I give up: I'd rather go backwards, than forwards (in Evolution)

SelfSim · Apr 2, 2021

Gottservant said:
But that is precisely what Jesus did: repurposing common knowledge for a spiritual lesson - farmers, kings, sheep - the legitimacy of knowledge has to pass the test, as to whether it successfully passes for inspiration of a greater spiritual principle.

One doesn't need science for that.
Its all just belief (and faith in that belief).

Gottservant said:
What I am talking about, is not some pervasive thing that gets in the way of good science - I am simply communicating to a standard that is well established, that more room to breathe is needed.

Yes .. that would be in order for you to preserve your own faith in your own beliefs.
Science doesn't really care about any of that, though.

SelfSim · Apr 2, 2021

Gottservant said:
Are you just ignoring my point or do you honestly not understand what the species believing almost the same thing together actually means?

I mean you are purposely saying the bar is species high, and I am jumping that bar by saying "there are a number of ways for the species to believe it together" and you are ignoring my perception of the species, for yours. Why?

Meh .. beliefs are a dime a dozen .. (or even cheaper).
We need something more valuable than that nowadays ..

Gottservant · Apr 2, 2021

But go back to my question:

"Is this sentence evolved because it ends in Deutsche?"

It depends on whether the Deutsche wirtshaft is better than the English economy?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Apr 2, 2021

Gottservant said:
But go back to my question:

"Is this sentence evolved because it ends in Deutsche?"

It depends on whether the Deutsche wirtshaft is better than the English economy?

Not really since English is actually an offshoot of the German Language (Old English being the language brought to Britain by the Anglo-Saxons, both a Germanic people, replacing the native Briton Celtic languages).

Shemjaza · Apr 2, 2021

Gottservant said:
Which is your bias.

Nonsense.

Evolution in the context of this forum is about the scientific theory or the physical process that the theory describes.

If you want to make up your own shifting definitions then you remove the ability to have a sensible discussion.

tas8831 · Apr 2, 2021

Gottservant said:
But what is the next generation supposed to focus on, if they believe Evolution?

The Bible is full of advice on how to live, with predictions about how the difference between obedience and disobedience will play out.

I'm not just shooting at the wind, understanding Christ's obedience is a monumental book all of its own (in the Bible).

Do you ask the same questions of cosmology?

Still not making sense.

tas8831 · Apr 2, 2021

Gottservant said:
Are you just ignoring my point or do you honestly not understand what the species believing almost the same thing together actually means?

I admit gleefully that I have no idea what that nonsense is supposed to mean.

Ponderous Curmudgeon · Apr 2, 2021

Gottservant said:
But if I communicate the same expectation, to the entire species - that species will conflate that communication, with the "evolution" of that self-same species.

I mean you are saying "you can't tell the difference" 'that the species itself can't tell'? Therefore your interpretation of the viability of the species, tends toward sin ("sin" in this context being, no change offered for difference, in the young).

I want to help, but how do you know that the species won't listen to me and do something "evolved" that ubiquitously adopted would pass from one generation to the next?

Or are you saying even if I did communicate to the species, only a part of what I passed on would survive?

There is nothing you can communicate that will have an effect on gravity, right? You are likewise not going to have any effect on the fact of evolution. You are however making Christians look foolish by prattling along with your total misunderstanding of the terms and concepts of biological evolution. Honestly GS, will only drive people away from Jesus as they would if you told people that ice cream lasers would fly from their eyes and melt the cheese in the moon.

We recognize that you are trying to to a good thing and are sincere. but this is not a way to do it.*

*Unless you are one of the better Poes that I have seen.

renniks · Apr 2, 2021

eleos1954 said:
Where is OBSERVED how the first cell came about? .... where is it OBSERVED how this cell "evolved" ... and somehow evolved into a male/female state? Was man able to OBSERVE over millions and billions of years? NO it's a theory and much of it was/is NOT in fact Observable.

Exactly. Ignore the scoffers, they have nothing to offer you.

tas8831 · Apr 9, 2021

eleos1954 said:
Where is OBSERVED how the first cell came about? .... where is it OBSERVED how this cell "evolved" ... and somehow evolved into a male/female state? Was man able to OBSERVE over millions and billions of years? NO it's a theory and much of it was/is NOT in fact Observable.

Where is it OBSERVED that Jehovah created the universe from nothing?
Where is it OBSERVED that Jehovah fashioned biologically relevant organic molecules from silicates?
HMMMM?????

tas8831 · Apr 18, 2021

tas8831 said:
Where is it OBSERVED that Jehovah created the universe from nothing?
Where is it OBSERVED that Jehovah fashioned biologically relevant organic molecules from silicates?
HMMMM?????

@eleos1954 ? Hello?

FredVB · Jun 2, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Why are 'white skinned people a temporary phenomenon in the duration of human existence in this world and their presence as such would not continue on'?
Yes, pale skin is a relatively recent mutation because of ice ages but once that gene is set in the human genome it is is set. Yes, in the future it may become recessive and will probably only pop up in a population again as the climate changes and evolution does its job, but that comment... that doesn't even seem scientific to me.

