ElishaElijah
Return
Only a bare claim to those who don’t know or never read the Bible. @joelr is not one of those so do you want to do a Bible study on here now? Would gladly oblige
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Shroud of Turin is from first AD.
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
ElishaElijah
Return
That’s how you have to word things on RF otherwise feelings get hurt.Well it would wouldn't it, and your confirmation bias is hardly an earth shattering shock.
ElishaElijah
Return
Now you don’t understand prohecy
Sheldon
Veteran Member
You said it was all based on confirmation bias, then said in the same post scientists disputed facts pertaining to it, that's a contradiction.
The fossil record alone confirms species evolution, but it is not the only evidence, genetics as has been explained demonstrates unequivocally that human taxonomy means they are great apes, along with chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, gibbons, and orangutans. They are all apes and all different species, and share common ancestry, as of course do all living things. Disputing the overwhelming evidence for this fact, is now no less absurd than disputing the rotundity of the earth.
That's untrue, species evolution remains an accepted scientific theory in good standing, all one need do is flick on any news channel to see that. It's not hard to imagine the global reaction to the field of biology being set back to naught.
Another cartoon creationist piece of propaganda. The scientific theory of species evolution explains and evidence the origin of species and the diversity of life we now see, it makes no claims about the origins of life. Abiogenesis is one hypothesis, it is not an accepted scientific theory.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Oh it is childlike in its simplicity all right, and I have read it, and it appeals to magic and mystery, and has no explanatory powers whatsoever.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Now you don’t understand prohecy
Prophesy was never motioned, as it has no relevance to @questfortruth's false claims, which I listed and disproved, try reading the post before responding to it.
ElishaElijah
Return
What’s the mystery and magic part?
ElishaElijah
Return
See evolution scientists cannot prove that a chimp was ever anything other than a chimp or a human being was ever anything else but a human being.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Where it makes claims that a deity used inexplicable magic, and doesn't offer any clue as to how this is even possible, or even how an extant deity is possible.
ElishaElijah
Return
No they can’t prove anything of the sort it’s an opinion based on a theory, all evolution has shown is changes within species of say a butterfly or bird changing color or beak.
I’ve already seen the site you’re referencing. Here is the tree and notice what we know for sure at the top of the tree is Creation acccording to Genesis, anything below that is all a theory and opinion of how that happened and evolutionists cover their folly by using millions of years, no one could observe that and it’s all a fraud.
Last edited:
Sheldon
Veteran Member
You used the word proof, and no it's not opinion, and a scientific theory has a very specific definition, it's a piece of creationist propaganda that it is just a theory.
Nope, you're wrong, and I am not sure why you think I'd accept the biased subjective opinion of someone denying what is a globally accepted scientific fact.
You made a claim that species evolution was not evidenced, the site demonstrates a massive database of some of the scientific evidence contained within the theory of evolution, ipso fact you are wrong.
ElishaElijah
Return
I’m correct that evolutionary processes don’t work going from a primitive source at the bottom of the tree to what we see today with animals, vegetation, human beings, viruses and the rest of the variety of life. We see common design, and you may have a theory on how organs can exist outside of a body but they cannot, this suggests that everything would have to come together at one time not over millions of years.
Science is limited to the study of reality.
So spiritual people can detect the spiritual realm, but scientific equipment can't? That's impossible. There is nothing real that cannot be detected with the senses and the proper equipment in the proper setting.
Yes it does. To be real, to exist, means to occupy space through a sequence of instances and have the ability to affect and be affected by other real objects or processes. Anything to which that description does not apply is nonexistent by definition. Disagree? What are the conditions necessary to say that something doesn't exist? Undetectability, like vampires and leprechauns. They have no impact on reality, and therefore are not part of it. And please don't confuse the idea with that to which it refers. The idea of vampires is real and can affect reality (all those books and movies of the last few decades, for example), but vampires themselves are unreal and therefore undetectable in fact and in principle.
You don't understand the science. Homo sapiens, which is a species of great ape, didn't evolve through interspecies breeding.
It does to the only people who have a say in the matter, the community of evolutionary scientists, for whom this is all settled science, the objections of creationists notwithstanding. Don't be offended that they aren't interested in answering creationist objections. They also aren't interested in the opinions of lay people who accept the science.
