• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution My ToE

nPeace

Veteran Member
It can only be one-sided if you refuse to participate.


I spent a great deal of time answering a significant number of questions from you. Also, you tacitly admitted that you've not read through scientific journals on evolutionary biology, taken courses in evolutionary biology, or attended conferences on evolutionary biology. You also chastised me for attempting to "tutor" you on the subject. Therefore, it's entirely reasonable for me to suggest you take the time to learn the subject you're attempting to debate.


Lately I've not been conversing, but rather have been debating (as a result of your reminding me that this is a debate forum).


Yes it did. You elected to only reply to one very narrow part of that post. The rest of that post remains unaddressed, including several questions that you have not answered. You do realize that in a debate format, that means you have conceded those points, right?


So you are conceding the debate.

Now that that's over, I'm curious....when we first started in this thread I tried to adopt a more friendly approach with you, where I didn't try and debate you as much as just explain the science and scientific POV. In the midst of that, you accused me of being "serpent like" and other things. Normally I would have challenged you on your accusations, but under the new approach I simply apologized and assured you that my intentions were not devious. But later, I saw what seemed to me as you sorta complaining about that approach, and reminding me that this is a debate forum and as such you're here to debate, not discuss. So I obliged and switched back to debating you, and as we saw the exchange ended very quickly after that.

So my question to you is, which approach do you prefer? Would you rather I take a debating team style stance towards you, or would you prefer the more conversational style I used earlier?
Serious communication problem, and again claiming I said things I never did say. Me tired. It's not working out.
I told you before, if I presume something about someone, I will miss what they are communicating, because of what I have set in my mind. I won't be able to help that, unless I let go of my preconception, that I have branded into my thoughts as being true.
Substitute "I", in that sentence with "you", and "my" with "your".

Why would I make these statements, if I were not interested in discussing?
...that's because I am trying to get the perspective of the person in the discussion.
We can discuss the phylogenetic tree, and tiktaalik. What would you like to discuss about them?
I'm asking you because there are different views, so I want to hear from you, so I can discuss the ones you believe.
Why is that important in this discussion?

That is a huge communication problem. It is frustrating hearing someone say I said something, which I never said... and not once, twice, three times.... but over and over again, and almost like indefinite ... even now.
I find it hard to believe these are honest mistakes.
If it is so hard to repeat what I said, accurately, then it must be equally hard to understand what I am saying, as was evident from our long discussions on one subject.

I am really tired Fly. I have totally lost the enthusiasm and optimism I had, discussing this with you. I don't think I can put this to the side.
I tried for a second time.
..and yes, the conversation seems one-sided to me, based on what I have seen.
Signing out.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Serious communication problem, and again claiming I said things I never did say. Me tired. It's not working out.
I told you before, if I presume something about someone, I will miss what they are communicating, because of what I have set in my mind. I won't be able to help that, unless I let go of my preconception, that I have branded into my thoughts as being true.
Substitute "I", in that sentence with "you", and "my" with "your".

Why would I make these statements, if I were not interested in discussing?
...that's because I am trying to get the perspective of the person in the discussion.
We can discuss the phylogenetic tree, and tiktaalik. What would you like to discuss about them?
I'm asking you because there are different views, so I want to hear from you, so I can discuss the ones you believe.
Why is that important in this discussion?

That is a huge communication problem. It is frustrating hearing someone say I said something, which I never said... and not once, twice, three times.... but over and over again, and almost like indefinite ... even now.
I find it hard to believe these are honest mistakes.
If it is so hard to repeat what I said, accurately, then it must be equally hard to understand what I am saying, as was evident from our long discussions on one subject.

I am really tired Fly. I have totally lost the enthusiasm and optimism I had, discussing this with you. I don't think I can put this to the side.
I tried for a second time.
..and yes, the conversation seems one-sided to me, based on what I have seen.
Signing out.
You didn't answer the question....do you prefer I engage you from a conversational standpoint, or from a debating standpoint?

