Evolution My ToE

[Hockeycowboy]

Did Noah and his immediate family know about God's sons having sex with "the daughters of men"?
Did Noah and his immediate family somehow pass this information on to the Ancient Greeks, Romans, etc?

Of course!
You don’t think Noah understood why Jehovah needed to clear the Earth of violence?
Even his GG-Father Enoch, in his day, saw how bad things were.

The appearance of men stronger than others, inciting violence by taking women “all whom they chose”....you don’t think that would be noticeable?

These events left an impression in their minds...of course they passed this information on to their descendants!

These other questions, about ‘God having sex’, I’m not even going to dignify with a response.

The answer to most of your other questions, relates to God’s gift of Free Will bestowed to His sentient, intelligent creatures.
It doesn’t make God an incompetent Creator...it just highlights that God respects our privacy, and would like us to honor Him willingly, not because we’re programmed to.

You are a fine example of a person displaying Free Will, by expressing your anti-God sentiments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course!
You don’t think Noah understood why Jehovah needed to clear the Earth of violence?
Even his GG-Father Enoch, in his day, saw how bad things were.

The appearance of men stronger than others, inciting violence by taking women “all whom they chose”....you don’t think that would be noticeable?

These events left an impression in their minds...of course they passed this information on to their descendants!

These other questions, about ‘God having sex’, I’m not even going to dignify with a response.

The answer to most of your other questions, relates to God’s gift of Free Will bestowed to His sentient, intelligent creatures.
It doesn’t make God an incompetent Creator...it just highlights that God respects our privacy, and would like us to honor Him willingly, not because we’re programmed to.

You are a fine example of a person displaying Free Will, by expressing your anti-God sentiments.

The amount of deception that you accuse your God of is much greater than just cleaning up his mess. You are still claiming that your God lied.

 

[dad]

dad, you really need to watch yourself. I am the one that supplied evidence. You are the one that denied it. Or did you forget again?

Looking at your posts I see nothing at all actually. You supply spam.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Looking at your posts I see nothing at all actually. You supply spam.

.
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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Circular reasoning based on the religious application of beliefs in a methodical way. The results are no better than the premise

"Multiple indendent lines of evidence" is the exact opposite of circular reasoning. learn your fallacies.

Nor can any so called agreement (no matter how forced and contrived and altered several times) in dates be verified outside your mind.

That's a straight up lie.
Multiple independent lines of evidence of objective measurements do converge on the same dates. This is objective data - by definition not just "inside our minds". You seem to be projecting again, since you are the one who thinks that the beliefs in your head trump the objective data of reality.

Any agreement is in a fantasy land past that no one could ever check.

That fits your beliefs, not mine.

Name any data you think disagrees? The imaginary ages is not data, of course. That is conclusions based on beliefs alone.

Plenty of examples of such data in these threads, where you respond with nothing but denial and a priori beliefs that you feel contradict the objective data.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Any laws you want to project into Noah's day are faith based.

Which is just your faith.

Even if in some cases said laws did apply. But for any law or force you want to claim did apply we need evidence.

And we have that evidence. That you reject such evidence because it doesn't correspond to your faith based beliefs, is on you not on us.

That says nothing, but reflects a personal internal faith in your religion.

You're the one that follows a religion.

Post said supposed data and we all can have a look.

What's the point? It's not like you are going to give an honest response.

My job is to be honest about your insane position.

You're not foolling anybody - not even your fellow christians.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Creation is the null hypothesis.

Clearly you have no idea what a null hypothesis is.

"The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise." wiki

Creation was generally accepted to be true until science came along with supposed evidence that enough people believed enough to make it a new null hypothesis in their minds. What we now see is that the so called evidence was merely new beliefs.

