MOVED FROM OUTREACH: Scary Evolution O.O

[AV1611VET]

And as Edx said, if something is not based on evidence, it is blind. Faith is not evidence, nor is it based on it. It cannot be checked, it cannot be tested, it is not objective.


Which was exactly my point. Faith is not based on evidence, nor, apparantly, is it evidence.

Well, I just though I'd let you know what the Bible says about it, seeing as this is a Christian Forum and all, and let you guys take it from there.

 

[Tomk80]

Well, I just though I'd let you know what the Bible says about it, seeing as this is a Christian Forum and all, and let you guys take it from there.

Not hardly. You also told Edx that he was wrong because the bible said something different, while in fact, the bible was in perfect agreement with Edx.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not hardly. You also told Edx that he was wrong because the bible said something different, while in fact, the bible was in perfect agreement with Edx.

In that case I owe Edx an apology. So tell me what it was and I'll do so.

 

[Tomk80]

Yes. I do stand corrected.

There are instances when there were triple hybrids.

I did nor check Wikipedia.

(I always liked Wikipedia, by the way).

Wikipedia Rulez!!!

No.
It was when I stated that anyone could claim to be a Christian, yet if he does not receive the Bible, it is just a claim.
So, one atheist reported me, since I was breaking rules by alluding that Christians could or could not be saved.
(I found it funny that an atheist would be concerned about salvation of Christians. ) And I was alerted.

And concerning that verse...
I presented that there is a bodily resurtrection acording "to kinds". It was compared to types of seeds according to kinds.
I wanted to present that evolution exists, yet according to kinds.

Thanks,
Ed

But how can you draw the conclusion of evolution from that verse. it merely states that our lives and bodies now are the 'seeds' for our bodies in the resurrection. It doesn't state anyting on what kinds are, whether evolution progresses within or without them. It even makes rather curious statements, if regarded literally:

1CO 15:35 But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. .....
1CO 15:42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

It draws a comparison between plants and animals. The hebrews thought that a seed dies, and then gives birth to the plant according to it's 'kind'. Kind can mean anything here, from whole taxa to just a single variety (I would opt for the latter however). They think the same happens with humans, animals, birds and fish (the latter two of which are apparantly not animals). Each variety will, after it has died, give birth to it's eternal, spiritual counterpart.

 

[Tomk80]

In that case I owe Edx an apology. So tell me what it was and I'll do so.

Read back and I saw that I was incorrect there.

Indeed, according to the bible faith is evidence. However, also according to the bible, it is a strong conviction not based on evidence itself. So objectively, it is not evidence, or at best subjective evidence. It is not empirical evidence in any way, which is the way Steen was using the term evidence.

 

[Edx]

Indeed, according to the bible faith is evidence. However, also according to the bible, it is a strong conviction not based on evidence itself. So objectively, it is not evidence, or at best subjective evidence. It is not empirical evidence in any way, which is the way Steen was using the term evidence.

I'd go much futher. Faith can never be evidence of anything. No matter how confident your belief is that you are correct if it cannot be logically proven or objectively known in any way then theres no reason to believe it. How can faith be evidence of anything? It doesnt matter how much you want something to be true it doesnt mean it is true.

EDIT: And the Bible does agree with me, which is why you have verses like... "Blessed are those who have not seen, but believe".Or in other words, blessed be those that believe on faith not because they have evidence. Except when I told AV1611VET thats what faith meant he said that was blind faith not biblical faith.

 

[Edial]

Wikipedia Rulez!!!

Apparently so.

But I really do respect Wikipedia.

But how can you draw the conclusion of evolution from that verse. it merely states that our lives and bodies now are the 'seeds' for our bodies in the resurrection. It doesn't state anyting on what kinds are, whether evolution progresses within or without them. It even makes rather curious statements, if regarded literally:

1CO 15:35 But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. .....
1CO 15:42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

It draws a comparison between plants and animals. The hebrews thought that a seed dies, and then gives birth to the plant according to it's 'kind'. Kind can mean anything here, from whole taxa to just a single variety (I would opt for the latter however). They think the same happens with humans, animals, birds and fish (the latter two of which are apparantly not animals). Each variety will, after it has died, give birth to it's eternal, spiritual counterpart.

