Evolution Promotes Brutality

[JacksBratt]

How do you determine who the murderer was if you weren't there to see it happen? It's called evidence and there is an overwhelming amount of it.

Surely you've been around long enough to know "Were you there" is a terrible argument.

You mean like the evidence that they used against OJ?
or
Timothy Cole, Anthony Graves, Darryl Hunt, Gary Gauger and more?

You see, the evidence you have is only acquired through our abilities and, unfortunately our bias's.

I don't need your evidence to know that Christ has saved me, made me a new person and is guiding my life right now.
You, on the other hand, will never find enough earthly evidence to prove God, Christ or the Holy Spirit. That is impossible.
Belief is a choice and a leap of faith based on the words of the Bible and the testimony of others who have experienced it.
After you exercise faith, the reality that you will experience is all the evidence you will need. This is where the term "having your eyes opened" comes from.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

You mean like the evidence that they used against OJ?

Are you saying that human and chimpanzee genomes being 98% similar is wrong? Are you saying that the endogenous retroviruses we share with chimpanzees is wrong? Please show me the test that falsified these facts.

I don't need your evidence to know that Christ has saved me, made me a new person and is guiding my life right now.

Are you saying you have no ability to live your life in a positive way unless you have a God to tell you how to? Yikes.

You, on the other hand, will never find enough earthly evidence to prove God, Christ or the Holy Spirit. That is impossible.

I also don't have enough evidence to prove that leprechauns exist. Which means I don't have a good enough reason to believe in them. Just like I don't have a good reason to believe a God exists. No evidence.

Belief is a choice and a leap of faith based on the words of the Bible and the testimony of others who have experienced it.

This sounds like you believe it because you want it to be true. You have already expressed that you don't need evidence.
Argument from personal experience is also a logical fallacy.

After you exercise faith, the reality that you will experience is all the evidence you will need.

Faith is not a virtue. It's believing without evidence. It's gullibility.
If you don't have evidence to present for your claims, then those claims are rejected. Do you have an argument that isn't full of special pleading and other logical fallacies?

 

[JacksBratt]

Are you saying that human and chimpanzee genomes being 98% similar is wrong? Are you saying that the endogenous retroviruses we share with chimpanzees is wrong? Please show me the test that falsified these facts.

From http://www.thehumangenome.co.uk/THE_HUMAN_GENOME/Primer.html

Mouse and man share 99% genetic similarity - including the genes to make a tail.

Puffer fish and Zebra fish are so genetically similar to human beings that their genomes are being deciphered as ‘model’ organisms for research.

75% of our genetic make-up is the same as a pumpkin - 57% the same as a cabbage.

Are you saying you have no ability to live your life in a positive way unless you have a God to tell you how to? Yikes.

Do you believe that's what I am saying? Yikes.

When you read a statement like I just wrote:

"I don't need your evidence to know that Christ has saved me, made me a new person and is guiding my life right now."

and somehow see "you have no ability" written there somewhere,

I would be concerned about your reading comprehension. However, it would explain why you have trouble grasping a simple concept of being saved by faith.

Example: You're a tribesman from some outback tribe with no concept of medicine. You have a virus. The stranger from another land gives you a bunch of small beans and says eat one every day and you will get better.... You don't and you die. Your friend takes the leap of faith and lives..... Now your friend has open eyes to trusting the stranger to other wild and wonderful things.

"Yikes" lol I like that....

I also don't have enough evidence to prove that leprechauns exist. Which means I don't have a good enough reason to believe in them. Just like I don't have a good reason to believe a God exists. No evidence.

Hmmm , you are saying that I have no evidence proving that God exists? Didn't I say that?

"You, on the other hand, will never find enough earthly evidence to prove God, Christ or the Holy Spirit. That is impossible."

Yep, thought so. I even said that it was impossible...

Reading comprehension again....

This sounds like you believe it because you want it to be true. You have already expressed that you don't need evidence.

Don't you want it to be true? Really, would your life not be better if you believed that there was a wondrous, glorious eternal paradise waiting for you after you die? Not only that but an all powerful creator that loved you?

Come on. If someone said "wouldn't you like it if that was true" , you'd say No, I wouldn't like that?

I know you cannot want something to be true and because of that belief it becomes true. Well, maybe for a couple of hours or stretch it to a day but not for close to half a century.

So, yes, I wanted it to be true. However, after 40 some years, nothing has happened to show me that it isn't true.
You cannot prove there is a God, yet in my life there is nothing that proves that there isn't.

Faith is not a virtue. It's believing without evidence. It's gullibility.

So, gullibility and faith are the same?
Gullibility is a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action.

I don't see anything in my Christian life that would be considered "ill-advised". Nor would the act of faith that I took in admission of and repenting from my sins?

Can you see anything that would be "ill-advised" in my situation?

Usually a gullible person ends up in a negative situation due to their belief in a trick. What negative situation am I going to end up in. On the other hand, if I am correct about God, what negative situation are you going to end up in.

Who is gullible here? Me for believing there is a God, or, You for taking an eternal chance that there isn't?