I read that somewhere, I have no memory now where it was, but it is really believable, if there is a long future of our descendents ahead, as white people overall do not reproduce as much and mix among others, and do not have genetic dominance. I just found this on that, but it is not where I read of that before. It would realistically be a trend in any evolutionary process if that was continuing. I do not speak of it with any "white anxiety" on my part, it is not an issue to me what people are physically like in the future, as long as they can function as people still.
Race of the future - Wikipedia

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 2, 2021

FredVB said:
I read that somewhere, I have no memory now where it was, but it is really believable, if there is a long future of our descendents ahead, as white people overall do not reproduce as much and mix among others, and do not have genetic dominance. I just found this on that, but it is not where I read of that before. It would realistically be a trend in any evolutionary process if that was continuing. I do not speak of it with any "white anxiety" on my part, it is not an issue to me what people are physically like in the future, as long as they can function as people still.
Race of the future - Wikipedia

A link to an idea proposed in the 1920s doesn't really work. And it also ignores the fact that light skinned people do exist in areas that aren't really considered 'white'. India and the surrounding countries are the best examples.

And it also doesn't show me to be incorrect. White skin did develop as a response in human populations because of the Ice Age. So if the same conditions are met again, then white skin would reemerge per natural selection.

FredVB · Jun 4, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
A link to an idea proposed in the 1920s doesn't really work. And it also ignores the fact that light skinned people do exist in areas that aren't really considered 'white'. India and the surrounding countries are the best examples.

And it also doesn't show me to be incorrect. White skin did develop as a response in human populations because of the Ice Age. So if the same conditions are met again, then white skin would reemerge per natural selection.

Because of the ice age? Maybe, but why would it take that rather than just it being a likely development to people migrating to latitudes far from the equator where they don't have the sun directly over them, in a few thousand years? I read somewhere, please do not ask me where, I retain things I read without recalling where I read them, and in the past did not save all the sources, or write them all down, where I can find those, that people coming into Britain earlier were dark skinned but became lighter, over time. I know that source I show is too old, as I said, that is not where I read it before. But I can't find it now, and I found that site, and just was showing what I said I read has been already said, it still was said much more recently. It is not a great concern to me though. Whiteness or being lightskinned is not an essential thing to the future of humanity, that I can see. Not destroying the world around us is, though.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 4, 2021

FredVB said:
Because of the ice age? Maybe, but why would it take that rather than just it being a likely development to people migrating to latitudes far from the equator where they don't have the sun directly over them, in a few thousand years? I read somewhere, please do not ask me where, I retain things I read without recalling where I read them, and in the past did not save all the sources, or write them all down, where I can find those, that people coming into Britain earlier were dark skinned but became lighter, over time. I know that source I show is too old, as I said, that is not where I read it before. But I can't find it now, and I found that site, and just was showing what I said I read has been already said, it still was said much more recently. It is not a great concern to me though. Whiteness or being lightskinned is not an essential thing to the future of humanity, that I can see. Not destroying the world around us is, though.

I remember the same subject since I saw it too, and it makes sense since Great Britain and Northern Europe was much warmer 10,000 years ago, and that is enough time in evolution for light skin to appear.

I never said that light skin was essential to the human race.

Phred · Jun 15, 2021

eleos1954 said:
Evolution distorts His biblical Word ... evolution theorists places man within the animal kingdom ... His Word says they (animals & man) were created on different days and are different creatures. Man was created in the image of God .... animals were not. They are very distinct from one another.

Where is OBSERVED how the first cell came about? .... where is it OBSERVED how this cell "evolved" ... and somehow evolved into a male/female state? Was man able to OBSERVE over millions and billions of years? NO it's a theory and much of it was/is NOT in fact Observable.

What you're telling me is that all those fossils of creatures that no longer exist died out. Every single one of them. But then since there are no fossils of creatures we see today what happened to them? Why did none of them leave any fossils? If, as you claim every creature was created were they not all created at the same time? So we should have fossils of EVERY animal, not just the ones that are extinct. But we don't. Could it be that instead of dying out they CHANGED?

Evolution is observable. We have observed it. You know what nobody has ever observed? God.

AV1611VET · Jun 15, 2021

Phred said:
You know what nobody has ever observed? God.

Did you think He was kidding when He said He was invisible?

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

eleos1954 · Jun 16, 2021

Phred said:
What you're telling me is that all those fossils of creatures that no longer exist died out. Every single one of them. But then since there are no fossils of creatures we see today what happened to them? Why did none of them leave any fossils? If, as you claim every creature was created were they not all created at the same time? So we should have fossils of EVERY animal, not just the ones that are extinct. But we don't. Could it be that instead of dying out they CHANGED?

Evolution is observable. We have observed it. You know what nobody has ever observed? God.

So we should have fossils of EVERY animal, not just the ones that are extinct

Fossilization varies depending on different factors that may or may not have occurred.

