What idea in it makes you not think of evolution as true? And poll

[Clara Tea]

We returned healed back from a mutation. Not evolved.

Reason. Water oxygen and all the heavens gas is earths heavens. The same body.

Variation is the amount of heat it owned by gas mass burning.

Reason we live today. By human sex. Not by human theories. Sexual creation brings forth human mutations a changed human or healthy humans.

If a human told the truth no human present as the conscious theist before my life... no theory. Instead like a science agreement they would claim instant human only.

Reason. Variant bodies exist within the same heavenly conditions are all existing as variables instantly seen also.

A lot of girls hear lots of theories, but still turn down sex (if they're good girls).

Mutations and adaptions are evolution.

 

[Clara Tea]

God created me in my mother's womb. He used what call science but it was all him.

You do resemble Him (made in his image). But what religion were you born into (that is, what religion is God's)?

 

[Clara Tea]

I vote yes.

I just watched this great video which is also very entertaining...its on how we are like a fish. I recommend it as a great example of the sort of work being done in evolutionary science presented by a researcher with enough of a personality to keep you entertained while being informed:

The greatest challenge for me to test evolution was to understand how evolution could operate to produce the results that it has in the time that is has. I think the greatest emerging principle I have for this is to realize that most of the work of evolution was done at the smallest level and that at the largest level of organism the innovation is less. This video shows just how prolific the re-purpose-ability of our various organs and structural parts are and i suspect this flexibility is baked in at a very early stage of development of organisms. The simpler and shorter lived our ancestors, the better a random lab they make for the generation of adaptable lines of species development.

I couldn't watch the whole thing, I had my head in the fish bowl.

 

[Clara Tea]

Like many who don't tend to have any religious beliefs that might interfere, I voted for it as likely being the best explanation we have at the moment, so still a theory but one supported by much evidence. Expecting to find conclusive evidence, and such as to make the theory as fact, might not be possible, given the timescales for events and processes to occur. Hence all the 'missing link' babble, and where the evidence proving one step from a previous one might never be found. But there is enough evidence as is necessary it seems to me - from my understanding of the subject.

Missing link babble? I hope they don't take away my banana.

 

[Clara Tea]

I think the question in title is enough
But I'll explain, I only saw when reading the Bible (I'm in Isaiah now, its a big journey!) the opening part as a story about how everything is, like people who said "because a huge snake died we have this huge river now" or maybe "because perseus took fire we have fire" an old explanation that made a God involved to do a ritual with but just a story

People do not just see like that way and why?
Do you accept evolution as truth? It's the poll

I vote yes

So that's how rivers and fire came to be. It gives me new reasons to be afraid of snakes.

I wonder if the musings of ancient man were valid?

 

[rational experiences]

A lot of girls hear lots of theories, but still turn down sex (if they're good girls).

Mutations and adaptions are evolution.

Do you think being good is not having sex?

Which would mean no sex no human life continuance.

You must own a thinking problem.

Sex brings forth a healthy baby or a mutated baby in the exact same atmosphere heavens. The state.

Reason is human DNA is damaged. As it should not be damaged is the highest healthiest correct form owner human reasoning.

No mutations should exist today if you claim evolution owned life's presence.

We would all be healthy yet diverse.

As a heathy bird and a healthy bird owned a changed beak.

Healthy humans own DNA national diversity as healthy changed humans healthy.

We healed from given received destructive mutative de evolution. DNA was damaged removed from health.

You only argue as you relate evolution to a new thesis involving energy and machine reactions. The I want it to be real. You are not arguing about life's presence or why life is sick.

So you don't argue theory in correct reasoning in secret science. Nor do you advise the public what you really are arguing for.

Natural human sex only owns any human life living today. Common sense owns human rights today. Not any theism.

In other words the mutation experienced by the baby was not yet caused created.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You do resemble Him (made in his image). But what religion were you born into (that is, what religion is God's)?

I don't as born into a family of Christ worshipers. God and Jesus are One.

 

[George-ananda]

Consciousness will eventually be programmed (or computer learned) in computers (which could control android bodies or robot bodies, or remain without a body in computer form).

In my understanding computers can do all kinds of things but they cannot experience subjective consciousness or experience feelings. Those things require elements that are not found in computers including astral plane (to feel) and causal (soul) plane (to experience consciously and subjectively) bodies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nature is a living breathing entity and enteries can evolve, so can a created entity do too. So even God created everything there is nothing wrong with a form of evolution, I don't say i believe in the ape to human Darwinism

Science doesn't require "belief".
It requires understanding which leads to knowledge.

And "the ape to human darwinism" is a genetic fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

death and corruption (and also life and incorruption) enters the cosmos through man alone, and prior to the Fall it was not so,

Which is demonstrably false since there are fossils (= remains of dead animals) far older then homo sapiens.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Science doesn't require "belief".
It requires understanding which leads to knowledge.

And "the ape to human darwinism" is a genetic fact.

The answer i gave is how I see it.

 

[Kenny]

I think the question in title is enough
But I'll explain, I only saw when reading the Bible (I'm in Isaiah now, its a big journey!) the opening part as a story about how everything is, like people who said "because a huge snake died we have this huge river now" or maybe "because perseus took fire we have fire" an old explanation that made a God involved to do a ritual with but just a story

People do not just see like that way and why?
Do you accept evolution as truth? It's the poll

I vote yes

It depends on what the word "evolution" means to you. IMV.