Satan is the great deceiver. I believe he is counting on you being gullible.

I think if someone said "don't listen to that preacher man and his talk of hell" and then you get hit by a bus, die, and find that there is actually a hell...... now that would be ill advised.

If you don't have evidence to present for your claims, then those claims are rejected. Do you have an argument that isn't full of special pleading and other logical fallacies?

But...............my claim was that I don't have any evidence.

Also..

Pleas show me this "special pleading"

 

[Hoghead1]

I think. Joshua 19, the main reason many [people have rejected Christianity because it is a fear-based religion. It sends out a contradictory message which has God saying in effect, "Love me or I'll beat the tar out of you." When you love someone, you do not seek to coerce them with threats. I believe God is truly loving, so I believe in a universal salvation.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

When you read a statement like I just wrote:

"I don't need your evidence to know that Christ has saved me, made me a new person and is guiding my life right now."

and somehow see "you have no ability" written there somewhere,

I never said you have no ability, it was in the form of a question. I'll ask it a better way. Would you have the ability to live a positive life without the existence of God?

Example: You're a tribesman from some outback tribe with no concept of medicine. You have a virus. The stranger from another land gives you a bunch of small beans and says eat one every day and you will get better.... You don't and you die. Your friend takes the leap of faith and lives..... Now your friend has open eyes to trusting the stranger to other wild and wonderful things.

What does this have to do with the existence of God or not? Let's put it in those terms, shall we?
You come to my village and tell me I can live a better life if I pray a certain prayer and worship your God. I ask you for evidence of this. You, of course say you cannot provide this. I reject your claim. I still live a positive life.

Hmmm , you are saying that I have no evidence proving that God exists? Didn't I say that?
"You, on the other hand, will never find enough earthly evidence to prove God, Christ or the Holy Spirit. That is impossible."
Yep, thought so. I even said that it was impossible...

You missed the point of my post. I will ask questions instead. Why do you believe in God without any evidence for that claim? What else in your life do you believe without evidence? If I told you that your significant other was cheating on you but I told you that it was impossible to provide evidence for that claim, would you believe me?

Don't you want it to be true?

Sure. But I don't live my life based on what I want to be true. To me, that's intellectually dishonest. I care about what is likely true. I want to know as many true things as I possibly can. I conclude what is true based on what the evidence leads to.

Really, would your life not be better if you believed that there was a wondrous, glorious eternal paradise waiting for you after you die?

Actually, my life became better after I released myself from the shackles of religion. Life is more beautiful. I'm more awe inspired. I think wanting to believe that there is some eternal paradise after I die is wishful thinking. I don't think wishful thinking is healthy.

Not only that but an all powerful creator that loved you?

Is this the same creator that will send me to hell because I don't find the claims of his existence to be likely? I'd rather not worship someone that capricious.

Come on. If someone said "wouldn't you like it if that was true" , you'd say No, I wouldn't like that?

Again, I am not going to believe something with no evidence. Just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it true. Wishful thinking is a waste of time.

So, yes, I wanted it to be true. However, after 40 some years, nothing has happened to show me that it isn't true.
You cannot prove there is a God, yet in my life there is nothing that proves that there isn't.

So, you don't care about the burden of proof? It's impossible to prove a negative. Just because a claim hasn't been proved false, doesn't make it true. Nobody has shown over your 40 some years that there aren't leprechauns. Do you also believe in leprechauns?

I don't see anything in my Christian life that would be considered "ill-advised". Nor would the act of faith that I took in admission of and repenting from my sins?

Can you see anything that would be "ill-advised" in my situation?

You admit that you hold these beliefs without evidence. Above, you show that you are susceptible to someone shifting the burden of proof. This demonstrates that someone could get you to believe just about anything.

On the other hand, if I am correct about God, what negative situation are you going to end up in.

I haven't heard Pascal's Wager in a while. This is probably the worst argument for believing in a God. It can be used for anything. For example "On the other hand, if I am right about Odin, what negative situation are you going to end up in?"
Do you see how that is a terrible argument?

Who is gullible here? Me for believing there is a God, or, You for taking an eternal chance that there isn't

"Who is gullible here? Me for believing in Krishna, or, you for taking an eternal chance that Krishna doesn't exist?"

You should really ask yourself this question: Do I have a justifiable reason for believing what I do?

You've basically said you have no evidence for your beliefs, so you make a bet instead. Is this a good reason to believe something?

Satan is the great deceiver. I believe he is counting on you being gullible.

Satan likely doesn't exist either. But, your claim, your burden of proof.

I think if someone said "don't listen to that preacher man and his talk of hell" and then you get hit by a bus, die, and find that there is actually a hell...... now that would be ill advised.

Well, i'm not intimidated by threats. If someone claims to have a message of some eternal bliss in paradise and has to resort to threats, i'm just going to roll my eyes.

 

[VirOptimus]

Your evidence fails to meet the burdon of proof. I am not convinced.
I do not know about your Minions, do you want to take a vote?

So now you are saying inferred evidence are admissable in court, why cant you simply admit that you where wrong?

