Evolution My ToE

[TagliatelliMonster]

They do not have the right viewpoint of things if they believe that God controls mutations leading to deformities and disease.

Mutations that lead to "deformities and disease" likely won't be the mutations that get selected and achieve eventual fixation.

The human family is genetically related

Why do you believe that?
Because of the genetic evidence, or because you have to believe it due to the bible story?
Genuinely curious.

I don't know if there's a lesser genetic difference among humans than between humans and chimpanzees or bonobos. What do you think?

Off course there is.
Fun fact about genetic differences among humans:
There is more genetic variation between an african and his unrelated neighbour, then there is between a north european and a chinese person. Do you know why this is?

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.

There you go. "what the bible says". Your only objection to 21st century science that doesn't agree with you fundamentalist religious beliefs, in a nutshell: "the bible says".


Here's the thing: the bible is wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I guess the bar is just set ridiculously low?

Apparently.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are definitely some things in various textbooks taught to students that are NOT accurate, thus leaving students with the wrong information.

As noted by that poster, textbooks are continually updated, as new information comes to light. I realized that years ago when I attended university and was stuck buying older books because I couldn't afford the newer, more up-to-date versions.

So yeah, if somebody is using some old textbook, they may have something that has some small errors in it (the older it is, the worse it will be), but that problem can be solved by using the latest, most recent textbook publication that contains the most recent information available at the time of publication. Unfortunately, we can't go back in time and change printed materials. The great thing though, is that most information is accessible online these days so outdated textbooks have become less of a problem.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?

"Visible" being the key word there. Paul didn't know anything that anybody else couldn't have known by simply looking up into the sky. No divine knowledge required. And as another poster pointed out, the sun is a star. So did God forget to tell Paul that, or is it the obvious answer that Paul simply didn't know at the time, what we now know about the sun being a star?

As I just said in the post you were responding to ... the sun and the moon do look differently from not only each other, but from other objects in the sky.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Whoa boy. And you think I should not only understand this, but accept it? I accepted what they taught me in school because for one thing, I believed that was my job -- to remember what the teacher said and not to question if it was true and how did they know it was true. It was in my naive and innocent mind to believe it was true and way above me in the level of understanding, since these were the "good guys," teaching me, and wouldn't teach me falsehoods. They were the good guys. And my parents made sure I studied. And I got scholarships. Never thinking I wasn't learning da truth and nothing but. But thanks for trying to explain. I guess you believe that's the way it happened by chance force of nature.

And you don't understand it, so it didn't happen?
If that is your assertion, you do realize that is an error in logic, right?

 

[Jose Fly]

They do not have the right viewpoint of things if they believe that God controls mutations leading to deformities and disease.

According to them, nothing happens outside the will of God.

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.

I didn't say that. I noted that the same methodologies (i.e., comparing genomes and looking for shared errors) that tell me I'm of German ancestry, also tells us that humans are related to chimps. I hope you appreciate the difference.

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?

I think if you're going to try and discuss this subject, you take the time to learn at least the basics.

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.

According to most definitions of "God", God can do absolutely anything.

 

[Jose Fly]

Still not getting it, are you. .. and why not. Communication problems.... huge.
Here I am, explaining to you that you are missing what I am saying; pointing it out to you, and all you seem to care about is what you say, and what you want.
For example....
You say: "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."
I'm pointing out to you that you are saying things I didn't say.
Rather than acknowledge your mistake, or misunderstanding, or whatever, you proceed with your questions, which makes no sense if you realize and acknowledged that what you said is not true.
If that's not one sided, I don't know what is.

If you can show me where I said I am not here to discuss, it might make sense. Right now, it doesn't.
Take care.

I agree, there definitely are communication problems. So I'll ask again....would you prefer I take a debating stance towards your posts, or one more geared toward discussion?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you believe that?
Because of the genetic evidence, or because you have to believe it due to the bible story?
Genuinely curious.