I suppose until you answer, I will go with what you said HERE and reply to your posts from a debating standpoint: "I don't mind someone stepping in to help, as you did, because I might be missing something, which the person may provide, and that happens. It happened in the case of the stick insect. However, having the view that I ask questions because I need help, is in my opinion, not appropriate, for debate forums. Q&A yes. Or some other DIR."
 

dad

Undefeated
Myths cannot drive cars. You could not drive your car if scientists did not base their theories on reality. In other words you are being hypocritical every time you go for a spin around the block.
Strange delusion. Try to face the reality that cars really have nothing to do with the pre flood world.
 

dad

Undefeated
No, you are saying that God is limited to the way you believe how God Created everything,
False. I am just saying we know He is not a liar. He told us how it was done.
Science just uses the Objective verifiable evidence as how our physical existence naturally is.
Naturally just means 'of this nature'. No. God did not use a nature that only came into place after the flood at the time of creation. Ridiculous.

God can use whatever methods God chooses.
He cannot lie. Really. He has to have did just what He says He did. The big bang does not fit the bill.

Science is simply descriptive and does not determine God's methods.
It has no God anywhere in it's little scheme of things. It limits itself to the physical and present natural world. It has assumed/believed that this represents the past also, and has modeled the past accordingly. The result is a totally bogus nightmare scenario of the past that is nothing remotely similar to reality!

I do not believe that God Creates contradictions in the nature of our physical existence, and that is what you propose.

Our nature as far as we know is limited by distance (we have been nowhere else) and by time (we cannot go into the past on earth to see what nature was like). Science has disregarded the limits and proclaimed things about the future and past based only on today that are insane fables.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
~$15.00

$_35.JPG

Online it is all free, and ignored.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
BTW @nPeace in your last post to me you accused me of "claiming I said things I never did say". Since we are in debate mode, I will now demonstrate how that is a false accusation. Here are the things I described about you saying or doing (in my previous post)....

"you tacitly admitted that you've not read through scientific journals on evolutionary biology, taken courses in evolutionary biology, or attended conferences on evolutionary biology"

In THIS POST I asked "Have you spent significant amounts of time pouring through the scientific literature? Have you been attending evolutionary biology conferences? Have you taken any college level courses in evolutionary biology?" In YOUR REPLY you dodged, which I told you I took as a tacit admission that you'd not done any of those things. You did not object to that conclusion, thus it stands unrefuted.

"You also chastised me for attempting to "tutor" you on the subject."

In THIS POST you stated "Please don't think that when I ask a question, I am asking for a tutoring. Please?"

"you accused me of being "serpent like""

In THIS POST you stated "Your actions, I consider to be serpent like."

And finally "reminding me that this is a debate forum and as such you're here to debate".

We've been over this before, but again in THIS POST you stated "However, having the view that I ask questions because I need help, is in my opinion, not appropriate, for debate forums".

In sum, your accusation that I "claimed things you didn't say" is demonstrably false.
 

Astrophile

Active Member
A pretty lame assumption to think that the nature (natural) things we see happening today would tell us about a supernatural creation by a supernatural being a long long time ago!

Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly. The only scientific or naturalistic explanation for the observed pattern of genetic similarities and differences between living things is that they are descended from a common ancestor. This is only another way of saying that living things have evolved, and that species are not immutable. Since you, and other creationists, refuse to accept the fact of evolution, you have to say that the observed genetic similarities and differences are the result of supernatural creation.

Just because it is far far above your paygrade and that of so called science does not mean that creation explains nothing. As you say, it explains everything! (but science understands nothing about it)

I did not say that creation explains everything; I said that it can explain anything. This means that it is not a scientific theory and that in reality it explains nothing. A 'theory' that can explain any conceivable observation can never make a testable prediction, can never say why one thing happens rather than another, and can never be proved wrong.

