For the dismally ignorant

[Subduction Zone]

For your benefit I will REPEAT what I have already written since pressing the links is too much for your magic.

The only part I don't agree with in evolution is that man comes from an ancestor of apes, monkey, chimpanzees or orangutans. (unless science corrects itself)

Man was made by God.

Fine, thank you. Like I said, I genuinely did not want to put words in your mouth.

But the bad news is that you are still calling God a liar.

Do you want to know how?

 

[Kenny]

Fine, thank you. Like I said, I genuinely did not want to put words in your mouth.

But the bad news is that you are still calling God a liar.

Do you want to know how?

work your magic.

 

[Heyo]

That's better. Thank you.

First, as far as homo heidelbergensis is concerned, i believe Chris Stringer from the Natural History Museum in London, doesn't agree with everyone's hypothesis. Correct me if I am wrong.

Personally, I have no problem with all the bones that people find and I make no bones about it. As we continue to study the Bible, there is the viewpoint of a "gap" between Genesis 1:1-3.

I don't know what the beginning of the universe has to do with the emergence of humans.

Other scriptures point to "beings" that existed before the creation of modern man. Certainly it appears that they were similar to modern man.

I would assume you don't consider a spiritual realm and, if so, obviously we won't see eye to eye on my viewpoint.

I am able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Question. With all that has yet to be discovered as compared to what man knows now, what comparison would you make?

Relating to anthropology? I guess we have the frame of the building so that the overall structure is visible but there is a lot to fill to make a house out of it.


I know I should leave you alone as you are not as dangerous as the YEC and just a bit quirky, but I'm intrigued by the sudden collapse of reason at a certain point. YEC are at least consistently wrong.

 

[Kenny]

I don't know what the beginning of the universe has to do with the emergence of humans.

I am able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Relating to anthropology? I guess we have the frame of the building so that the overall structure is visible but there is a lot to fill to make a house out of it.


I know I should leave you alone as you are not as dangerous as the YEC and just a bit quirky, but I'm intrigued by the sudden collapse of reason at a certain point. YEC are at least consistently wrong.

Boarding airplane - will address tomorrow

 

[metis]

It was a great weekend!!

Yes... I am in the "man did not evolve" camp. On that point, I am pretty much a literalist.

Well, I can tell that you didn't evolve.

OK, let me ask you this: If all other life forms evolved over billions of years, why not us humans?

IMO, I'm quite positive we did evolve based on the overwhelming evidence, but I don't see that as being a bad thing theologically but actually a good one, as I believe revelation is also an ongoing phenomenon. Even the issue of faith appears to also be in that category.

 

[metis]

I think Quakers are amazing people (I have an extended family relationship from my son's wife that is a Quaker).

Ya, besides my testing as being more compatible theologically with them, I also went to a Quaker Meeting House in DC and listened to a spokesperson there on the subject. Fascinating, imo.

The word "spirit" is not the same word as "soul" in the Hebrew language

It doesn't have to be to arrive at the same point, as it is theologically possible that God's Spirit may be the power within the soul. I tend to think that it acts not like a theological encyclopedia but more like an impetus to move forward in faith as it's a meditative form of prayer, which I use extensively, btw.

 

[Subduction Zone]

work your magic.

Hardly magic. But I can understand that claim from someone that believes in magic. By the way, we did not even bring up the Noah's Ark myth. If you believe that you also have to believe that God is a liar.

But as to man, you seem to have been only focusing on the fossil evidence thinking that gives you some plausible deniability. The old bogus same designer argument. It is actually an argument for an incompetent designer, but we will leave that for now. You are ignoring the genetic evidence. And not just the same evidence that allowed Maury Povich to declare "You are the father!" which our genes loudly declare that we are related to chimps. But also in the DNA that is not affected by that bogus "Same designer" argument. Have you heard of ERV's? ERV stands for endogenous retrovirus. Very very rarely, as often as only once in a species or even less, a member of a that species will catch a virus. A retrovirus to be specific. Sometimes when a virus invades a cell it attaches to the DNA but something does not work. It does not produce countless copies of itself. A mutation that turns off that gene occurs. If this happens in a germ cells, a cell that forms sperm cells or ovaries, that inert virus can be passed down on as a bit of noncoding, or "junk DNA" to its offspring. ERV's were recognized by those that understood viruses. One was even carefully reanimated (carefully) at least once to show that it was a retrovirus. The attachment of ERV's are random. There can be a slight change in concentration, but overall it is a very random process.