Let me ask you a question in return as part of my answer. Are you saying that humans, of the homo sapien kind, no matter what family they were born into, are not genetically related? Your answer is ridiculous, as below. If it's not ridiculous, tell me why. Further, as you're telling me why you think your response is not ridiculous, you might consider mentioning if bonobos are more closely related to "homo sapiens" than a north European person is to a Chinese person. -- OK??

...
Fun fact about genetic differences among humans:
There is more genetic variation between an african and his unrelated neighbour, then there is between a north european and a chinese person. Do you know why this is?

Please refer to my previous paragraph about whether bonobos are more closely related to humans of the homo sapien kind than "north Europeans" and Chinese are to each other, thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

According to them, nothing happens outside the will of God.


I didn't say that. I noted that the same methodologies (i.e., comparing genomes and looking for shared errors) that tell me I'm of German ancestry, also tells us that humans are related to chimps. I hope you appreciate the difference.


I think if you're going to try and discuss this subject, you take the time to learn at least the basics.


According to most definitions of "God", God can do absolutely anything.

He can except for one thing, says the Bible. God cannot and does not, lie. Furthermore, some do believe that God makes deformed infants, makes people maimed, crippled, brain damaged in circumstances of life, but that is not true. Titus 1:2 exclaims: "in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began." He can do anything He wants, but is not responsible for mutations and horrible circumstances.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He can except for one thing, says the Bible. God cannot and does not, lie. Furthermore, some do believe that God makes deformed infants, makes people maimed, crippled, brain damaged in circumstances of life, but that is not true. Titus 1:2 exclaims: "in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began." He can do anything He wants, but is not responsible for mutations and horrible circumstances.

So when is someone going to demonstrate this is the case, rather than just asserting it???

 

[YoursTrue]

According to them, nothing happens outside the will of God.


I didn't say that. I noted that the same methodologies (i.e., comparing genomes and looking for shared errors) that tell me I'm of German ancestry, also tells us that humans are related to chimps. I hope you appreciate the difference.


I think if you're going to try and discuss this subject, you take the time to learn at least the basics.


According to most definitions of "God", God can do absolutely anything.

"Outside the will of God" is different than "God can do absolutely anything." I'm sure He can, but He does not. Titus 1:2 says, "in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began." (God cannot lie. Because -- He does not want to.)

 

[YoursTrue]

So when is someone going to demonstrate this is the case, rather than just asserting it???

OK, first of all, the Bible says God cannot lie. Not me, I didn't make it up. And, as you have gathered, there are various interpretations of the scriptures. I will do some reading and hopefully answer you in the future. Thank you. But! in the meantime, not to get off the subject, I was thinking (yes, I do sometimes), what medical advances has the theory of evolution made? In fact, the more I look at it, the more wasted time I see being spent by ridiculous philosophers who enjoy that type of game. To me right now, it's like a big game with evolutionists making up theorums.
I mean it's like you as a believer in evolution, think that I deny science. I don't. But -- I do not recognize that things like plants, trees, lions and people, came about via self-enforced (meaning 'natural selection') evolution. And with all that, despite your saying that evolution doesn't mean abiogenesis, how come it is you all guess (yes, guess) on what the first unicell might have been, but can't figure from where it came about? How come that isn't part of your theories? Again, it's ridiculous to play with possible morphing of cells into plants, animals, etc., but not be able to tell in reality what the first unicell was (it's all guesswork) and from where it came. It's all guesswork.

 

[YoursTrue]

"Outside the will of God" is different than "God can do absolutely anything." I'm sure He can, but He does not. Titus 1:2 says, "in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began." (God cannot lie. Because -- He does not want to.)

OK, let me put it this way. I have trust in God. That He will and always has done the right thing, according to HIS will. "Let your will be done," offered Jesus in what is known as the Lord's prayer. Talking also about the future of mankind.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

According to them, nothing happens outside the will of God.


I didn't say that. I noted that the same methodologies (i.e., comparing genomes and looking for shared errors) that tell me I'm of German ancestry, also tells us that humans are related to chimps. I hope you appreciate the difference.


I think if you're going to try and discuss this subject, you take the time to learn at least the basics.


According to most definitions of "God", God can do absolutely anything.

