the various forms of animal and plant life.

In Hebrew, the word "yom" means day, thus not "epoch", "centuries", etc. Only when used symbolically can "yom" stand for longer periods of time.

All material objects appear to change over time, and genes and all life forms are material objects. This you cannot logically refute unless one uses blinders to ignore reality. Christianity should be enlightening, but when some use it to ignore reality, it is not enlightening-- it's darkening. Fortunately, most theologians and denominations realize this today, so maybe find a church that teaches that which is "enlightening".

Paul wrote that a seed dies and then something grows from it.
Furthermore, may I ask where you get the material that 1 billion years ago only single-celled organisms are found? The word 'day' translated from the Hebrew does not always mean a 24 hour period. Is that what your fundamentalist church taught? That each 'day' of creation was a 24-hour period? Sorry, but that wouIdn't make sense according to rational analysis. In my opinion, of course. I can only hope you can expand your thinking a little to offer some latitude and flexibility.
The Bible can use the word day to denote something other than 24 hour periods as we tell time now. You say it's metaphorical sometimes. It does not have to mean 24 hours in any case, yet refers to a particular period.
Again -- the word day, or 'yohm' can mean a period with an opening and a closing. I wonder what makes you think that the Genesis account of creation was not using the word 'day' in the sense of a set period of time, yes, even epochs, each day with a beginning and a closing. And for your attention, you may note that the 7th 'day' has not ended yet. It's still going. A long day but not long enough for some. In fact, Genesis 1:5 brings that out\. Notice, please: "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." So arranging things, the light part was called Day, and the dark part was called Night. Again -- the word 'day' is somewhat flexibly used in the scriptures. (Have a good day--)

 

[YoursTrue]

Natural selection could not have done it by itself, but mutations and genetic drift could have been involved.

We use the word "hypothesis".

Again, what I mentioned was a "hypothesis". The fact of the matter is that we don't know with any certainty when or how this is likely to have appeared, but the reality is that you don't either even if you think you know.

I saw a seriously mentally damaged child today. He was cute, kind of, running around in a restaurant, mother tending to him, she was very nice and explained the child is 3 years old, could not yet speak and has problems. So now, let's see -- more than likely such a mutation would not, shall we say, continue with selection of the fittest? Nevertheless, it's obvious that such occurrences happen genetically. Also nevertheless, a mentally or physically born damaged child remains a human, regardless of mutations from the norm. Unless such ones become the norm? Again -- I hate to say this again -- but so far, chimpanzees remain chimpanzees, viruses remain viruses, and so forth. However it happened, they remain within their context. In other words, insects remain insects, gorillas remain gorillas. So far nothing, absolutely nothing, to prove or show in real-time, real life, anything other than the various 'kinds' or types, however you want to categorize them. Now we have the ebola virus floating around again -- it's different from the covid virus. Nevertheless, there is nothing to show that these viruses evolve to be anything but a virus.

 

[YoursTrue]

Natural selection could not have done it by itself, but mutations and genetic drift could have been involved.

We use the word "hypothesis".

Again, what I mentioned was a "hypothesis". The fact of the matter is that we don't know with any certainty when or how this is likely to have appeared, but the reality is that you don't either even if you think you know.

OK, you go with your ideas, and I'll go with the Bible and the awesomeness of creation, and the idea from the Bible that humans were offered the possibility of everlasting life.

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK, you go with your ideas, and I'll go with the Bible and the awesomeness of creation, and the idea from the Bible that humans were offered the possibility of everlasting life.

..but there are different denominations, which all interpret the Bible in different ways.

Almighty God is is a spiritual concept.
A soul/spirit [the non-physical mind] is a spiritual concept.

We are immortal, as is God.
The question is, what will happen to us after physical death.

..whether you understand the theory of evolution or not, has no bearing on that.
..being a scientist doesn't stop a person going to heaven[paradise].

Disbelief in God is the problem. This leads to iniquities.

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK, you go with your ideas, and I'll go with the Bible and the awesomeness of creation, and the idea from the Bible that humans were offered the possibility of everlasting life.

You want to believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it.