If evolution means that all that we see happened by chance? No. I believe that a Creator was involved. I think the fact that things have design and purpose dictates a Creator. IMV

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The answer i gave is how I see it.

And the answer I gave is me explaining to you that how you see it, is a mistake.
There's no need to be offended by that or to go on the defense.

There's no shame in being wrong and it is not offensive or insulting or "an attack" to correct mistakes.
There's shame in doubling down on being wrong after being notified of it, though.

The truth is that today, with all the knowledge that is readily available to us about how genetics works, with primate genomes (which includes humans) being fully sequenced and compared to one another... one can not reasonably be aware of this knowledge while denying it. Or "not believing" it.

The collective of primate DNA demonstrates that common ancestry of primates is a fact. A genetic fact.
As much of a fact as how the DNA of you and your siblings demonstrate that you share biological parents.

This honestly is no longer up for debate, and hasn't been for quite some time now.

If one is aware of these facts and still in denial of the logical conclusion, then one is simply in denial of reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It depends on what the word "evolution" means to you. IMV.

The meaning of the word "evolution" in context of the scientific theory of evolution, is not a matter of "personal preference".

If evolution means that all that we see happened by chance? No. I believe that a Creator was involved. I think the fact that things have design and purpose dictates a Creator. IMV

Your opinions and a priori religious beliefs aren't relevant to scientific theories either.

 

[Spirit of Light]

And the answer I gave is me explaining to you that how you see it, is a mistake.
There's no need to be offended by that or to go on the defense.

There's no shame in being wrong and it is not offensive or insulting or "an attack" to correct mistakes.
There's shame in doubling down on being wrong after being notified of it, though.

The truth is that today, with all the knowledge that is readily available to us about how genetics works, with primate genomes (which includes humans) being fully sequenced and compared to one another... one can not reasonably be aware of this knowledge while denying it. Or "not believing" it.

The collective of primate DNA demonstrates that common ancestry of primates is a fact. A genetic fact.
As much of a fact as how the DNA of you and your siblings demonstrate that you share biological parents.

This honestly is no longer up for debate, and hasn't been for quite some time now.

If one is aware of these facts and still in denial of the logical conclusion, then one is simply in denial of reality.

I am not offended i just wonder why you keep saying those who believe different than you are wrong.
No matter if you tell me i am wrong it is my personal belief

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not offended i just wonder why you keep saying those who believe different than you are wrong.

Because you were wrong there.
And not because you "believe different then me".
But because you are objectively, demonstrably, wrong about the specific thing you said about a scientific theory. Regardless of my own personal beliefs.

No matter if you tell me i am wrong it is my personal belief

So you don't care that you are wrong about this particular scientific subject?

If I express some thought about a scientific topic and someone brings to my attention that I am incorrect about the science... I don't by default double down on my mistake. Instead, I'll ask questions in order to learn, or I'll read up and correct my mistakes myself.

What I certainly wouldn't do is simply handwave it away while saying "this is just what I believe and I'll stick to my beliefs even if they are wrong, leave me alone".

 

[metis]

How did the divine creation happen to you?

Well, I'm proof that the Divine can sometimes make a mistake.

 

[exchemist]

I think the question in title is enough
But I'll explain, I only saw when reading the Bible (I'm in Isaiah now, its a big journey!) the opening part as a story about how everything is, like people who said "because a huge snake died we have this huge river now" or maybe "because perseus took fire we have fire" an old explanation that made a God involved to do a ritual with but just a story

People do not just see like that way and why?
Do you accept evolution as truth? It's the poll

I vote yes

Evolution is an obvious fact.

The current scientific theory of evolution is our current best model to account for it. So it is subject to revision in the light of new knowledge.

Neither is conflict with sensible interpretations of the bible, of the kind that have been current for the last few centuries or more.

 

[exchemist]

I voted "no." I am still in the midst of studying creation (and Genesis in general) with few solid ideas but one of them is that death and corruption (and also life and incorruption) enters the cosmos through man alone, and prior to the Fall it was not so, and after the glorification of the Elect it will not be so. This is plainly incompatible. I also question to method of giving existence to an essence, which seems to also be incompatible.

Over the course of my reading perhaps my opinions will change on the matter, although on that main thing about mankind I doubt it.

The idea that physical death arrived only with Man and the Fall would imply that God put the fossils (which are of dead creatures, after all) in the rocks to fool the scientists. Not to mention a lot more mucking about with the half-lives of radioisotopes and all manner of other miraculous tricks, to create the illusion of an old Earth and of the evolution of life forms (a process requiring death). That does not seem at one with the idea of a loving God who represents truth.

Far better, surely, to see the "death" that is said to have entered the world at the Fall as being a spiritual death: we were made in God's spiritual image but our moral weakness has, or had, wrecked that, necessitating a rabbi to come and teach the human race.

 

[Lain]

Far better, surely, to see the "death" that is said to have entered the world at the Fall as being a spiritual death: we were made in God's spiritual image but our moral weakness has, or had, wrecked that, necessitating a rabbi to come and teach the human race.

It would be far better to me if I could find good theological support for the idea but it doesn't seem to be nearly as defensible at this point in my studying it.