That the majority of creationists on here (perhaps all) have no apparent understanding of the science they ridicule, torture and deny is easily observable. They rely on their particular church doctrine and their favorite biblical interpretation that they treat as established universal truth to pass judgement on science and formulate questions devoid of real understanding and evidence. When these facts are pointed out to them, they fall back on persecution as a defense or ignore the observation.

One poster here has gone outside even the Bible to conjure up delusional tales of fantastically increased rates of evolution that would be observable over days, weeks and months. Even going so far as to claim some sort of observable transformation within individuals that certainly would not be evolution, has never been observed, is impossible and amounts to invoking magic as an explanation. I was prompted to laugh on reading that ignorance and the clear disconnect with understanding that it describes.

Having created your own threads to deal directly with these points, I know you and others, are aware, but it seems to me, it must be repeated regularly, since it as regularly denied and ignored.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, first of all, the Bible says God cannot lie. Not me, I didn't make it up. And, as you have gathered, there are various interpretations of the scriptures. I will do some reading and hopefully answer you in the future. Thank you. But! in the meantime, not to get off the subject, I was thinking (yes, I do sometimes), what medical advances has the theory of evolution made? In fact, the more I look at it, the more wasted time I see being spent by ridiculous philosophers who enjoy that type of game. To me right now, it's like a big game with evolutionists making up theorums.
I mean it's like you as a believer in evolution, think that I deny science. I don't. But -- I do not recognize that things like plants, trees, lions and people, came about via self-enforced (meaning 'natural selection') evolution. And with all that, despite your saying that evolution doesn't mean abiogenesis, how come it is you all guess (yes, guess) on what the first unicell might have been, but can't figure from where it came about? How come that isn't part of your theories? Again, it's ridiculous to play with possible morphing of cells into plants, animals, etc., but not be able to tell in reality what the first unicell was (it's all guesswork) and from where it came. It's all guesswork.

You do deny science. You also show a remarkable ignorance of science. At least on the topics of science you are in denial over. Having claimed an education on the subject, I find that difficult to reconcile.

 

[dad]

That makes no sense.

Let me break it down for you then. There is no evidence that man came from animals/monkeys/apes/ape like thingies etc. There is no evidence all life on earth is due exclusively to the act of adaptation/evolving.
There is evolving that we can observe here and now. That does not mean what your religion claims about the past.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, let me put it this way. I have trust in God. That He will and always has done the right thing, according to HIS will. "Let your will be done," offered Jesus in what is known as the Lord's prayer. Talking also about the future of mankind.

It all falls on a view that the Bible is infallible and dictated by God. As long as you maintain that BELIEF, you MUST deny science.

 

[dad]

That the majority of creationists on here (perhaps all) have no apparent understanding of the science they ridicule, torture and deny is easily observable. They rely on their particular church doctrine and their favorite biblical interpretation that they treat as established universal truth to pass judgement on science and formulate questions devoid of real understanding and evidence. When these facts are pointed out to them, they fall back on persecution as a defense or ignore the observation.

One poster here has gone outside even the Bible to conjure up delusional tales of fantastically increased rates of evolution that would be observable over days, weeks and months. Even going so far as to claim some sort of observable transformation within individuals that certainly would not be evolution, has never been observed, is impossible and amounts to invoking magic as an explanation. I was prompted to laugh on reading that ignorance and the clear disconnect with understanding that it describes..

I think it is time to stop denying that beliefs are not observations. What we observe today is today. What happened long long ago is not observed, but believed.

 

[dad]

Not at all what evolution says.




Yes, yes, we do not know that the universe and everything it contains, including our memories of having lived our entire lives, weren't created just Last Thursday.

Sorry you have trouble with reasonable evidence regarding last week. In origin issues, we would need to talk about what is reasonable evidence for claims going back millions of years (as science imagines time)

 

[dad]

It all falls on a view that the Bible is infallible and dictated by God. As long as you maintain that BELIEF, you MUST deny science.

No one denies science that believes in God, they merely do not accept conclusions called science that are based on blind faith alone. We separate the true from the false!