We get it. You don't want to learn anything that contradicts your religious views. Why not just admit that and put an end to these silly threads already?

 

[YoursTrue]

Based on what we have observed, your position is rather easy to refute.

If we look at the fossil record going back 1 billion years ago, only single-celled organisms are found, and yet today look at all the various forms of animal and plant life.

In Hebrew, the word "yom" means day, thus not "epoch", "centuries", etc. Only when used symbolically can "yom" stand for longer periods of time.

All material objects appear to change over time, and genes and all life forms are material objects. This you cannot logically refute unless one uses blinders to ignore reality. Christianity should be enlightening, but when some use it to ignore reality, it is not enlightening-- it's darkening. Fortunately, most theologians and denominations realize this today, so maybe find a church that teaches that which is "enlightening".

So there is evidence (in the way of scientific 'proof' or transmission by experiment) that viruses evolve to something greater (more than) viruses, or does a virus mutate but still remain a virus? The reality is that the Bible promises everlasting life for some...isn't that something...would you say the Pope says that's a myth, too? But, of course, evolution is based on reality?

 

[metis]

So there is evidence (in the way of scientific 'proof' or transmission by experiment) that viruses evolve to something greater (more than) viruses, or does a virus mutate but still remain a virus? The reality is that the Bible promises everlasting life for some...isn't that something...would you say the Pope says that's a myth, too? But, of course, evolution is based on reality?

You totally avoided dealing with what I posted, so why should I go any further.

IOW, please deal with what I post and not deflect into side-bars.

 

[YoursTrue]

You totally avoided dealing with what I posted, so why should I go any further.

IOW, please deal with what I post and not deflect into side-bars.

Please do show me the conjectural evidence that life continued to form, or grow (shall we say?) from a few cells that flew in from outer space, or bubbled in the waters, ok? Not speaking of abiogenesis but rather any viable evidence that life happened to grow by selective adaptation eventually to become humans anyway. Gorillas, or chimpanzees, etc. Meantime, not to get off the subject, but why the Pope is considering that mankind may destroy itself if he, in fact, believes in evolution now? (In other words either God exists and created the heavens and the earth -- or He did NOT create these things and there was no plan...) Please explain your thesis that life grew (using the expression) from a few cells to morph into plants and animals, ok? Thanks. Well, really, not to be disrespectful, but never mind about explaining your thesis unless -- there is P-R-O=O=F. OK? You only gave your opinion about it. Thanks. And with all due respect, we don't have to talk about this anymore if you prefer. That's fine.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans as the human. Accept your ownership as it's exact and not a thesis.

As human thoughts didn't create creation. Is a basic humans egotists teaching. If you didn't hadn't chosen a humans subject topic. It would not even be pondered.

You'd just be naturally living and very busy sharing existing labour. No time to pretend as civilisation caused fake living status.

You look at any species living. It's natural.

You theist man then lie about its naturally owned life form. Owner ship.

Being an ark theme. Owned by theme the moving evolving life.

Ark theme is human only taught.

O spinning heavens cooling above with ice saviour a teaching. O G spin O DD OO cooling owns any one type supported living species you see.....as by two of its type.

Hence theorising first does not give one answer the theists warning as an egotist know it all...when you don't.

First is natural type only what you observe living only.

Humans behaviour the human warning stated destroys life on earth by egotism.

It's your behaviour human theist who pretends it's natural life form is what was living as another type. As you do all the comparing then subject the human only comparisons to a story you human conclude.

As if you man are the God type. By word speech just human.

It was never ever any other type than what it lives as now was your warning.

Don't look back and compare other living bodies as they are not comparable as equals is exact natural first.

Human using = equals was lying as you didn't create creation of form.

What was said the archetype made every life form be it's own god.

Hence respect all gods.

Yet you don't in science you want everything to be just one type...not any form of reality.

Hence word use denoted by behaviour and word used if you were determined a sane human thinker.... or a destructive thinker. By your appraisal and one selfs human behaviour.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What twaddle. Why don't you just say that "you don't know"?

Because that is not what the problem is.
The problem is you trying to comment on models you clearly don't understand.