Thank you for being so kind to demonstrate that you indeed have no idea what a null hypothesis is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@Jose Fly
Evolution as a philosophy

Philosophy - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Philosophy is a way of thinking about the world, the universe, and society. It works by asking very basic questions about the nature of human thought, the nature of the universe, and the connections between them. The ideas in philosophy are often general and abstract.
Philosophy is the study of humans and the world by thinking and asking questions. It is a science and an art. Philosophy tries to answer important questions by coming up with answers about real things and asking "why?"
Sometimes, philosophy tries to answer the same questions as religion and science.

The theory of evolution tries to answer questions creating an "evolutionary history" of living things.
The theory of evolution starts with a preconceived idea, or presumption, regarding the diversity of life on earth.
The dogma - the idea of universal common ancestry - is considered a fact despite any verifiable evidence to support it. All the circumstantial evidence gathered is claimed as evidence in support of the theory.
It is built on one idea on top of another, rather than solid evidence. These ideas are believed to be true.

There are numerous examples, but I will just use one...
"UCA is a fact, therefore we should find transitional fossils to "connect the dots" - one or more organism connected to another... all the way back to one. We won't find all, of course but plenty." After more than a century of unsuccessful searching... suddenly. "Ah! There's one. Oh. Some more. Oh. They are coming plentiful now."
Let's look.

Australopithecus anamensis

Australopithecus anamensis is the intermediate species between Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus afarensis and has multiple shared traits with humans and other apes.

Ardipithecus ramidus

Looks like it. No. This is a belief, or set of beliefs held by and taught as truth.
The beliefs go further than just biological evolution. Questioning dogma.

Is it one of Satan's designs?
What is a design of Satan?
It is designed to confuse, and lead people away from their creator, and his right standards. It promotes an independent way of thinking, and lifestyle... and materialism.

The idea of UCA and Darwin's idea of evolution is both a doctrine of men, and a design of Satan... in my view.
It is not the case that people necessarily set out to do Satan's will. It is simply a case of being misled because of their own desires. They choose to believe.

I lol every time some creationist tries to attribute the scientific theory of evolution to "satan", as if it is some kind of evil conspiracy.

It shows just how poor their case is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The so-called objective verifiable evidence apparently is nothing more than circumstantial evidence assumed, or rather presumed to be evidence supporting UCA.

No.

Comparative genomics is anything but assumption.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All I have to do is show, or point out that your beliefs have no claim in science.

It seems you'll have your work cut out for you to show how +300.000 peer reviewed papers on evolutionary biology are actually "unscientific".


How anyone can claim such things and expect to be taken seriously is beyond me.
It's one thing to think all biologists are wrong about biology, but to state such lies about it seems to be rather self-destructive.

That does not change the fact that they are unverifiable beliefs - no better than any other.

Another lie.
They can be verified. Each and everyone of those +300.000 peer reviewed papers on the topic detail their data, their methods and their conclusions. All of them can be independently verified. They wouldn't have been published in scientific journals if they weren't.

Next to that, we've already told you plenty of times about how tiktaalik was find.
If that isn't a verification of the theory, then you don't understand what verification is.

It was a straight up detailed prediction based on evolutionary biology, geology, paleontology,...
And it checked out amazingly. They found the creature in the place, rock, location and with the specific biological traits they predicted they'ld find. That's explanatory power for ya.

But continue sticking your head in the sand in full denial mode.... It won't make a difference to the science. You'll keep complaining on religious forums in willfull ignorance and meanwhile biologists will continue to make progress and publish papers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I lol every time some creationist tries to attribute the scientific theory of evolution to "satan", as if it is some kind of evil conspiracy.

It shows just how poor their case is.

The video says it all/

 

[shunyadragon]

You are happy with your belief. I am happy with mine.
I don't need to provide anything for you to compare your belief, and claim yours is better.
All I have to do is show, or point out that your beliefs have no claim in science. That's all.

Which you have failed to do, because at present you have absolutely no competence in science, nor have you presenting any falsifiable evidence nor scientific references to justify your beliefs, just foolish superstitious accusation that Satan is responsible.