You got it. Especially in the last sentense.
In a general language and Christian understanding, there is a resurrection of a body.
And that body would be translated into another type of a body (spiritual body), yet there is a definite continuity, transition from one body into another.
Perhabs a caterpillar into butterfly could be used as an analogy. But it is different.

That is the final phase of evolution of creation.
Then they'll be in that constant form forever.
Then the'll know what they were really meant to be.
I say "know", not because the do not know. It is in the Bible - they'll be heirs with God over his entire Kingdom.
But then we'll really know, since we will be that new creature in it's full form.
And we believe that why? Objectively, because Christ believe that.
We believe the guy.
There will be resurrection of the dead.

Subjectively, because it is also confirmed from within us.

Meanwhile, evolution is indeed observed in science within a short or a longer periods of time.
Evolution is a normal state of events in creation.

There is however only one disagreement between the Bible and some of the evolutionists.
It is that the evolution is according to it's kinds.
Now, what "a kind" means we do not really know, yet we do have a general description of a kind in Genesis that is quite precise to a naked eye, yet is not that clear to a scientific eye.

That is the only disagreement that I see.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edx]

Now, what "a kind" means we do not really know, yet we do have a general description of a kind in Genesis that is quite precise to a naked eye, yet is not that clear to a scientific eye.

If you cannot define a kind, then how can Creationits swear theres no scientific evidence for evolution?

Ed

 

[TeddyKGB]

Now, what "a kind" means we do not really know, yet we do have a general description of a kind in Genesis that is quite precise to a naked eye, yet is not that clear to a scientific eye.

I'm not sure what that means. Are you saying that what appears to be one thing superficially often is actually something else when examined in detail?

Or that "naked eye" observation is inexplicably more accurate than "scientific eye" examination?

 

[Edial]

I'll try to combine some texts in single reponses.
If I miss some of the finer details, we could revisit these.

Quite. because if nobody can actually say what a Kind is, then it also is impossible to check whether something did indeed evolve outside its kind. That creationist claim CANNOT be defended unless it can be shown true. On the other hand, per evolution, that isn't necessarily false either. No cat evolves into a dog etc, despite the silly creationist claims we see of that as 'evidence" for evolution. In nested hierarchies, each descendant is indeed a variation of some type of its parents and ancestors. Now, these variations spread all over the place and have no direct connection with each other, but all relate back to the ancestors, exactly as we see in branches of a tree. Each leaf, each twig arise from a previous twig or branch and eventually from the trunk of the tree. They don't arise from each other. Leafs don't come from other leaves, twigs don't grow from twigs on a neighboring branch. So what part of this is it that creationists are insistent that it is impossible to occur.
.....
And yet, Genesis is not a science text. And as you can't show what a "kind" actually is, you don't know if we can actually show two different "kind" actually originate from an earlier ancestor to both, f.ex. That's why the creationist argument about "kinds" that they can't even define is simply not valid when discussing evolution.

But I cannot define "kinds".
What do you expect me to do, lie?

HOWEVER, you would agree that "a kind" is defined quite plainly in Genesis in general terms that is clear to a naked eye, yet not to a scientific eye.

And, all that read it would agree that the message is definitely that SEVERAL kinds were actually created by an outside intelligent "force".
These "kinds" however are of the same substance, Earth.
And that explains the common "parts" that are observed in the creatures.
It also explains a common "beginning" in all creatures, that is not a beginning, but a common substance, since all are made from a same "stuff".

I would have loved to understand why the branches cannot be broken off the tree and looked at separately.

That common trunk that is presented cannot be proven, since it does not exclude a beginning that includes creation of several common kinds at about the same time from the same elements, the earth.

Unless of course one is an atheist and says that there is no God, therefore it is not possible, since the odds of it happening to a single tree are astronomical.
Yet for it to be happening to many trees is even theoretically impossible.

I understand that from atheistic perspective.

But why in your opinion God could not create several branches at the same time as shown in Genesis?

"could" and "probably" are mere guesses. When talking about scientific validity, then there is the presence or absence of evidence. If you don't have evidence to support your claim and as long as there is evidence to the contrary, then you cannot make your claim. You need to provide the evidence for your case and show that it is correct despite the other evidence. Einstein, f.ex. was able to do this, and hence Newtonian physics was changed. It was not discarded because there certainly was evidence for Newtonian physics. But it was shown that in some cases, it didn't apply anymore.

