Evolution My ToE

[Subduction Zone]

Get back to us when you can support your claimed nature in the past.

I already have. You ran away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Random mutations leading to natural selection has a conceptual problem.The reason is a random mechanism for change, will do more harm than good, even if good happens periodically.

As an analogous exercise, close your eyes randomly change a letter or word in my opening paragraph, to see if you will improve or worsen the meaning. With a random approach, more things that can go wrong than right. If you plan the word placement, before you insert, than more good can happen than bad.

In terms of random mutations and natural selection for bacteria, we would not only see some bacteria adapting, but most of the bacteria would be self destructing due to bottlenecks that random genetic changes would create. What we see in reality, is most bacteria will maintain a status quo as though the impact of the bad change is being moderated.

There needs to be a mechanism that can censor random changes, so more good happens than bad, even though bad is more likely with a purely random mechanism.

You had the answer to why it is not a problem in your post. Do you think that you can find it?

 

[dad]

I already have. You ran away.

Link?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Link?

What do you want a link on? I can't find the specific post with evidence that you ran away from. It was in a thread that you started. You lost the right to demand evidence when you did so. But I will give you a one time exception. What do you want evidence of?

 

[dad]

What do you want a link on? I can't find the specific post with evidence that you ran away from.

Hilarious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hilarious.

Yes, you are running away again. That is hilarious. The weak in faith are afraid to learn.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Did God create women to impregnate...

You are silly! You just implied God could “create women”....now you wonder why God wouldn’t need to have sex to create His sons?

You exposed your own argument! Lol!

No, you’re not a woman. They’re smarter!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are silly! You just implied God could “create women”....now you wonder why God wouldn’t need to have sex to create His sons?

You exposed your own argument! Lol!

No, you’re not a woman. They’re smarter!

That was a quote mine on your part. Why did you quote out of context? Quote mining is almost always a dishonest debating technique.

 

[dad]

Yes, you are running away again. That is hilarious. The weak in faith are afraid to learn.

Sure everyone is running away from spam man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure everyone is running away from spam man.

No one is running away from you. But you are running away from me. You make false claims about others and then run.

 

[YoursTrue]

.
dad, you are confused again. Those are your posts. I have offered to help you to learn what is and what is not evidence, a very basic idea. You have demonstrated fear by running away and spamming. If I was spamming I would not make an offer where it would be so easy to catch me. You on the other hand are caught regularly.

We've been discussing evidence for some time now. And although I can't explain everything in the Bible or in the universe, you seem to feel that evolution is explained by evidence. But the evidence does not show that there was gradual development of organisms, let's say, from fish with fins to crawling animals with genetically developing legs starting from fins coming up out of the water to live on land. And fins is only part of the story. I was going to say only half the story, but then we'd have to get into what is 'half' the story. So where's the evidence of the small incremental genetic changes in motion or in the past from therapods to birds? Give me something besides, "well, the genes are similar." Please... I'll take fossils as well. Where is the evidence (proof?) that dinosaurs of the therapod genre (I was almost going to say therapeutic kind) evolved to become birds? Feathers??????

 

[Subduction Zone]

We've been discussing evidence for some time now. And although I can't explain everything in the Bible or in the universe, you seem to feel that evolution is explained by evidence. But the evidence does not show that there was gradual development of organisms, let's say, from fish with fins to crawling animals with genetically developing legs starting from fins coming up out of the water to live on land. And fins is only part of the story. I was going to say only half the story, but then we'd have to get into what is 'half' the story. So where's the evidence of the small incremental genetic changes in motion or in the past from therapods to birds? Give me something besides, "well, the genes are similar." Please... I'll take fossils as well. Where is the evidence (proof?) that dinosaurs of the therapod genre (I was almost going to say therapeutic kind) evolved to become birds? Feathers??????

Why can't you do a little bit of a Google search yourself?


Let's go over the basics. Do you realize that many dinosaurs had feathers. Birds are not the only feathered dinosaurs.

 

[ecco]

Not sure how you seem to equate demons with God. Work that out, and get back to us with some rational position.

It's your Bible that clearly states:

the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took as wives whomever they chose.
​

Wasn't that part of man becoming so evil God had to drown them?

You also skipped over this embarrassing part...

So, Jesus was not God's only begotten son! And His other sons and His daughters actually ruled some Nations. Is that your argument?​

 

[ecco]

?? Thousands?? Proof?

