Understanding Evolution [moved from P&LS]

[Subduction Zone]

Hi SD,

The more you write, the more you show. You responded:


Your 'faith status' says atheist. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you picked that as your 'faith status'. The definition of an atheist is: a person who believes that God does not exist.

Wrong try again.

Now, I know that many atheists deny this to be the more modern definition, but then, you're arguing with people who don't know the truth about what is the truth. It has always, for several decades at least and likely for at least a couple of centuries referred to those among us who do not believe that a god exists. So, do you or do you not believe that God exists? Most atheists think they understand christianity better than most christians. Friend if you don't understand about God and His salvation, then you don't know diddly about 'christianity'. You've just read the bible. No, I did not make any false statement based on my misunderstanding, but you may have given a false impression of your understanding about God. Let's get that settled right now. Do you believe that God exists?

You don't seem to realize that there are no fixed definitions for words. Atheism may have had a different definition in the past. It is rather hard to trust Christian lexicographers to get the definition right. It is abundantly clear that the meaning is different from your version today. Tell me, would you go by a Muslim's definition of Christianity? And yes you made a false statement that showed you did not only understand what an atheist is, you did not understand the verse in the Bible that you alluded to.

And I understand your faith very very well. I used to a Christian.

As to your assertion that the Scriptures are terribly flawed, especially if taken literally, again, and I know you're not going to agree with this and that's ok with me, those without the Spirit of God have no understanding of the things of God. So, what's the answer? Does God exist?

Please, don't base your argument upon nonsense. If the Bible is valid there should be no need for a "Spirit of God". Your reliance on that indicates that you are not being true to yourself. And does God exist? It is hard to say. It is easy to show that various versions of "God" do not exist. If you insist upon a literal interpretation of Genesis then , no that version of "God" does not exist. Can you come up with a reasonable definition of God, one that would separate your version from countless other versions that are out there?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, for people who do not accept evolution (or who posit some additional supernatural element to it, like adding a creator/designer that "guides" or "directs" evolution), what is it about the Theory of Evolution you do not accept...

Deep time.

... and why?

The Bible only accounts for some 6100 years of existence of the universe.

In addition to this, what resources do you (or have you) explored with respect to the science? (books, journals, classes, degrees, blogs, news sites, etc).

None.

 

[miamited]

Hi SD,

I'll just repeat what I said earlier. The more you write the more you show. Since you don't accept any standard of definition, you probably don't have a clue what any of these posts have been saying. It's just a bunch of letters cobbled together to you.

God bless you.
In Christ, ted

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I suppose one way to define an atheist is that they all believe that white horses are really blue, but because of the refraction of light, they appear white to us.

There is no excuse to be rude. I did not say that "Christians are a group of people that believe self conflicting fairy tales". I have treated Christianity with far more respect than you have treated atheism.

However, most of us use dictionaries to find what are commonly accepted definitions of words. It makes it easier for us to communicate with one another when we can depend on a 'rule' or 'measure' of defining words. If we all just make up our own definitions of words, why, there's no telling what we'll come up with:

Dictionary.com defines 'atheist' thusly:
An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.

Actually it does not say that. It seems that you edited your quote. Why did not you not link your source? That is always the best policy. Here is what it actually says:

"Atheist definition, a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme
being or beings."

the definition of atheist

Did you notice the difference ? It is very important. And even they were not quite right.

Urban dictionary provides two definitions. Both of which pretty much say the same thing: A person who lacks belief in a god or gods. A person who believes that no god or gods exist.

No, there is a significant difference between the two. Can you figure it out?

Merriam-Webster. : a person who believes that God does not exist.

And that one is just about the worst version I have seen. Again, would you trust a Muslim to define Christianity? Or an atheist for that matter?

So, you don't want to use these definitions, then I'd suggest you publish your own dictionary so we will all know how criliman defines a word. Otherwise, I'm going with the generally accepted definitions provided through what I believe to be reasonably accurate dictionaries.

Or you could do the wise thing. Go ask an atheist what he believes without making any presuppositions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi SD,

I'll just repeat what I said earlier. The more you write the more you show. Since you don't accept any standard of definition, you probably don't have a clue what any of these posts have been saying. It's just a bunch of letters cobbled together to you.