There is solid evidence for Evolution. Those who claim to the contrary are simply trying to ignore and discard evidence, which of course right there invalidates any alternate claim they have..

Now, wait a minute.

Did I say there is no evolution? When?

What you do not have evidence is for a single tree.

Evolution came to a conclusion for a single tree because the presumption that there is no intelligent "force" that designed all, therefore a single tree is a more "likely" scenario (although astronomically unlikely in reality outside of an intelligent intervention, in my opinion).

And the evolutionists understand these odds quite clearly.
That is primarily why they cannot accept many branches/trees, since if there is no God, evolution in that context is impossible.

And since Evolution is primarily driven by atheists - what is the problem?

Evolution is in nature that was created by God.

But Atheistic Evolution bends the evolutional facts into building a SINGLE tree of life that "elevates" their "theory of atheistic evolution" from theoretically impossibleb (many trees presuming no Creator) to ridiculous, yet a hint of possibility (one tree presuming no Creator).

I will not argue ridiculous arguments if one cannot prove that many trees are impossible.
You do understand that, at least from my standpoint.

Can evolution prove a single tree?
If not, what is the argument outside of the atheists hijacking evolution into a pre-supposition that there is no God?

And we can also see where this "tree" ties in with others, thus making it clear that it wasn't a tree, but rather a branch on an even bigger tree...

I do not agree with that logic at all.

It is making the facts "fit" into a theory.

...

Only if you claim that "kind" is the same as species. And that doesn't change how new species can arise. In that sense, all life is one "kind. All animals are a "kind" within all life. And all apes are a "kind" within all animals which is within all life. And all gazelles are a different "kind" within the "kind" of animals in general. Guess what, you just ended up with the nested hierarchies of Evolution. ...

I do not agree with that logic either.

You are re-defining Biblical understanding of "a kind".
Does it say that all animals are "a kind" in Genesis?
It does not.
So why define own "kind" and then "build a tree" to accommodate that?

Unless you do it like this:

Species: lupus
-The latin word for Wolf.
Genus: Canis
-The latin word for dog. The genus also includes jackals and coyotes. make all wolves part of the "Canis" Kind.

Family: Canidae.
-This is the dog family. Members of the dog family have large incisors and long muzzles. This is a diverse group that contained over 42 different genera 20 million years ago. Today, this family is represented by 35 different species. Make all Canis part of the Canidae Kind.

Order: Carnivora.
-The carnivores all have teeth that are specially adapted for eating meat. This taxon also includes the bears, weasels, cats, racoons, mongooses, seals, sea lions, other dogs, cats, and walruses. Some members of this group have secondarily returned to living an omnivorous or herbivorous lifestyle, but all evolved from a carnivorous ancestor. All carnivores have relatively flexible skeletons and all have very strong jaws. Make all Canidae part of the Carnivora Kind.

Class: Mammalia
-The females of all mammal species lactate and give milk to their young, and all mammals have hair. Make all Carnivora part of the mammalia kind

Phylum: Chordata
-The members of this group can be characterized as having, at one point in their life cycle, a notochord, a muscular post-anal tail, a dorsal hollow nerve chord and pharyngeal slits (or pouches). Make all mammalia part of the Chordata kind.

Kingdom: Animalia Make all Chordata part of the Animalia Kind.

And then make all Animalia part of Life Kind.

But when you do this, finally getting congruence between Creationism and biology, then you have basically generated the nested hierarchies of Evolution anyway....

Oh my.

I do not agree again.

We are "fitting" rather loosely a design of a tree.

Well, that's another problem with how creationists see Evolution. Individual organisms don't evolve, only populations do. Evolution is the change in genetic expression in a population. Evolution is the change in the proportions of genes expressed in an entire population from one generation to the next.....

I covered that elsewhere.

I think you are somehow assuming a certain parody of a Creationist in this conversation.
If the YEC or other sites gave you that impression you might want to adjust it somehow.

When such a slow change takes place while evolving, I certainly cannot even visualize the lenght of time and the precision of events that are needed in order to see an atheistic evolution to even appear not only in theory, but in a dream.