Well, I thought the Great Flood was caused because of rain and all the springs of the great deep bursting forth.

11In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.​

I figured it must have been in the thousands. If it was just a spring or two for every Continent it would hardly be worth mentioning in the Great Book.

As for your fears that God was not able to conduct an operation, sorry, they have no basis in fact.

What operation are you rambling on about now?

 

[ecco]

You are silly! You just implied God could “create women”....now you wonder why God wouldn’t need to have sex to create His sons?

You exposed your own argument! Lol!

No, you’re not a woman. They’re smarter!

I wasn't asking your opinion. I was asking Dad's opinion.


However, now that you chose to butt in, why don't you give your opinion on how God created all those sons that came to earth to marry off the beautiful humans.

While you're at it, explain why a different part of the Bible refers to Jesus as God's only begotten son.


I'd really like to see what you have to say and I'm really looking forward to see if you and Dad interpret scripture the same way. Well, actually, to see if you and Dad make up the same stories to explain things that the Bible doesn't.

 

[YoursTrue]

I do not believe that anyone brought up but you accusing the science of evolution is a product of "Satan." Take responsibility for your own beliefs that are not science.

Oh, by the way, while you're at it, allow me to say that the idea of superior race was, in fact, and still is in some cases, believed by many as a conclusion of evolution. So what's the hypothesis about skin color changing from dark-skinned chimpanzees, is it, to light-skinned persons? Which came first? A dark-skinned human from Africa shedding the hair, or a light-skinned person evolving in some persons' minds as the more recent "superior" 'race'? Frankly, Darwin seemed like a thoughtful individual, however, as we know eugenics took off after things moved along (culturally, that is...), and many, MANY people who were influential clung to that theory of racial superiority. And still do. Yes, it is clearly related to the theory of racial evolution. The graphs and pictures of what is supposed to be evolution from chimpanzees to those looking like Greek and European royalty shows the thought process behind that. Scientific thought is changing about that, and scientists are saying something like, well, the early humans weren't that dumb after all, turns out. On the other hand, here's an interesting article if you care to read it. Doesn't take long.
Humans are Fundamentally Stupid Creatures

 

[dad]

It's your Bible that clearly states:

the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took as wives whomever they chose.
​

Wasn't that part of man becoming so evil God had to drown them?

There are different opinions as to who these angels were. Most churches interpret (if they admit it was angels) that it must have been evil fallen angels because basically they seem to feel sex is a sin. Personally, I don't know, as the bible doesn't say a lot about that.
But for the purposes of this thread and your denial of all spirits, we can add the angels to the list!

You also skipped over this embarrassing part...

So, Jesus was not God's only begotten son! And His other sons and His daughters actually ruled some Nations. Is that your argument?​

Of course Jesus is God, and God's son. He cast out demons while here on earth. There are more spirits for your denial list!

 

[dad]

Well, I thought the Great Flood was caused because of rain and all the springs of the great deep bursting forth.

11In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.​

I figured it must have been in the thousands. If it was just a spring or two for every Continent it would hardly be worth mentioning in the Great Book.

You can make wild guesses if you like. Maybe some were bigger than others also. But if you read the verse you posted it shows two sources for the water. The windows of heaven bring water down from above, and the fountains of the deep bringing it from below.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I wasn't asking your opinion.

Yes, you were.

Lol.

 

[ecco]

Oh, by the way, while you're at it, allow me to say that the idea of superior race was, in fact, and still is in some cases, believed by many as a conclusion of evolution.

Yeah. Southern slave owners quoted Darwin to justify owning and beating slaves.

Oh, wait.

No, they didn't.

They cited your holy scripture.

How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery
How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...699e8e-6512-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html
The Bible was used to justify slavery. ​

History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes
Christianity as a Justification for Slavery
In the Old Testament, God and the Patriarchs approve. As for the New Testament, Jesus and the Apostles show that slavery is permissible. Therefore, slavery, to those who wrote the article, was not an anti-Christian institution. It was just the opposite. Furthermore, they added, it is impious to say slavery is anti-Christian because such a conclusion contradicted God.


"Inferior" indigenous tribes, in the Americas and in the Pacific were decimated by "invasions for God" and "forced" religious conversions.

How is it that you do not know this?

​