And this leads to the only valid "odds argument" that I have ever seen in evolution. Using statistics one can show that the odds of our ERV's matching the ERV's of chimps incredibly low. We do have a few that they have and that we don't and vice versa. It has been about 7 million years since our split so a few new ones were picked up by both sides, but the shared ones show that without a doubt that we shared a common ancestor. We share a few less with gorillas, and few less with orangutans since we split off from those even earlier. But when it comes to the odds of the same viruses occurring in the same place there is simply no doubt. And these are viruses. They do nothing for the genome (there is going to be a very rare exception here and there because DNA is DNA and it can sometimes be repurposed. But overall it is just junk DNA that marks and illness in the past.

Do you need links? I will gladly provide some.


By thew way, if you do believe in the Noah's Ark myth which one do you believe in?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I can tell that you didn't evolve.

OK, let me ask you this: If all other life forms evolved over billions of years, why not us humans?

IMO, I'm quite positive we did evolve based on the overwhelming evidence, but I don't see that as being a bad thing theologically but actually a good one, as I believe revelation is also an ongoing phenomenon. Even the issue of faith appears to also be in that category.

I see that he is traveling for a day or so. But I always did think that it was rather blasphemous of some Christians to try to tell God how he made the world. If one actually studies the Adam and Eve myth properly it puts God at fault. The imperfections of man are rather obvious and do not need a mythical source. The story just allowed people with no scientific education to accept that they were not perfect. It does work that way.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It seems many are more likely to believe this than evolution as presented by science.

 

[Kenny]

Well, I can tell that you didn't evolve.

OK, let me ask you this: If all other life forms evolved over billions of years, why not us humans?

IMO, I'm quite positive we did evolve based on the overwhelming evidence, but I don't see that as being a bad thing theologically but actually a good one, as I believe revelation is also an ongoing phenomenon. Even the issue of faith appears to also be in that category.

In the arena of faith concerning you and I, Metis, it wouldn't matter as knowing whether we "evolved or were created" isn't the basis of our salvation or our shalom.

First and foremost on the faith side, I am a literalist on how God created us.
Secondly, scientifically, I can't see how an amoeba (or any other cell) can create the complexities of the human being even over 4.5 billion years. I don't see it reproducible unless man "creates" another human being by manipulating DNA which only support my position.
Lastly, socially, comes with a question. Have we evolved more than apes? Intellectually, are we more advanced?

 

[Kenny]

Ya, besides my testing as being more compatible theologically with them, I also went to a Quaker Meeting House in DC and listened to a spokesperson there on the subject. Fascinating, imo.

It doesn't have to be to arrive at the same point, as it is theologically possible that God's Spirit may be the power within the soul. I tend to think that it acts not like a theological encyclopedia but more like an impetus to move forward in faith as it's a meditative form of prayer, which I use extensively, btw.

I have heard that position. But, for me, it doesn't line up with the definition of the Holy Spirit that Jesus presented to us. Power can't be "grieved" or be "quenched". Neither does power speak or teach.

 

[Kenny]

Hardly magic. But I can understand that claim from someone that believes in magic. By the way, we did not even bring up the Noah's Ark myth. If you believe that you also have to believe that God is a liar.

But as to man, you seem to have been only focusing on the fossil evidence thinking that gives you some plausible deniability. The old bogus same designer argument. It is actually an argument for an incompetent designer, but we will leave that for now. You are ignoring the genetic evidence. And not just the same evidence that allowed Maury Povich to declare "You are the father!" which our genes loudly declare that we are related to chimps. But also in the DNA that is not affected by that bogus "Same designer" argument. Have you heard of ERV's? ERV stands for endogenous retrovirus. Very very rarely, as often as only once in a species or even less, a member of a that species will catch a virus. A retrovirus to be specific. Sometimes when a virus invades a cell it attaches to the DNA but something does not work. It does not produce countless copies of itself. A mutation that turns off that gene occurs. If this happens in a germ cells, a cell that forms sperm cells or ovaries, that inert virus can be passed down on as a bit of noncoding, or "junk DNA" to its offspring. ERV's were recognized by those that understood viruses. One was even carefully reanimated (carefully) at least once to show that it was a retrovirus. The attachment of ERV's are random. There can be a slight change in concentration, but overall it is a very random process.

