Evolution My ToE

[TagliatelliMonster]

Part of the evidence is the Bible.

The bible is the collection of claims that are in need of evidence. These claims aren't evidence of themselves. Whatever evidence you come up with, necessarily has to be extra-biblical or else it's just circular reasoning.

Another part of the evidence is creation itself.

Calling the universe "creation" doesn't make it "created" nore does it provide evidence for anything.
And for something to be "evidence", you require a falsifiable model of the thing you're trying to explain, which makes testable predictions. So far, you haven't presented such a model. So how could anything be evidence of your non-detailed model?

"god created everything" is not a model. It's a bare, unfalsifiable, untestable assertion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your comment has no relevance to the post you are responding to, or anything said previous to it.

Well, the thread topic is about evolution. Gould would be relevant in context of such a topic with respect to his scientific work, as he was an evolutionary biologist.

What his religious beliefs were or weren't, is not relevant at all. Not to biology, not to the thread topic and not to his own scientific work.


Just pointing out the obvious. I'll go ahead and assume that you agree that the mere beliefs, or disbeliefs, of a scientist aren't relevant to that scientist's scientific work, or science in general.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your conception of your superiors in the past lacks wisdom.

Maybe genocidal, infantacidal, barbaric slavers are your "superiors" or "heroes", but they certainly aren't mine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do not disagree that death applies to once alive. Something can't die if it was not alive. But then here is one definition of abiogenesis:
From Encyclopedia Brittanica: (I emphasize certain words...)
Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex. Biogenesis, in which life is derived from the reproduction of other life, was presumably preceded by abiogenesis, which became impossible once Earth’s atmosphere assumed its present composition.

I'm not seeing how a definition of abiogenesis is relevant to the point about how "dead" is not the same as "not alive" and how "dead" implies "once alive".

Without quibbling over this too much, would you say that a lion that has died is non-living?

I already said in the previous post that "dead" qualifies as "not alive". But not all things that "are not alive" are "dead".

"Dead" is a specific type of "not alive".

I can understand your delineation, but life is not death

But death implies life preceeding it. The point.

Rocks aren't "dead".

, and yet non-living matter is said to produce "life."

Which is not a problem for the point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK, let's go back to the definition I just gave of abiogenesis from the Brittanica, which says:
"Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex."

What does that have to do with the point in the post you are responding to?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

VERY complex, I would say. From a unicell (they say) to hands, feet, teeth, kidneys and so forth. Increasingly complex, they say.

That gradual process is evolution and very well understood and supported.
Just because you choose to be willfully ignorant about the science of biological evolution, that doesn't make it go away.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not opposed to science.

Be honest.

Your religious beliefs demand of you to reject and deny any and all science that isn't compatible with what you believe religiously and don't pretend as if that isn't true.

You are religiously obligated to reject and deny any and all scientific evidence that demonstrates the biblical flood never happened.

You are religiously obligated to reject and deny any and all scientific evidence that demonstrates that all species evolved through a natural gradual process known as evolution, because it isn't compatible with your genesis myth.

ANY science that goes counter your biblical beliefs will be rejected out of hand, no matter how well supported it is or isn't.

On the other hand, however, observations are showing that the water level of the oceans is rising and putting coastlines in dire risks. Also, it's probably billions (not millions) spent on "space travel" and exploring outer space, instead of concentrating on working on the oceans which are continually being horribly polluted.

Please.
You have no clue what the budget is for space exploration.

If you knew, you'ld realise it's close to nothing in the big scheme of things.

FYI, it's not even a fraction of the cost for the US defense to even only maintain their nuclear arsenal with which they can destroy the whole world 300 times over.

Another thing you apparantly have no clue about, is all the progress and new technologies that space travel and exploration has brought us over the years. Talking about oceans, studying planets like Venus, Mercury, Mars,... teach us quite important things about climate and stuff, which in turn helps us understand earth better. Including its oceans.

You should drop the slogans, the propaganda and the dishonesty. Instead, try to inform yourself a bit on the topics you wish to discuss and / or argue about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here's reality -- what medical advances has knowledge of evolution provided?

Evolutionary medicine - Wikipedia

Evolution and medicine: the long reach of "Dr. Darwin"

How evolutionary principles improve the understanding of human health and disease

Relevance of evolution: medicine

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution supposes things. At this point I'm beginning to wonder if it's really science.