God bless you.
In Christ, ted

Just because you have very little education outside of your little sect don't assume that others suffer the same lack that you do.

Once again, would you trust a Muslim to define "Christianity"? It is a more than reasonable question. You made an assumption based upon a definition from a dictionary that you could not even quote correctly. Don't act as if you have found an of my flaws. It looks like you are merely projecting your own flaws upon others.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, I suppose one way to define an atheist is that they all believe that white horses are really blue, but because of the refraction of light, they appear white to us.

Reverse Rayleigh?

 

[miamited]

Hi SZ,

You responded:

There is no excuse to be rude. I did not say that "Christians are a group of people that believe self conflicting fairy tales".

Well, I don't know what you're upset about. That post wasn't directed towards you. If you'll go back and read the post you'll see that I was answering a post made by criliman. That poster was trying to offer up some sort of definition for 'atheist' that one can't find as any accepted definition by most dictionaries. I therefore responded that if we're just going to make up definitions then it could be that white horses are blue, etc.

BTW, criliman gave me a like on the post, so I'm going to guess that he understood my point. Sad that you can't.

I'll say it again. The more you write, the more you show.

As to your post regarding the definitions I gave. Yes, you are correct that I gave the wrong definition of Dictionary.com That is the definition that came up when I googled 'atheist definition' and I mistakenly credited it as being from Dictionary.com. However, no, I don't see the difference between not believing in a God or gods and not believing in a supreme being or beings. I will admit to being ignorant of any valuable difference in the two. Yes, I did note that the words are spelled differently. God is spelled g-o-d and supreme being is spelled s-u-p-r-e-m-e b-e-i-n-g. Other than that, no I don't see any difference in definition. Although, now that I think about it, I suppose 'supreme being' could be someone's mother-in-law to a guy whose mother-in-law is overbearing and demanding.

Humor me and explain the difference for me.d

Now, here's a real laugh. You then wrote:

And that one is just about the worst version I have seen. Again, would you trust a Muslim to define Christianity? Or an atheist for that matter?

No!!!!! I wouldn't trust an atheist to define christianity, yet your claim is that you know more about it than many christians.

Look, go with what you believe. I've explained the reasons that I don't believe in evolution. That should satisfy the OP's query.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Reverse Rayleigh?

Hi AV,

Yes, that's more than likely the reason.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi SZ,

You responded:


Well, I don't know what you're upset about. That post wasn't directed towards you. If you'll go back and read the post you'll see that I was answering a post made by criliman. That poster was trying to offer up some sort of definition for 'atheist' that one can't find as any accepted definition by most dictionaries. I therefore responded that if we're just going to make up definitions then it could be that white horses are blue, etc.

BTW, criliman gave me a like on the post, so I'm going to guess that he understood my point. Sad that you can't.

I'll say it again. The more you write, the more you show.

As to your post regarding the definitions I gave. Yes, you are correct that I gave the wrong definition of Dictionary.com That is the definition that came up when I googled 'atheist definition' and I mistakenly credited it as being from Dictionary.com. However, no, I don't see the difference between not believing in a God or gods and not believing in a supreme being or beings. I will admit to being ignorant of any valuable difference in the two. Yes, I did note that the words are spelled differently. God is spelled g-o-d and supreme being is spelled s-u-p-r-e-m-e b-e-i-n-g. Other than that, no I don't see any difference in definition. Although, now that I think about it, I suppose 'supreme being' could be someone's mother-in-law to a guy whose mother-in-law is overbearing and demanding.

We were in the middle of a conversation on the same topic.

Humor me and explain the difference for me.d

One has a burden of proof and the other does not. Most atheists here simply lack a belief in a god. If proper evidence was shown for a god most of us would change our mind. The burden of proof for
the non-existence of gods is not upon us. If a person believes something and wants to convince others the burden of proof is upon him. Now I can prove that there was no global flood. That was done by scientists more than 150 years ago. But if I want to convince someone that does not know this the burden of proof is upon me. If you want to claim that there is a God the burden of proof for that is upon you. I am extremely unconvinced, but still open minded.

Now, here's a real laugh. You then wrote:


No!!!!! I wouldn't trust an atheist to define christianity, yet your claim is that you know more about it than many christians.

