Evolution My ToE

[YoursTrue]

Categorically, and even logically, false. "Religion" posits deities and supernatural events, both of which are not found or are acceptable within science without objective evidence.

You really don't know what you're talking about. Ever hear of "forensic evidence", for example?

And what the dna testing is confirming is that the fossil record on the evolution of life that we have millions of evidence of, rather clearly show links to current life form even though there will always be some gaps. Just because you don't understand nor believe the evidence doesn't negate what we well know.

It's truly unfortunate that you church/denomination is lying to you on this, much like my fundamentalist Protestant church did to me decades ago prior to me leaving it. When any denomination teaches one to put blinders on, that denomination has to be declared "bogus" because the Truth isn't variable in either science nor honest religion.

Nice prayer there of Francis (of Assisi).

 

[YoursTrue]

The actual difference between us and chimps, aren't as big as you would like to believe.

Still can't mate a human with a chimp.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Q: How did all the species of life on earth come about?

A: God did it.

Yes, is that view supposed to be inhibiting in some way? It didn’t stop Francis Bacon, or Robert Boyle, or Kepler, from discovery.
Did it?

Q: But that's not what I asked. How, exactly, did God do it?

That’s what we’re still discovering.

Evolution occurs. Twenty years ago, fundamentalists refused to acknowledge any version of it.

Any version? That’s not accurate.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Is that a valid character? How? Beavers build dams. So do people. Based on your logic, use of characters and application to taxonomy, beavers are human.

Apes have been taught and communicated with people using sign language.

Based on my logic?
Do beavers use computers? Do apes?
I can’t chew wood. I may scratch my butt from time to time, though.
But neither of those are intellectual exercises. Are they?

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, you're telling me what these entities think and how they behave without ever demonstrating to anybody that they actually exist in the first place. If you can't demonstrate the existence of some thinking entity, how on earth are you determining what said entities are thinking or feeling?

And you seem to be telling me that the Bible can only be understood once a person is already a believer? Sorry, but that's an asinine and illogical way of thinking.

Well, remember that (whether or not you believe it is not the issue right now) Jesus' disciples had trouble understanding everything he said. And not asking you to believe it, but I understand when the persecuted Bible translator Tyndale reportedly said before he was killed, "Lord, open the king of England's eyes!" Only God can open someone's eyes.

 

[dad]

The original checkers of the flood story were Christians out to establish evidence of the flood. Good Christians they were too. They reported honestly that they found no evidence to support the myth. Some of the later and even current checkers are also Christian and still finding nothing.
.

They were clueless as to what to look for, and armed about as well as a kid with a balloon sword intellectually and did the opposite with what little they had than defend the faith!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Based on my logic?
Do beavers use computers? Do apes?
I can’t chew wood. I may scratch my butt from time to time, though.
But neither of those are intellectual exercises. Are they?

Did ancient man use computers? Your logic says they are not human based on the criteria of computer use. You are diverting from the basic issues to your claims that I and others have been questioning you on. Clearly computer use is not a useful character to determine if something is human.

Do two different species need to share all traits? That does make sense, but seems to be what you are saying.

God parsing out genes among different species is not science. There is no evidence for it.

Every direction you twist just leads to questions you can't or won't answer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have just been informed that Christians that use the Bible are clueless. What an odd thing to say. What should I expect from someone that thinks the Incredible Hulk is an example of evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

Wait a minute here, I see some contradiction.

On the one hand you say that the scientific evidence is too complex and difficult for you to wrap your mind around and understand.
Then in the next sentence you say that it's all just conjecture anyway and doesn't demonstrate the veracity of evolution. (Evolution is a fact of life by the way. It happens.)

Do you see the contradiction in your statements?

I'm wondering how you've determined that the science involved in evolution is based on conjecture, if you have no real understanding of it in the first place? Perhaps you'd be better off stating that you don't know and just leave it at that. It's really the only honest answer, in such a situation.

It is conjecture when all you have is genes that are similar in various organisms to then say these rather complex organisms came about by -- themselves. Or to say, as apparently some evolutionists do, that similar looks means somehow evolution.
Moreover, if you understand it, let's see if you can explain the various things understandably, ok?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Did ancient man use computers?

No, they built the pyramids. Can you?

Your logic says they are not human based on the criteria of computer use.

That’s not my logic. (You like to misconstrue what others say, eh? That’s disingenuous, but it does display intellect.)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is conjecture when all you have is genes that are similar in various organisms to then say these rather complex organisms came about by -- themselves. Or to say, as apparently some evolutionists do, that similar looks means somehow evolution.
Moreover, if you understand it, let's see if you can explain the various things understandably, ok?