It doesn't matter to me if you parade them as science. That does not change the fact that they are unverifiable beliefs - no better than any other.

What we are still lacking here is a working hypothesis, and objective verifiable evidence that support any alternative you could believe in. .

Still waiting. . .

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which you have failed to do, because at present you have absolutely no competence in science, nor have you presenting any falsifiable evidence nor scientific references to justify your beliefs, just foolish superstitious accusation that Satan is responsible.



What we are still lacking here is a working hypothesis, and objective verifiable evidence that support any alternative you could believe in. .

Still waiting. . .

You'll keep waiting.

The likes of @nPeace thinks that their mere religious beliefs will trump any contradicting science, just because they believe it.
They have no evidence, nore do they have sensible arguments. This is why they throw around silly nonsense like "it's a theory of satan". They don't have real arguments so they invoke magic instead. Both to "refute" evolution as well as to assert (their version of) creationism.

 

[nPeace]

I lol every time some creationist tries to attribute the scientific theory of evolution to "satan", as if it is some kind of evil conspiracy.

It shows just how poor their case is.

There is nothing scientific about the idea of UCA, but then you know that. You just won't admit it. Speak of poor case. We'll see who is laughing loudest last.

No.

Comparative genomics is anything but assumption.

Repeating this a billion times won't cause it to evolve to what you want it to be.
We know that they are even hypotheses to determine which hypothesis is the better... and comparative genomics is just one of those among others.
There is no getting away from the fact that your interpreting data is not a foregone conclusion.
If it were a simple case of Comparative genomics is conclusive proof, then it would be a done deal. Case closed, but that is not the case.

So feel free to keep parroting yourself, if it builds your faith in your beliefs.

It seems you'll have your work cut out for you to show how +300.000 peer reviewed papers on evolutionary biology are actually "unscientific".


How anyone can claim such things and expect to be taken seriously is beyond me.
It's one thing to think all biologists are wrong about biology, but to state such lies about it seems to be rather self-destructive.

All biologist do not agree with your belief. What does this have to do with biology anyway.

Another lie.
They can be verified. Each and everyone of those +300.000 peer reviewed papers on the topic detail their data, their methods and their conclusions. All of them can be independently verified. They wouldn't have been published in scientific journals if they weren't.

I'm not even going to bother giving you the information that shows you are lying for your beliefs.
Scientific journals are shot down all the time. Hopefully to the embarrassment of some of the "big boys".

Next to that, we've already told you plenty of times about how tiktaalik was find.
If that isn't a verification of the theory, then you don't understand what verification is.

LOL. Archaeopteryx is getting so much of a beating that tiktaalik is on their lips now.
I know you will never get it, because Atheist probably pray to Darwin every night, that their beloved belief will become true. So keep believing in your fish that never walked on land... at least where no water existed. LOL.

Like all the other so called missing links, it can't even be decided unanimously what is missing, and what's a link.
The artist deserve to get paid for doing a good job though.
A belief or set of beliefs held by and taught by a group is still a doctrine. Yours has Atheistic appeal, apparently.

It was a straight up detailed prediction based on evolutionary biology, geology, paleontology,...
And it checked out amazingly. They found the creature in the place, rock, location and with the specific biological traits they predicted they'ld find. That's explanatory power for ya.

But continue sticking your head in the sand in full denial mode.... It won't make a difference to the science. You'll keep complaining on religious forums in willfull ignorance and meanwhile biologists will continue to make progress and publish papers.

Accusing each other of sticking ones head in the sand, is a useless exercise, imo. That to me is like two children pointing at each other, and saying, "No, you." So I won't engage.

For your information, I sleep well at night, and don't even think about foolish and unbelievably ridiculous beliefs, some people hold on to... and then they say the Bible is full of those.
It's like someone saying, "I don't believe in vampires, but I believe in genies.

So no, you are mistaken. I am not complaining. This is a debate forum. You haven't forgotten, have you? I'm just debating. That's all.