And yet you don't see the terrible flaw in the version of that definition that you used. It is flat out wrong. It is very similar to how a Muslim would define Christianity.

Look, go with what you believe. I've explained the reasons that I don't believe in evolution. That should satisfy the OP's query.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Yes, but almost all of your statements about evolution were wrong too. Now you may not want to believe in something, but you should not fool yourself by thinking that you have an educated opinion on the matter. I know that you do not like it, but it is considered to be a fact in the world of science.

 

[AV1611VET]

If proper evidence was shown for a god most of us would change our mind.

The Bible says otherwise.

Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

 

[miamited]

Hi SZ,

This is really getting trying. You responded:

Most atheists here simply lack a belief in a god.

You somehow see someone 'simply lacking a belief in god' as different than not believing in god. Sure, if God stepped out on the clouds and thumped His chest and declared in a booming voice from heaven "I am God and I do exist", you'd likely change your mind. I'll say it again. The more you write the more you show.

Friend, I don't want to convince you of anything. I'm just defending my position. I am doing exactly what the Scriptures tell me to do. Always be prepared to give an answer to those who ask for the hope that is in you. Questions were asked and I'm giving answers.

Then you responded regarding the dictionary definitions I posted from online sources:

And yet you don't see the terrible flaw in the version of that definition that you used. It is flat out wrong.

Friend, it's a dictionary and it's been publishing dictionaries since before you or I were born. While I understand that you personally disagree with the definition, I don't think the definition is wrong. I honestly don't think that the majority of people who use dictionaries would agree with you either. But, that's neither here nor there. It is the definition used by multiple dictionaries and despite your 'understanding' some big difference between the word 'god' and the word 'supreme being', all dictionaries define atheist as one who doesn't believe in either.

Finally, no, I don't have an educated opinion on the subject. I have the word of truth on the subject. But, I remember when I was like you and I completely understand your position. There was a time in my life that I would have stood shoulder to shoulder with you.

As to not liking what the world believes, friend, it isn't about me not liking what the world believes, it will ultimately be whether or not God likes what the world believes. I honestly don't like or dislike what 'science' believes, teaches, practices, etc. I just don't believe it because I have a more sure source of truth than men.

God bless you.
In Christ, ted

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi SZ,

This is really getting trying. You responded:


You somehow see someone 'simply lacking a belief in god' as different than not believing in god. Sure, if God stepped out on the clouds and thumped His chest and declared in a booming voice from heaven "I am God and I do exist", you'd likely change your mind. I'll say it again. The more you write the more you show.

You weren't paying attention. Your source had two definitions, one was a lack of belief in gods, the other was a belief that there were no gods. That is a huge difference. Let's say you have two acquaintances. One tells the truth half of the time. He tells you that he just bought a new car. Odds are that with his history you are not going to believe him without some further evidence. The other lies all of the time, he too claims that he just bought a new car after hearing the claim of the other. Since this person has a notoriously bad reputation you will probably believe that he is lying. The Bible simply is not accurate enough to merit belief. I don't automatically believe that it is wrong. I am open to evidence. There are those that are not.

Friend, I don't want to convince you of anything. I'm just defending my position. I am doing exactly what the Scriptures tell me to do. Always be prepared to give an answer to those who ask for the hope that is in you. Questions were asked and I'm giving answers.

That is fine. But your position on evolution has been shown to be wrong. So why do you still not accept it?

Then you responded regarding the dictionary definitions I posted from online sources:


Friend, it's a dictionary and it's been publishing dictionaries since before you or I were born. While I understand that you personally disagree with the definition, I don't think the definition is wrong. I honestly don't think that the majority of people who use dictionaries would agree with you either. But, that's neither here nor there. It is the definition used by multiple dictionaries and despite your 'understanding' some big difference between the word 'god' and the word 'supreme being', all dictionaries define atheist as one who doesn't believe in either.

So what? Dictionaries are not perfect. They quite often have flaws. That is a terribly wrong definition. It was clearly written by an ignorant Christian. Again, would you let accept a definition from an ignorant Muslim on Christianity? Oh wait, you already said that you wouldn't. Now you have just shown your hypocrisy. People that do not share a belief are in no position to define it. You can see that when it affects you, but you can't see it when it affects others.