How do you think science postulated the origin of species? Not by your intentionally over-simplified description.

Evolutionary biologist do not claim similar looks means evolution. Where do you get this stuff? Are you just making up assertions to fit your religious views?

 

[YoursTrue]

Number 1, so there you have it I'm not a monkey because I'm dumber than a monkey? I still don't see how this proves anything. And to go a step further if I was all that smart I can swing from trees at lightning speed and communicate with my other fellow primates without arguing about it, and not only that I could band together with my other primates in the security of love and peace and nurturing!

Now you got it. Because a smart human should be able to keep the monkey characteristics and swing from trees, I suppose. (ok, only slightly kidding...) OK, so humans lost most of that body hair, and developed reading and writing. (Big deal...) They say. Plus most humans wear clothes. Just a few differences.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Clearly computer use is not a useful character to determine if something is human.

Why not, for modern humans?
If they don’t know...they can be taught, even to slight degrees.

Human intellectual capabilities far, far exceed any animal!

There’s part of the gulf. It’s a shame you don’t recognize it... it’s almost like you want to be an ape.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They were clueless as to what to look for, and armed about as well as a kid with a balloon sword intellectually and did the opposite with what little they had than defend the faith!

Defending the faith is not saying that all of the Bible is true no matter what. That is handicapping the faith. People with strong faith do not have the weakness of demanding that the obviously false parts of the Bible are true. Only the weak in faith have those unreasonable demands.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now you got it. Because a smart human should be able to keep the monkey characteristics and swing from trees, I suppose. (ok, only slightly kidding...) OK, so humans lost most of that body hair, and developed reading and writing. (Big deal...) They say. Plus most humans wear clothes. Just a few differences.

People did not lose their body hair. They are as hairy as chimps, at least in number of follicles. Human body hair is much finer and much shorter, but it is still there.

 

[YoursTrue]

when I asked you to prove that I was a monkey you gave me five options to say which one I am not, I chose the first one, I am the one that said I was dumber than a monkey there for that proves I am not a monkey LOL are you not reading your previous post before you reply?
Personally I think that saying I am a monkey is more ridiculous then the possibility of a flood or an ice age or dinosaurs. Not only that tell me why apes do not turn into humans now? Or whatever scientific term you would like to use for that animal that has fur and cannot talk? I wonder if an ape would appreciate a human telling him that he will transformation into a human?

Oh be careful, you might be pegged as a "creationist" with that type of reasoning (or questioning). LOL, about your last sentence. Maybe a bonobo or chimpanzee wouldn't WANT to be transformed into a human. Maybe they like being a bonobo and chimpanzee rather than a human.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Based on my logic?
Do beavers use computers? Do apes?
I can’t chew wood. I may scratch my butt from time to time, though.
But neither of those are intellectual exercises. Are they?

Apes use computers every day. Set up a mirror behind your monitor and you will see.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, they built the pyramids. Can you?

No. By your logic, I must not be human. Can you build the pyramids?

You realize your point makes no sense and has no bearing on the established relationship of man and chimps? No, I guess you do not.

That’s not my logic. (You like to misconstrue what others say, eh? That’s disingenuous, but it does display intellect.)

No, I do not and have not. What is not your logic? Then explain it. Not like you haven't the opportunity.

Funny how everyone that correctly identified the source of your dismissal of science is misconstruing your very easily understood position.

Is it genuine to do what you claim of others or avoid questions? You really need to turn your judging eye inward.

What is the scientific basis of your claim regarding the relationship of man and chimps? Please provide the taxonomic support for your choice of characters used to derive your conclusion. Explain why all the other evidence can be dismissed. I know a genuine person will provide me with honest answers and not persecution fables.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you look carefully at my post when you asked me if God lied I said "I don't know, I would hope not" you are the one that said God does not lie. Not only that the idea of faith is to believe in things without having to prove them so maybe "if" God is real then he withheld that evidence in order to give people an opportunity to have faith?

May I ask to whom you are directing this post? Thank you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why not, for modern humans?
If they don’t know...they can be taught, even to slight degrees.

Human intellectual capabilities far, far exceed any animal!

There’s part of the gulf. It’s a shame you don’t recognize it... it’s almost like you want to be an ape.

No one is disputing human intellectual capability. What has been questioned is whether that trait just differentiates us as a species or destroys the existence of an hereditary relationship. You claim it does and circle that assertion, but never support it.

You claim it means that we are not closely related to chimps. Stop repeating it and defend it.