And this leads to the only valid "odds argument" that I have ever seen in evolution. Using statistics one can show that the odds of our ERV's matching the ERV's of chimps incredibly low. We do have a few that they have and that we don't and vice versa. It has been about 7 million years since our split so a few new ones were picked up by both sides, but the shared ones show that without a doubt that we shared a common ancestor. We share a few less with gorillas, and few less with orangutans since we split off from those even earlier. But when it comes to the odds of the same viruses occurring in the same place there is simply no doubt. And these are viruses. They do nothing for the genome (there is going to be a very rare exception here and there because DNA is DNA and it can sometimes be repurposed. But overall it is just junk DNA that marks and illness in the past.

Do you need links? I will gladly provide some.


By thew way, if you do believe in the Noah's Ark myth which one do you believe in?

Hmmm... such a great post with so little on the subject we were talking about. Quite frankly, I can't even see the answer.

How is God a liar? (Before you change goal posts or bring up strawman arguments)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmmm... such a great post with so little on the subject we were talking about. Quite frankly, I can't even see the answer.

How is God a liar? (Before you change goal posts or bring up strawman arguments)

Really? You can't see? Who made the evidence?

And please do not accuse me of being guilty of your sins.

 

[Kenny]

I don't know what the beginning of the universe has to do with the emergence of humans.

In this fashion:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

vs - creating what we see.

So we find that (without a time frame) the heaven and the earth was created. - 4.5 Billion years ago? With beings, animals et al. where you can find the bones of what man thinks is our ancestry.

But a cataclysmic event happened and a recreation happened where man was created.

I am able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Thank you for that grace.

Relating to anthropology? I guess we have the frame of the building so that the overall structure is visible but there is a lot to fill to make a house out of it.


I know I should leave you alone as you are not as dangerous as the YEC and just a bit quirky, but I'm intrigued by the sudden collapse of reason at a certain point. YEC are at least consistently wrong.

LOL.. I call it "peculiar" to make it more in line with scripture.

 

[Kenny]

It seems many are more likely to believe this than evolution as presented by science.

View attachment 70964

It did change my life

 

[Subduction Zone]

In this fashion:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

vs - creating what we see.

So we find that (without a time frame) the heaven and the earth was created. - 4.5 Billion years ago? With beings, animals et al. where you can find the bones of what man thinks is our ancestry.

But a cataclysmic event happened and a recreation happened where man was created.



Thank you for that grace.


LOL.. I call it "peculiar" to make it more in line with scripture.

But there is no evidence for a recent creation of man and endless evidence to the contrary. You are calling God a liar again.

 

[Kenny]

Really? You can't see? Who made the evidence?

And please do not accuse me of being guilty of your sins.

You have to make it more plain how you went from point A to "liar". All you have presented is difference in DNA. Incidentally, they are finding that "junk DNA" may not be junk after all. Science continues to "correct itself"
Junk DNA Isn’t Junk, and That Isn’t Really News | Smart News| Smithsonian Magazine

 

[Subduction Zone]

It did change my life

So does Islam for many. So does Scientology for some. Heck, even Amway can change someone's life.

In other words: So what? That is not even evidence for the cause of the change in your life.

 

[Kenny]

So does Islam for many. So does Scientology for some. Heck, even Amway can change someone's life.

In other words: So what? That is not even evidence for the cause of the change in your life.

Do you need a change in yours?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have to make it more plain how you went from point A to "liar". All you have presented is difference in DNA. Incidentally, they are finding that "junk DNA" may not be junk after all. Science continues to "correct itself"
Junk DNA Isn’t Junk, and That Isn’t Really News | Smart News| Smithsonian Magazine

I was not talking about junk DNA. By the way, most of it is still junk. Go back and reread my post. ERV's are slam dunk evidence for evolution. You may not be letting yourself understand how. That could be that old creationist cog. dis. kicking in.

And asking about Noah and his magic boat was not moving the goalposts. Believing in that myth is another example of calling God a liar.