Finally, no, I don't have an educated opinion on the subject. I have the word of truth on the subject. But, I remember when I was like you and I completely understand your position. There was a time in my life that I would have stood shoulder to shoulder with you.

No, you don't. Now you are making the error of making a false idol of the Bible. It clearly is not the "word of truth". It has hundreds of self contradictions. It has failed prophesies. It has bad morals. There may still be a valid message in it, but you are very likely to miss it using your approach.

As to not liking what the world believes, friend, it isn't about me not liking what the world believes, it will ultimately be whether or not God likes what the world believes. I honestly don't like or dislike what 'science' believes, teaches, practices, etc. I just don't believe it because I have a more sure source of truth than men.

God bless you.
In Christ, ted

And you make another error. Scientists do not "believe" anything when they use the scientific method. That is your flaw. Scientists demonstrates that they are correct by using evidence.

 

[USincognito]

You are confusing the Theory of Evolution with the fact.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains that fact.

 

[USincognito]

The Theory of Evolution does not in any way explain the fact of evolution. If you think it does, then explain.

Oh my. This is like saying the germ theory of disease doesn't explain why people catch communicable diseases or plate tectonic theory doesn't explain earthquakes.

 

[USincognito]

When we attempted to observe evolution by forcing mutations via radiation over thousands of generations of fruit flies...

No, just no. Fruit fly radiation experiments were never meant to cause speciation. That's a common Creationist myth/misunderstanding, but it's not actually true.

 

[USincognito]

The flood is, in fact, denied by all evolution proponents because it doesn't fit with their "old earth" claims.

The Flood is not "denied", it was long ago falsified scientifically. In the last 200 years, that falsification has only been shown to be the correct conclusion.

 

[USincognito]

You know, I've heard that claim made repeatedly and yet, I can't seem to find any evidence that supports it.

You might want to read up on George McReady Price and his influence on Morris and Whitcomb. The Genesis Flood was really the intellectual Bible of the 20th Century Creationist movement and Price - with his SDA influence "New Geology" - were their inspiration. The Genesis Flood is basically his ideas without the trappings of SDA theology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To accept the theory means that I have to fully rely on the abilities of other men to evaluate evidence without bias, and to operate with fully competent reasoning.

Wouldn't that be true for all of science?
Yet, there you are, using a computer and confidently assuming your post will show up when you click "submit".

I see no reason whatsoever to do this.

Really? You are living in the 21st century with a life expectancy that is tripple that of 2 centuries ago, in the comfort of your high-tech home with central heating, perhaps some smart domotics, with a machine on the drive way that houses the power of some 150 horses on average, using a machine that allows for communication at the speed of light and................................ you see "no reason whatsoever" to do this?

Owkay then.

This is an excellent question, and the crux of why I reject all forms of theoretic science;

That is a flat out lie.
You rely on theoretical science every minute of every day, as it is theoretical science that lies at the very foundation of the technological society you live in.

Literally every piece of technology has a scientific theoretical framework backing it. It is true such theoretical models that we are able to build technology.
The theoretical models ARE our understanding of certain phenomena of nature. It is that understanding that allows us to develop technology.

there is no objective way to determine any of these things, therefore all belief in all theoretic science is based solely on relative subjective perception of the investigator.

You should really read up on how science works. Clearly you have no clue.

Add into this that no approximation in any of these fields has any meaningful substance to contribute to mankind, and all theoretical science becomes both impossible to verify in any meaningful way, and even useless in such verification.

Actually, all scientific theoretical models are testable. It's a requirement of any and all ideas in science in order for that idea to even only be considered, let alone accepted.

I am willing only to say of all theoretic models "It is possible" but in the end "I neither know nor care"

So... is it "possible" that germs cause desease?
Do you "care"?

 

[USincognito]

Who here has avowed that there is no god? And most atheists understand Christianity better than most Christians. You made a false statement based upon a misunderstanding of yours.


I have read them. They are terribly flawed, especially if one reads them literally.

Please don't assist him in derailing this thread.

 

[USincognito]

In bacteria, yes. In higher life forms, no.
What beneficial information? Diet? For life forms which were designed to eat the garbage of the planet? Plllllease.

SRGAP2C, ARHGAP11B