As regards willful ignorance. Yes, we do see that, and expect it, because the Bible tells us there will be people who will block their ears from hearing the truth of God's word, and turn their ears to false stories.
Yes, we see that.

 

[nPeace]

Which you have failed to do, because at present you have absolutely no competence in science, nor have you presenting any falsifiable evidence nor scientific references to justify your beliefs, just foolish superstitious accusation that Satan is responsible.



What we are still lacking here is a working hypothesis, and objective verifiable evidence that support any alternative you could believe in. .

Still waiting. . .

The only foolish thing I see here is a claim to believe in God, while rejecting miracles, and a Biblical account and trading it for myths, and philosophies of men... and pretending that one has truth in the unscientific belief of ToE.
May you keep waiting. As it stand, people on these forums have been waiting for evolution believers to show that their belief is true.
Still waiting.

By the way, someone in this thread has been waiting for an answer from you for the last few pages.
Perhaps you are not interested, because you had another interest when you jumped back on this thread.

 

[nPeace]

You'll keep waiting.

The likes of @nPeace thinks that their mere religious beliefs will trump any contradicting science, just because they believe it.
They have no evidence, nore do they have sensible arguments. This is why they throw around silly nonsense like "it's a theory of satan". They don't have real arguments so they invoke magic instead. Both to "refute" evolution as well as to assert (their version of) creationism.

I was asked a specific question regarding Satan fyi. Otherwise I would not have mentioned him. My entire thread has been on information related to the title.
Perhaps you don't see those because you can't deal with them. Seems you can only see the post that are easy to ramble about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is nothing scientific about the idea of UCA

You mean outside of all the scientific data that converges on it from comparative anatomy and comparative genomics?

Ever heared of a phylogenetic tree? How are such trees generated do you think? Do you think it's just some guy drawing it while sucking it out of his tumb?

Sounds like it.

, but then you know that

Nope. Common ancestry of all life is a scientific conclusion drawn from all the genetic data at our disposal.

You just won't admit it. Speak of poor case.

There's nothing to admit.

We'll see who is laughing loudest last

Ow? Are the threats already coming out?

Repeating this a billion times won't cause it to evolve to what you want it to be.
We know that they are even hypotheses to determine which hypothesis is the better... and comparative genomics is just one of those among others.
There is no getting away from the fact that your interpreting data is not a foregone conclusion.
If it were a simple case of Comparative genomics is conclusive proof, then it would be a done deal. Case closed, but that is not the case.

1. no science deals in "conclusive proof", so you're just once again exposing your scientific illiteracy. it's getting old

2. repeating that it's not proper science a billion times won't change the fact that it is.

So feel free to keep parroting yourself, if it builds your faith in your beliefs.​

Says the fundamentalist who belongs to a denomination where denying any science that contradicts the fundamentalist beliefs is a core tenent of the religion.​

All biologist do not agree with your belief.

All biologists that actually work as biologists (and thus do research and publish papers on the topic), do.

What does this have to do with biology anyway.

Evolution is a theory of biology. You didn't even know that? :O

I'm not even going to bother giving you the information that shows you are lying for your beliefs.

Convenient

Scientific journals are shot down all the time

By your lot?

LOL. Archaeopteryx is getting so much of a beating that tiktaalik is on their lips now.

By all means, avoid responding to the actual point.
You don't wonna put yourself in a position where you'll have to question your fundamentalist beliefs, right?

I know you will never get it, because Atheist probably pray to Darwin every night, that their beloved belief will become true. So keep believing in your fish that never walked on land... at least where no water existed. LOL.

Juvenile playground level comments.

Like all the other so called missing links, it can't even be decided unanimously what is missing, and what's a link.
The artist deserve to get paid for doing a good job though.
A belief or set of beliefs held by and taught by a group is still a doctrine. Yours has Atheistic appeal, apparently.

And still not a word on the actual point of how tiktaalik (among others, obviously) was found by prediction.
Instead, just more projection and false accusations at the address of others concerning things you yourself are guilty off.