A scientific theory must be capable of being proved wrong by some conceivable observation. For example, Newton's theory of gravitation could not explain the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, therefore it was wrong and had to be replaced by Einstein's theory of general relativity. Is there any observation that could prove that the theory of creation is wrong?
 

Astrophile

Active Member
The promises God gives far outweigh anything that evolution outlines.

What? Do you think that Zephaniah 1:2-3, Matthew 7:23, Isaiah 66:24 and Mark 9:43-48, Revelation 20:15, and Revelation 22:18-19 outweigh the wonderful story of geological history and the evolution of life? Even if what you say is true, the promises that God gives do not imply that the scientific account of evolution is false.

Also, do you have anything to say about my argument that the observed genetic pattern of similarities and differences between living things can be explained only by descent from common ancestors?
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
And so you believe the conjectures evolutionists make about the random trial occurrences that led to plants and animals.

It's amazing that you can get so many things wrong in just one sentence.

What's an evolutionist? Is it someone who believes in evolution? Like me? I don't make conjectures about "random trial occurrences" (whatever that's supposed to be).

What I do believe is the knowledge that scientists (biologists, geologists, physicists, etc) have accumulated over the past two hundred years.

Among these scientists are many, many Christians. Folks just like you except they weren't indoctrinated quite as severely as you apparently were.



At least shunyadragon gave a complex answer. I guess the book you recommend has it for dummies like me to wonder, "how did they figure THAT out?" By now I figure it's mainly guesswork as to what happened, how it happened, because yes, you'd have to figure what happened at the beginning until millions (or is it billions) of years after that, from the one-celled organism(s) moving into other forms. It's almost like a game.

If shunadragon thinks he can educate you, that's his business. I'll not waste my time. Nothing I say can overcome your early childhood indoctrination. I posted the book sarcastically knowing you had no interest in actually learning anything.


Meantime, do I take vaccines? Yes.

So? Are you trying to show that you believe in science? Big whoop. You believe in science only to the point where it conflicts with your deeply indoctrinated religious beliefs. When there is a conflict you turn to the myths of your childhood.
 

dad

Undefeated
Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly. The only scientific or naturalistic explanation for the observed pattern of genetic similarities and differences between living things is that they are descended from a common ancestor.
In other words the only present nature based explanation science can find is....blah blah.
How about they descended from created kinds off the ark? What would you expect to see if this were the case other than what we do see?? Have you some reason to claim that created kinds of animals would not have been created using some of the same ingredients?

This is only another way of saying that living things have evolved, and that species are not immutable.
Species or kinds on the ark were anything but immutable! They all had the gift of being able to adapt and evolve to the chaned world as needed, and rapidly at that time also. Possible the ability to evolve on their feet...alive...rather than just pass changes via reproduction!? Today, in this nature animals still have an ability to adapt and evolve, but of course now this has to happen within the confines of the present laws.

Since you, and other creationists, refuse to accept the fact of evolution, you have to say that the observed genetic similarities and differences are the result of supernatural creation.
?? Evolving is fine! The problem for you is you do not know where it started, or in what nature! In the former nature, apparently most animals and man could not even leave fossil remains! So you look at the fossil record and totally misread it!


I did not say that creation explains everything; I said that it can explain anything.
So can it, or not?

This means that it is not a scientific theory and that in reality it explains nothing.
Since science is just something that works in this nature, science cannot explain anything! Science and theories of science are limited to this present state/nature. That rules out science as having any possible ability to model the past according to reality!

A 'theory' that can explain any conceivable observation can never make a testable prediction, can never say why one thing happens rather than another, and can never be proved wrong.
Of course truth could never be proven wrong since it is right! On the pitiful other hand though, science is constantly proved wrong, and that is because it is wrong! Simple.
A scientific theory must be capable of being proved wrong by some conceivable observation.
Irrelevant to origins issues. Science that is of this nature cannot prove anything wrong or tight in the former nature! All it can do is try to use this present nature and laws and forces and processes etc to try and explain where everything came from! Pathetic religion.