As I said, all of that is settled science. Man definitely evolved from less modern apes. It's not necessary that you accept that, but if you don't, your objections fall on deaf ears. The scientists can't hear you.
Not to you, but the scientific community and scientifically literate lay people are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt (the courtroom standard for proof) that there was a time when a last common ancestral ape population that was neither man nor chimp, bifurcated into two lines, one eventually evolving into man and the other into chimps and bonobos. There's a fascinating hypothesis for how this happened that involves the desertification of formerly lush north African jungles, which cause the apes living in the trees there to have to adapt to life on the ground. This caused the need for animals that were never good runners to become omnivorous and to develop hunting skills called persistence hunting:
"Persistence hunting (sometimes called endurance hunting) is a hunting technique in which hunters, who may be slower than their prey over short distances, use a combination of running, walking and tracking to keep pursuing prey over prolonged time and distance until it is exhausted by fatigue or overheating. A persistence hunter must be able to run a long distance over an extended period. The strategy is used by a variety of canids such as African wild dogs, and by human hunter-gatherers. Humans are the only surviving primate species that practices persistence hunting. In addition to a capacity for endurance running, human hunters have comparatively little hair, which makes sweating an effective means of cooling the body. Meanwhile, ungulates and other mammals may need to pant to cool down enough, which also means that they must slow down if not remain still. Persistence hunting is believed to have been one of the earliest hunting strategies used by humans."
You can see how nature would select for a new body design, one that would include relative hairlessness for perspiring through the skin, bipedalism (arboreal apes brachiate on the ground) to free up the hands leading to improved manual dexterity, bigger brains and tool use. The dentition changed to include incisors for meat eating, the body shape changed as legs got longer, arms shortened, the waist got higher, and chests less barrelled (scientists say from robust to gracile as we see in the illustrations below), the snout disappeared as did the huge muscles for masticating leaves and nuts, and with them, their anchor points on the skull, brow ridges and the sagittal crest.
The ape on the left is an omnivorous, hunting, terrestrial obligate biped, the one on the right an arboreal, vegetarian, knuckle walker, because one spent the last few million years in jungle trees and the other on relatively treeless savannas:
The existence of no god has ever been confirmed, at least not by the standards of critical analysis. This would be an example of faith, or hat the last poster called "the assurance of things not seen."
It's the way that the Genesis stories DON'T lineup with reality that is significant. The Genesis creation story gets a few things right, but all creation stories do.
Creationism
Last edited:
I think it's up to the mods.
And yet more of this persecution complex.
Didn't you just say that this was banned? Are the mods coming for you with giant wooden crosses?
And why bother with this, even if it's not banned? You degrade your religion posting unsolicited scripture to unbelievers. What do you think it looks like to an unbeliever that believers return to this book for guidance or reference? How many of us do think read it? I see the book, chapter, and verse marking and skim by. I still haven't read those three scriptures, because why would I?
He said more than that on the subject, but yes, there is a better definition of faith than that one, which fails to mention the most salient aspect of faith, namely, that it is unjustified belief, justification meaning according to the standards of critical thought. The biblical passage also calls faith the substance of things hoped for. What is less substantial than unexamined, unjustified belief? According to the Bible, faith is a virtue that pleases God, so that is also part of the biblical definition of faith, but where's the virtue in choosing to believe without sufficient reason? Assurance in this context is unjustified certitude, also not a virtue.
I've seen them. Your definition of banning is pretty far from anybody else's. I just saw your definition for faith, and I've seen what you call proofs.
Yes it is. It is belief without sufficient evidence. Evidence is the noun form of the adjective evident, meaning evident to the senses. Belief supported by evidence and blind belief, or belief lacking that, are the only two ways to come by beliefs, the latter being blind. If you cross the street after looking, you can conclude that it is safe to cross only by looking both ways, that is, gathering evidence. Or, you can close your eyes and cross on faith that you will be safe.
Do you understand that when you begin with an unshared premise, noting that follows can be considered sound? This syllogism has one explicitly stated premise (the first two sentences comprise one thought), and unstated premise, namely, that general relativity exists, and a valid but unsound conclusion. This syllogism could be rescued by making it conditional, that is, beginning with, "If there is a god who made everything." Now it is correct.