 

[joshua 1 9]

So now you are saying inferred evidence are admissable in court, why cant you simply admit that you where wrong?

What I am saying is that you have failed to meet your burden of proof. As we see in the OJ trial a criminal court requires MORE of a burden of proof then a civil court. OJ was not guilty in the criminal court but he was found guilty in the civil court based on all the same evidence. In this case if people have shown themselves to be less then reliable when it comes to the Bible then why should we trust them in the area of science. Science itself is agnostic so to be atheist is anti-science. Even that door can swing both ways. If a Christian does not handle science then why should we trust them to tell us what the Bible says. A Bible education does not equal a Science education. We are just looking to see how proficient people are with the information that they have to work with and what is entrusted to them. Atheists have proven they can not be trusted with the Bible. So why should we trust them with science?

 

[VirOptimus]

What I am saying is that you have failed to meet your burden of proof. As we see in the OJ trial a criminal court requires MORE of a burden of proof then a civil court. OJ was not guilty in the criminal court but he was found guilty in the civil court based on all the same evidence. In this case if people have shown themselves to be less then reliable when it comes to the Bible then why should we trust them in the area of science. Science itself is agnostic so to be atheist is anti-science. Even that door can swing both ways. If a Christian does not handle science then why should we trust them to tell us what the Bible says. A Bible education does not equal a Science education. We are just looking to see how proficient people are with the information that they have to work with and what is entrusted to them. Atheists have proven they can not be trusted with the Bible. So why should we trust them with science?

All of that is irrelevant. What you wrote was "Inferred evidence does not stand up in court. You need direct evidence not Circumstantial evidence." Which is incorrect. That you dont belive in evolution is besides the point. Just admit that what you posted was wrong and move on.

 

[Loudmouth]

Doing what?

Playing connect the dots?

Let's see one macroevolve.

What step in the scientific method do you observe the hypothesis?

 

[Loudmouth]

From http://www.thehumangenome.co.uk/THE_HUMAN_GENOME/Primer.html

Mouse and man share 99% genetic similarity - including the genes to make a tail.

Mouse and human DNA is not 99% similar at the sequence level. You need to use real scientific references.

 

[AV1611VET]

What step in the scientific method do you observe the hypothesis?

1 Chronicles 26:18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

 

[Loudmouth]

1 Chronicles 26:18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

Thus head is firmly planted in sand.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thus head is firmly planted in sand.

It made about as much sense as your reply to my post.

 

[Loudmouth]

It made about as much sense as your reply to my post.

That's only because you don't understand how the scientific method works. You don't observe the hypothesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's only because you don't understand how the scientific method works.

And you don't understand its limitations.

 

[Loudmouth]

Mouse and human DNA is not 99% similar at the sequence level. You need to use real scientific references.

As a follow up to my previous post, I thought I would look up the actual comparisons in the mouse genome paper:

For each orthologous gene pair, we aligned the cDNA sequences in accordance with their pairwise amino acid alignments and calculated two measures of sequence evolution: the percentage of amino acid identities and the KA/KS ratio182. . .

For the 12,845 pairs of mouse–human 1:1 orthologues, 70.1% of the residues were identical. The median amino acid identity was 78.5% and the median KA/KS ratio was 0.115 (Fig. 19 and Table 12).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6915/full/nature01262.html​

So the next time you hear people saying that the human and mouse genomes are 99% identical, point out that it is actually closer to 75-80%.

 

[Loudmouth]

And you don't understand its limitations.

Do you think claims should be accepted as true without any evidence, reason, or logic to back them?

 

[Loudmouth]

I did answer the question. The answer does not line up with the truth that we find in the Bible. Science needs checks and balances.

So we have to ignore evidence if it contradicts what you read in the Bible?

 

[joshua 1 9]

So we have to ignore evidence if it contradicts what you read in the Bible?

Not at all. I would have expected you to at least learn that much by now. I do not trust in myself and I do not trust in man. But I do believe in God. I believe in pure science and I believe in the purity of the Bible. God is doing a work in us to purify us. To lead us in the way of the truth. There is truth in the Bible and there is truth in Science. There is error in the interpretation of the Bible and there is error in science. I do not claim to be pure and truth but that is a goal and that is the work that God is doing in our lives. Science is kind of neat in that they do provide ways to verify the truth. Far to often people make stuff up and call it science when they have not tested their belief to see if it can be substantiated.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not at all. I would have expected you to at least learn that much by now. I do not trust in myself and I do not trust in man. But I do believe in God. I believe in pure science and I believe in the purity of the Bible. God is doing a work in us to purify us. To lead us in the way of the truth. There is truth in the Bible and there is truth in Science. There is error in the interpretation of the Bible and there is error in science. I do not claim to be pure and truth but that is a goal and that is the work that God is doing in our lives. Science is kind of neat in that they do provide ways to verify the truth. Far to often people make stuff up and call it science when they have not tested their belief to see if it can be substantiated.

From what I have seen, you reject the theory of evolution because it conflicts with your reading of the Bible, and for no other reason.