And the ONLY reason you "wonder" about that, is because it contradicts your religious beliefs.
If in fact your bible would say things that were compatible with evolution, I'ld bet everything I own that you wouldn't have any problem with evolutionary science, without you knowing anything more or less about it then you do now.

Too bad we could never test that.

But there's another thing we CAN test though....
We can go through scientific fields and evaluate the main models from those fields.

And my prediction is, that you will have no problem with models that are compatible with your religious beliefs, while you'll reject out-of-hand all models that contradict your religious beliefs.

You can take that prediction to the bank.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me ask you a question. What do you personally hope from life? You can't hope for anything from evolution because it just 'is.' but what do you hope from life? Or do you have hope?

Hint nr 325633 that your objection to evolution has nothing to do with the science, and EVERYTHING with your emotional reasoning and religious beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

Evolution supposes things. At this point I'm beginning to wonder if it's really science.

Based on your religious agenda you not only 'beginning to wonder if it's really science,' you have long rejected evolution without any scientific evidence. the statement 'Evolution suppose things' is not a meaningful coherent statement.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let me ask you a question. What do you personally hope from life? You can't hope for anything from evolution because it just 'is.' but what do you hope from life? Or do you have hope?

This again, again and again has absolutely nothing to do with whether evolution is valid science. It is dependent on your religious belief that 'hope' only exists if evolution is false.

Hope is an anecdotal and subjective attribute of human behavior, and actually everybody, except the mentally ill have hope regardless of what the believe religiously including Buddhist, Taoists, atheists and agnostics. Simply hope is part of life itself.

The bottom line is that it is bogus logic to conclude that people have to believe as you do to have hope, and has nothing to do with whether evolution is valid science or not.

I believe in God, have hope, and I am a scientist for over 50 years believing that evolution is the natural process of God's Creation of life and humanity,

 

[shunyadragon]

I have asked questions here as well as reading elsewhere and have found distinctly biased opinions and viewpoints from those who believe evolution is the truth about how life began and developed.

Again, again and again these are statements and questions based on a religious agenda. No you have NOT asked coherent meaningful questions here concerning whether evolution is a valid science. Your questions here remain anecdotal and subjective based on a religious agenda and not science.

 

[ecco]

So according to you, Jesus was not reaaallly telling the truth.

So according to many, Jesus did not really exist.

 

[ecco]

For God, we learn later in scripture (through Peter), a thousand years are as if only a day.

Peter, or whoever actually wrote those words, was not around to influence to writers of the OT. Those people believed a day was a day and stated that very clearly.

 

[ecco]

Adam and Eve were tested. If there were, say, 10,000 trees in the garden, and only one tree was forbidden, I do not find that unfair.

You miss the point entirely. Is that intentional?

It's not about how many trees, it's that Omnipotent God instilled in them a certain level of morality. It's that Omniscient God knew they would disobey.

-or-
Are you claiming your God is not Omnipotent?
Are you claiming your God is not Omniscient?

So, I figure that the manifest destiny of man was such, that we had to learn one way or the other. We are not robots, and as co rulers in the kingdom of God with Jesus, we needed to get real and grow up I guess.

And your God figured the best way to teach us a lesson would be to be deceitful with Adam&Eve and then to kill most all of his creations. Whatta guy!

 

[ecco]

The hellish creation claims of science could not get any lower.

Proof again that Dad believes science is a tool of Satan. There is no basis for any rational discussion with anyone holding such primitive, superstitious beliefs.

 

[ecco]

I don't think angels mated with humans.

I used the phrase: "Giants mating with humans". I did not use the phrase: "angels mated with humans". Why would you misquote me other than to make a strawman to deflect from the substance of my post?


I would have thought you were familiar with Genesis 6

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.​

 

[ecco]

Just because I read a book doesn't make me a Christian fundamentalist?

I wasn't going by what you read, I was going by what you posted.

 

[Alone]

I used the phrase: "Giants mating with humans". I did not use the phrase: "angels mated with humans". Why would you misquote me other than to make a strawman to deflect from the substance of my post?


I would have thought you were familiar with Genesis 6

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.​

Okay so I went back and looked at what you said, and you are right, you said Giants mating with humans. I was doing a little shopping in Walmart, so I was trying to take advantage of the Wi-Fi so I miss understood what you were saying because I wasn't as focused as usual, my bad.