Incidentally, were you aware that when asked by a student what he would have done if Sir Arthur Eddington's 1919 gravitational lensing experiment, which confirmed relativity, had instead disproved it. Einstein answered, "Then I would have felt sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct."
As with everybody else here on RF, your only credentials are the quality of your posts. Your intelligence is judged by them, not claimed credentials. Besides, critiquing your reasoning and identifying the fallacies there is not insulting. If you feel offended, that's on you.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Totally wrong, as usual.
What we see is only evidence for evolution. Unfortunately you have no education in this. You refuse to even learn what qualifies as evidence. The closest analogy I can think of that you might appreciate is that when it comes to evolution you are similar to someone that is trying to refute the Bible and has never read it and refuses to do so.
ElishaElijah
Return
So because you or science cannot detect spiritual things and are blind to them or don’t recognize them then it’s not reality? If you sow lying, stealing and deceit will you end up receiving a blessing or a curse? If I am a generous person will I receive blessing or cursing? These are spiritual laws and realities.
Hey if you want to believe you’re equivalent to an ape go for it. All you’re showing is there is common design. Also by ignoring half of the scientist that see the evidence from the fossil record verifying creation and the Bible only shows bias in science.Science is limited to the study of reality.
So spiritual people can detect the spiritual realm, but scientific equipment can't? That's impossible. There is nothing real that cannot be detected with the senses and the proper equipment in the proper setting.
Yes it does. To be real, to exist, means to occupy space through a sequence of instances and have the ability to affect and be affected by other real objects or processes. Anything to which that description does not apply is nonexistent by definition. Disagree? What are the conditions necessary to say that something doesn't exist? Undetectability, like vampires and leprechauns. They have no impact on reality, and therefore are not part of it. And please don't confuse the idea with that to which it refers. The idea of vampires is real and can affect reality (all those books and movies of the last few decades, for example), but vampires themselves are unreal and therefore undetectable in fact and in principle.
You don't understand the science. Homo sapiens, which is a species of great ape, didn't evolve through interspecies breeding.
It does to the only people who have a say in the matter, the community of evolutionary scientists, for whom this is all settled science, the objections of creationists notwithstanding. Don't be offended that they aren't interested in answering creationist objections. They also aren't interested in the opinions of lay people who accept the science.
As I said, all of that is settled science. Man definitely evolved from less modern apes. It's not necessary that you accept that, but if you don't, your objections fall on deaf ears. The scientists can't hear you.
Not to you, but the scientific community and scientifically literate lay people are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt (the courtroom standard for proof) that there was a time when a last common ancestral ape population that was neither man nor chimp, bifurcated into two lines, one eventually evolving into man and the other into chimps and bonobos. There's a fascinating hypothesis for how this happened that involves the desertification of formerly lush north African jungles, which cause the apes living in the trees there to have to adapt to life on the ground. This caused the need for animals that were never good runners to become omnivorous and to develop hunting skills called persistence hunting:
"Persistence hunting (sometimes called endurance hunting) is a hunting technique in which hunters, who may be slower than their prey over short distances, use a combination of running, walking and tracking to keep pursuing prey over prolonged time and distance until it is exhausted by fatigue or overheating. A persistence hunter must be able to run a long distance over an extended period. The strategy is used by a variety of canids such as African wild dogs, and by human hunter-gatherers. Humans are the only surviving primate species that practices persistence hunting. In addition to a capacity for endurance running, human hunters have comparatively little hair, which makes sweating an effective means of cooling the body. Meanwhile, ungulates and other mammals may need to pant to cool down enough, which also means that they must slow down if not remain still. Persistence hunting is believed to have been one of the earliest hunting strategies used by humans."
You can see how nature would select for a new body design, one that would include relative hairlessness for perspiring through the skin, bipedalism (arboreal apes brachiate on the ground) to free up the hands leading to improved manual dexterity, bigger brains and tool use. The dentition changed to include incisors for meat eating, the body shape changed as legs got longer, arms shortened, the waist got higher, and chests less barrelled (scientists say from robust to gracile as we see in the illustrations below), the snout disappeared as did the huge muscles for masticating leaves and nuts, and with them, their anchor points on the skull, brow ridges and the sagittal crest.