But that's my subjective view.

Well, first you need to figure out what a kind actually is. How else can you recognize whether such a barrier has been breeched or not?.....

I know enough about "a kind" to know what it is not.

What you are presenting in your example is not a kind as in Genesis.

And almost anything we can do per "manual intervention" can be done in nature as well.....

Unless of course nature has intellect.

But to say that this is so even when nature is not intelligent I cannot accept, since it is a pure theory that is far from reality, since the Earth would need to be of an unimaginable age to even consider that possibility.

And if we ante them up, Earth MUST be eternal in order to theoretically accept that.

I have no problem with Christian lingo. I am a Christian.

Fine.
Then you would accept Genesis account, since Christ accepted the Genesis account, unless you do not believe him, that is.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Skaloop]

It also explains a common "beginning" in all creatures, that is not a beginning, but a common substance, since all are made from a same "stuff".

OK, what is that common substance? What is this "stuff" that all are made of?

Because there are several different ways in which living things "construct" tissue. There are myriad different substances that are used by various life forms to construct themselves. So what is the common thread? Anything more than being carbon-based is certainly not common to all life (and even that is questionable; carbon-based life is not the only possibility).

 

[Edial]

If you cannot define a kind, then how can Creationits swear theres no scientific evidence for evolution?

Ed

While one cannot define "a kind" to the satisfaction of a scientific eye, one can definitely know what is NOT "a kind", as per Genesis.

As one poster stated, the entire animal kingdom could be considered "a kind".
Not at all.
In Genesis there are kinds within animals, birds, fish.

 

[Tomk80]

I'll try to combine some texts in single reponses.
If I miss some of the finer details, we could revisit these.

But I cannot define "kinds".
What do you expect me to do, lie?

HOWEVER, you would agree that "a kind" is defined quite plainly in Genesis in general terms that is clear to a naked eye, yet not to a scientific eye.

No, I would say that 'a kind' is not defined in any way in Genesis, and defintely not in any way that is clear to the naked eye. I would say that it only seems defined if you do not try to read too detailed. But what something seems when looked at superficially and what something is when looked at in detail are two different things.

And, all that read it would agree that the message is definitely that SEVERAL kinds were actually created by an outside intelligent "force".
These "kinds" however are of the same substance, Earth.
And that explains the common "parts" that are observed in the creatures.
It also explains a common "beginning" in all creatures, that is not a beginning, but a common substance, since all are made from a same "stuff".

It doesn't explain anything at all. It doesn't explain the pattern which we see in those common parts, which is unlike anything else that we know is designed of the same 'stuff'. It's the pattern that matters, not the superficial observation that some things look alike.

I would have loved to understand why the branches cannot be broken off the tree and looked at separately.

That common trunk that is presented cannot be proven, since it does not exclude a beginning that includes creation of several common kinds at about the same time from the same elements, the earth.

Unless of course one is an atheist and says that there is no God, therefore it is not possible, since the odds of it happening to a single tree are astronomical.
Yet for it to be happening to many trees is even theoretically impossible.

I understand that from atheistic perspective.

But why in your opinion God could not create several branches at the same time as shown in Genesis?

Nobody is saying he couldn't. We are saying that even if he created life, he did it with one common ancestor. There is a big difference between what someone could do, and what someone actually did do. That holds true for any God also.

Now, wait a minute.

Did I say there is no evolution? When?

What you do not have evidence is for a single tree.

yes we do, it's the only possibility given the evidence.

Evolution came to a conclusion for a single tree because the presumption that there is no intelligent "force" that designed all, therefore a single tree is a more "likely" scenario (although astronomically unlikely in reality outside of an intelligent intervention, in my opinion).

And the evolutionists understand these odds quite clearly.
That is primarily why they cannot accept many branches/trees, since if there is no God, evolution in that context is impossible.

Would you please stop this. No, the single tree is not a conclusion of evolution, it holds whether evolution happens or not. It's the other way around. Evolution is the conclusion that is drawn from a single tree.

And since Evolution is primarily driven by atheists - what is the problem?

Evolution is 'driven' by science. It has nothing to do with atheists or theists. Many evolutionists are also theists.

Evolution is in nature that was created by God.