Accusing each other of sticking ones head in the sand, is a useless exercise, imo.

And yet, you just spend an entire post pretty much doing just that instead of actually responding to the posts.

For your information, I sleep well at night, and don't even think about foolish and unbelievably ridiculous beliefs, some people hold on to... and then they say the Bible is full of those.
It's like someone saying, "I don't believe in vampires, but I believe in genies.

Well, at least in this false analogy you are half correct by acknowledging that your beliefs are like believing in genies and vampires. ;-)

So no, you are mistaken. I am not complaining. This is a debate forum. You haven't forgotten, have you? I'm just debating. That's all.

You're not debating. Debating requires one to offer support for ones statements.
All you are doing is throwing around mere baseless assertions, accusations and denials.

As regards willful ignorance. Yes, we do see that, and expect it, because the Bible tells us there will be people who will block their ears from hearing the truth of God's word, and turn their ears to false stories.
Yes, we see that.

Pretty much every religion says that about those not part of the religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I was asked a specific question regarding Satan fgi.

Didn't see that.

But since you are so much into answering specific questions, perhaps answer @shunyadragon 's question. He's been waiting for a while now.

But you won't, will you?
You might reply to the post, but you won't answer the question.

 

[nPeace]

You mean outside of all the scientific data that converges on it from comparative anatomy and comparative genomics?

Ever heared of a phylogenetic tree? How are such trees generated do you think? Do you think it's just some guy drawing it while sucking it out of his tumb?

Sounds like it.



Nope. Common ancestry of all life is a scientific conclusion drawn from all the genetic data at our disposal.




There's nothing to admit.



Ow? Are the threats already coming out?


1. no science deals in "conclusive proof", so you're just once again exposing your scientific illiteracy. it's getting old

2. repeating that it's not proper science a billion times won't change the fact that it is.

Says the fundamentalist who belongs to a denomination where denying any science that contradicts the fundamentalist beliefs is a core tenent of the religion.​

All biologists that actually work as biologists (and thus do research and publish papers on the topic), do.



Evolution is a theory of biology. You didn't even know that? :O



Convenient



By your lot?




By all means, avoid responding to the actual point.
You don't wonna put yourself in a position where you'll have to question your fundamentalist beliefs, right?



Juvenile playground level comments.



And still not a word on the actual point of how tiktaalik (among others, obviously) was found by prediction.
Instead, just more projection and false accusations at the address of others concerning things you yourself are guilty off.



And yet, you just spend an entire post pretty much doing just that instead of actually responding to the posts.



Well, at least in this false analogy you are half correct by acknowledging that your beliefs are like believing in genies and vampires. ;-)



You're not debating. Debating requires one to offer support for ones statements.
All you are doing is throwing around mere baseless assertions, accusations and denials.



Pretty much every religion says that about those not part of the religion.

Okay. We can discuss the phylogenetic tree, and tiktaalik.
What would you like to discuss about them?

 

[nPeace]

Didn't see that.

But since you are so much into answering specific questions, perhaps answer @shunyadragon 's question. He's been waiting for a while now.

But you won't, will you?
You might reply to the post, but you won't answer the question.

He is only here to say evolution is a scientific fact, so if you don't have anything in science, to say otherwise, just shut up.
That is like a scientist walking around the community of scientist, as though he is wearing a badge, and saying, "Big Bang theory is the accepted theory, so since your theories don't hold up, and are not replacing it, you might as well just go sit in a corner, and keep quiet."
All the while refusing to discuss the problems, contradictions, and gaping holes in the theory.
That kind of attitude, imo, does not make for any kind of debate.
What is one to say? The only thing to say is - Well, accept and keep your holey theory. Bye bye.

If @shunyadragon wants to debate, then he must be willing to consider the problems that people raise. Otherwise, there is no debate... just someone hopping on the forum and saying, "What other scientific theory is there?"