For example, Newton's theory of gravitation could not explain the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, therefore it was wrong and had to be replaced by Einstein's theory of general relativity. Is there any observation that could prove that the theory of creation is wrong?
Nothing about gravity in the solar system matters in origins issues! Yes, science of the fishbowl is fine IN the fishbowl! In this solar system area, and in this present time and nature on earth...great! Thus far and no further...they shall not pass. Evermore.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It's more than a "possibility". Relatedness testing is used in courts to establish things like paternity, and is considered to be almost foolproof (over 99% accuracy).


Relatedness simply means being related. It can apply at the individual level (you are closely related to your siblings), at the group level (I am related to people from Germany), or at the species level (humans are related to chimps).

In basic terms, the genetic tests are conducted by comparing genetic sequences and looking for shared mistakes in the same location in the genomes. So if we wanted to see if you were the father of a baby, we would compare sections of your genome to the baby's, and if they both showed the same pattern of mutations in the same locations, we would conclude that you are the father. Given the size of the genomes, it's far too improbable to conclude that the shared mistakes are mere coincidence.


You may not accept it, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. I've had other creationists tell me that they believe God controls everything, including mutations that lead to deformities and disease.
They do not have the right viewpoint of things if they believe that God controls mutations leading to deformities and disease. Since you say you are related to people from Germany, that does not mean that you evolved from ... whatever the closest genetic relative such as may be a bonobo is concerned. It means you have similar genes, that's all. The human family is genetically related. I don't know if there's a lesser genetic difference among humans than between humans and chimpanzees or bonobos. What do you think?
It doesn't mean those genes came about by themselves, but when fishes came about, for instance, as a different kind/form (whatever) from plants or elephants, let's say, it does not mean that God could not take genes and assemble them as he desired. We know that these things have to mate (animals at least) to produce offspring and changes and problems can obviously occur. But to say that God formed deformities is going against the context of what the Bible really says. Does he allow it? Yes. Does he cause it? No.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I have no idea what "explosion of the articles" you are talking about.

...Even to a blind man, the sun is very different from the moon. Do you think people back then got moon tans or moon burn?

In any case, stars are not different from the sun. You really should have known that since the third grade. And I guess God didn't tell Paul.

Did you not notice that there was no mention of planets. Could it be God didn't tell Paul they were different from stars?

Do you understand that many of the "stars" that you see and that the Bible writers saw are not stars, but are distant galaxies? I guess God didn't bother to tell them that either.

Everything that Paul writes about is "apparent" to the naked eye. Many of the things that Paul writes about are wrong. I guess you were trying to make a point but I have no idea what it could have been.

Thanks for verifying what I said earlier...
The draw of Genesis is that it is simple. God did this and God did that and someone did this and someone did that. All on a level that a second-grader can comprehend.
Let me understand what you think here. Are you saying, in essence, that Mars, Jupiter, the Earth, etc. are the same? Surely not even identical twins are the same. But Mars, Jupiter, the earth, etc. don't even look alike, do they?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You know that the sun and moon are visible from earth and look differently from each other, right?

So what’s so remarkable about Paul’s observation, that anybody who can look up can easily make? :shrug:
It seems Paul included the entire visible heavens in his declaration of the heavenly bodies, differing from one another, and he called them glorious. Would you say that the earth and Mars and Jupiter are exactly the same, even without the trees, birds, and animal life?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
How else do you explain genetic similarities (in all living things, not only animals) other than by descent from common ancestors?
OK, explain this: from my research, scientists find genes in soil. Now I don't know too much about this, so let me ask you this first. Do you believe there are genes in soil, and if so, how did they get there? Puleeze, even if you think I'm dumb, can you try to explain it so I can understand? If not, well then, I'll just leave all the intellectual scientific stuff up to you and those who believe that there is no intelligent power that caused life to exist on the earth. To reiterate--does soil contain genes?
 
Top