But Atheistic Evolution bends the evolutional facts into building a SINGLE tree of life that "elevates" their "theory of atheistic evolution" from theoretically impossibleb (many trees presuming no Creator) to ridiculous, yet a hint of possibility (one tree presuming no Creator).

Not 'atheistic evolution', not even evolution, but the evidence. This is accepted by both theistic and atheistic evolutionists alike.

I will not argue ridiculous arguments if one cannot prove that many trees are impossible.
You do understand that, at least from my standpoint.

Okay.

Can evolution prove a single tree?

Why would it have to. Evolution is concluded from the single tree, not vice versa.

If not, what is the argument outside of the atheists hijacking evolution into a pre-supposition that there is no God?

Single common ancestor model=/=atheism. Many theists accept the single tree model, many of those theists are christians. It's not an atheistic construct, it's a construct based on the evidence.

I do not agree with that logic at all.

It is making the facts "fit" into a theory.

...

No, it's applying logic consistently to the evidence.

I do not agree with that logic either.

You are re-defining Biblical understanding of "a kind".
Does it say that all animals are "a kind" in Genesis?
It does not.
So why define own "kind" and then "build a tree" to accommodate that?

Because you check a theory using evidence, whether it is from the bible or elsewhere doesn't matter. Evidence is what matters.

Oh my.

I do not agree again.

We are "fitting" rather loosely a design of a tree.

So, where is it wrong. Can you point at a specific point?

I covered that elsewhere.

I think you are somehow assuming a certain parody of a Creationist in this conversation.
If the YEC or other sites gave you that impression you might want to adjust it somehow.

When such a slow change takes place while evolving, I certainly cannot even visualize the lenght of time and the precision of events that are needed in order to see an atheistic evolution to even appear not only in theory, but in a dream.

But that's my subjective view.

No precision required. Just change and selection, over and over again. Since we have 3.5 billion years, that can quite consistently yield good results. And again, this is accepted by both theists and atheists, many of those theists being christians.

I know enough about "a kind" to know what it is not.

What you are presenting in your example is not a kind as in Genesis.

If you cannot define precisely what something is, you cannot also not define what it is not.

Unless of course nature has intellect.

But to say that this is so even when nature is not intelligent I cannot accept, since it is a pure theory that is far from reality, since the Earth would need to be of an unimaginable age to even consider that possibility.

And if we ante them up, Earth MUST be eternal in order to theoretically accept that.

Fine.
Then you would accept Genesis account, since Christ accepted the Genesis account, unless you do not believe him, that is.

Thanks,
Ed

The question is not whether one accepts it or not, but how one interprets it. In the new testament, Jesus is silent on this, accept for stating that "God created". That doesn't tell us much.

 

[Edial]

I'm not sure what that means. Are you saying that what appears to be one thing superficially often is actually something else when examined in detail?

Or that "naked eye" observation is inexplicably more accurate than "scientific eye" examination?

No.
General definitions as compared to detailed definitions.

Accuracy is the same, yet it is not enough to conclude scientifically what "kind" is in Genesis, yet it might be enough to see what "kind" is not, since Genesis presents certain separations that are observable between the kinds.

 

[Edial]

OK, what is that common substance? What is this "stuff" that all are made of?

Because there are several different ways in which living things "construct" tissue. There are myriad different substances that are used by various life forms to construct themselves. So what is the common thread? Anything more than being carbon-based is certainly not common to all life (and even that is questionable; carbon-based life is not the only possibility).

But why are you asking ME that?

Doesn't the science know?

And if it does not know, doesn't it assume that since all are relatives of a single tree there is a common "something" in them?

 

[Skaloop]

But why are you asking ME that?

Because you're the one saying that this common substance is proof of a designer. I'm just wondering what exactly you define as this common substance. How you define it will determine how I argue against it.

Doesn't the science know?

Sure it does. Atoms. Specific types of atoms are certainly more common in terrestrial life, but there is no reason to suspect that they are the only ones that can be used for life.

And if it does not know, doesn't it assume that since all are relatives of a single tree there is a common "something" in them?

Yes. That common "something" is ancestry. It has nothing to do with the physical substance used to make the life forms themselves.

 

[Tomk80]

Edial, I've created a thread on the tree of life, I hope you will participate in it. You can find it here

Of course this holds for the rest of you guys to