The ape on the left is an omnivorous, hunting, terrestrial obligate biped, the one on the right an arboreal, vegetarian, knuckle walker, because one spent the last few million years in jungle trees and the other on relatively treeless savannas:
View attachment 64095View attachment 64096
The existence of no god has ever been confirmed, at least not by the standards of critical analysis. This would be an example of faith, or hat the last poster called "the assurance of things not seen."
It's the way that the Genesis stories DON'T lineup with reality that is significant. The Genesis creation story gets a few things right, but all creation stories do.
Creationism
View attachment 64094
We see the same thing in the news today, bias and reporting only the narrative they want the public to see. By the time the fraudulent information gets out half the people still believe the lie.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That was not what he said or implied. Science cannot study the woo woo because there is no reliable evidence for it.
Oh my, once again, you are an ape. You are the equivalent of an ape. That is just a fact. It is not a slur. It is not an attack. And you keep forgetting. You won't let yourself learn so you are in no position to make any comments about evidence for a common Incompetent Designer. Now you may wish to believe in an Incompetent Designer, but if you want to try to claim it is real then you will have to face the facts that all of the reliable evidence says that you are wrong.
I defined real for you. And I defined nonexistent. Things that are undetectable both in practice and in principle are nonexistent things.
Is that what you mean by spiritual things? Why do you think that one needs special senses to learn which behaviors facilitate well-being and which bring the opposite? What you call spiritual knowledge, I call wisdom. I learned to avoid those things by trial-and-error (empirically). I tried them all as a boy and discovered which behaviors produced desired outcomes. I remember the day in grade school I discovered that telling the truth wasn't just something I was being advised to do, but something that made life easier and better, just like being polite and well groomed. You see what the opposite brings and then decide which path to follow.
Most people making claims like yours are claiming to sense things like gods using special powers of discernment that let them see further than empiricists. You're just claiming to have learned what is apparent to any sufficiently astute person.
Even if man was created, he was created as an ape. It's a definition from biology. Put all the animals with backbones together and you have the vertebrates. Would you agree that man fits into this group?
Separate out the ones with fur and hair in place of scales and feathers, and where the females have a uterus and lactate, and you have separated out the mammals. Does this not describe man? Is he not only a vertebrate, but a mammal as well?
Then separate out the ones with hands with nails and an opposable thumb, bony eye sockets holding eyes with stereoscopic color vision, an enlarged cerebral cortex relative to other mammals of similar size, and you have the mammals that are primates. Man is in this group, making man a primate as well as a mammal and a vertebrate.
Then separate out the ones with no tails, and you have the primates that are apes. Man is in this group, too. You lost the lemurs and monkeys, but not the gibbons, siamangs, orangutans, gorillas, chimps and bonobos, nor man. He's still there in that clade, the apes. Why wouldn't he be?
Then separate out the relatively hairless, bipedal ones with language, and you have the ape that is human.
This is how nested hierarchies work. We can do the same with other nested hierarchies, like the religions. Separate out the believers with one creator god and you have the monotheists. Separate out the monotheists whose god is Jesus and you have the Christians, still monotheists. Separate out the ones that left the Roman Catholic Church, and you have Protestants, still monotheists and Christians. We can continue this process until we get to a specific denomination analogous to getting to a single species like man (notice the relationship between specific and species; also, special), and they never cease being members of the larger group from which they were separated out.
Any scientist advocating biblical creation, which is far fewer than half, isn't being scientific, and most that are creationists are not biologists, meaning that their opinions don't factor in the decisions of biologists, as it should be.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the fossil record to support creationism over naturalistic biological evolution.
Finally, as I've already explained, there is no interest in faith-based beliefs in the scientific community, even from other scientists. Science is an empirical pursuit. If you can't provide compelling supporting evidence for your belief, you're not doing science, and other scientists are uninterested in such insufficiently evidenced beliefs . And why should it be any other way?
We see some variation of that comment from every minority contingent with an unevidenced belief - some conspiracy to exclude them based in some unwholesome motive. It's very common with creationists, for example, who claim that scientific journal referees exclude their papers without cause.
The "alternative medicine" people say it about mainstream medicine. The antivaxxers say it about the government and Bill Gates, the election hoax people say it about the voting machine manufacturers and the Democrats, and the climate deniers say it about the climate scientists and Al Gore. They all claim that people are conspiring against them for selfish reasons.