Also, there are a lot of things we haven't "physically observed" .... that doesn't mean that something don't exist .... or didn't exist.

Evolution is a theory (multiple theories) .....

Neither evolution nor the existence of God is provable, both are theories.

We don't know how the universe and life began ... so we theorize.

Heck some people theorize we were put here by aliens.

People believe what they want .... based on what they want .... and I'm ok with that ... you?

Phred · Jun 16, 2021

eleos1954 said:
Fossilization varies depending on different factors that may or may not have occurred.

Also, there are a lot of things we haven't "physically observed" .... that doesn't mean that something don't exist .... or didn't exist.

Evolution is a theory (multiple theories) .....

Neither evolution nor the existence of God is provable, both are theories.

We don't know how the universe and life began ... so we theorize.

Heck some people theorize we were put here by aliens.

People believe what they want .... based on what they want .... and I'm ok with that ... you?

You know how things fall and we say, "that's because of gravity." There is an observed phenomenon. Then there is the theory that explains it. Life evolves. That's the observed phenomenon. It's not a "theory" as in a guess as you folks constantly try to portray it. It's an observed phenomenon. Life evolved. That's as rock solid as "things fall." The theory part is "what causes it?" Why does life evolve? Scientific theories are not guesses. They are the culmination of years of work and effort that explain what has been observed. And they are as provable as can be. We know more about evolution than we do about gravity.

You did miss the point of my statement entirely in your zeal to try and wipe out evolution.

We know conclusively that life evolved. We know that the method was evolution by natural selection. Darwin called his book "on the origin of the species." It's not about how life began. It's about how the diversity of life came to be. Conflating the origin of life and evolution is another mistake you constantly make. We do not know exactly how life started. We do have a pretty good idea. That changes nothing about evolution. It's like saying because I don't know how the glass in the gumball machine was made I can't get a gumball from it.

The point I was attempting to make, which sailed right past you, was that creation calls for the simultaneous creation of all life. Yet we only find fossils of creatures that are no longer in existence. We don't find fossils of modern animals. If all animals were created at the same moment we should find fossils of ALL animals. Even if fossils are difficult to create. There wouldn't be only ancient life forms. But there are not. It's because those fossils ARE of modern creatures. Just as they used to be. But they've evolved. It's exactly as the theory predicts.

eleos1954 · Jun 17, 2021

Phred said:
You know how things fall and we say, "that's because of gravity." There is an observed phenomenon. Then there is the theory that explains it. Life evolves. That's the observed phenomenon. It's not a "theory" as in a guess as you folks constantly try to portray it. It's an observed phenomenon. Life evolved. That's as rock solid as "things fall." The theory part is "what causes it?" Why does life evolve? Scientific theories are not guesses. They are the culmination of years of work and effort that explain what has been observed. And they are as provable as can be. We know more about evolution than we do about gravity.

You did miss the point of my statement entirely in your zeal to try and wipe out evolution.

We know conclusively that life evolved. We know that the method was evolution by natural selection. Darwin called his book "on the origin of the species." It's not about how life began. It's about how the diversity of life came to be. Conflating the origin of life and evolution is another mistake you constantly make. We do not know exactly how life started. We do have a pretty good idea. That changes nothing about evolution. It's like saying because I don't know how the glass in the gumball machine was made I can't get a gumball from it.

The point I was attempting to make, which sailed right past you, was that creation calls for the simultaneous creation of all life. Yet we only find fossils of creatures that are no longer in existence. We don't find fossils of modern animals. If all animals were created at the same moment we should find fossils of ALL animals. Even if fossils are difficult to create. There wouldn't be only ancient life forms. But there are not. It's because those fossils ARE of modern creatures. Just as they used to be. But they've evolved. It's exactly as the theory predicts.

well ... if one is going to debate (compare) creation vs. evolution (apples to apples) the origin of life has to be included ... because the biblical claim is God created EVERYTHING, firstly the universe (environment) where life could be sustained .... scientifically regarding that .... there are and can only be theories (and there are many in that regard). Same is true about any other belief about the origin of life. The universe is vast and can not be completely observed ... much less fully understood and can only theorized.

We do not know exactly how life started (true) We do have a pretty good idea.

An idea (formulated thought(s) or opinion(s) are not indisputable fact(s) ... same is
true about God or any other "idea(s)" about the origin of life.

What IS true ... is ... that we don't know HOW the origin of life began (scientifically or otherwise) we only have ideas about it. Therefore people have their own thoughts and opinions about the matter.

Does it matter? Perhaps .... if the biblical account is true there is life after death ....
if not then there isn't? Don't believe in life after death? ... ok .... that's one's choice to believe that ... also nothing wrong with believing otherwise.

Bottom line .... WE DO NOT KNOW ... only have ideas about it and each decide what idea(s) they choose to believe and there are many beliefs.

I give up: I'd rather go backwards, than forwards (in Evolution)

A non "-ist"

A non "-ist"

God loves your words, may men love them also

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Mint

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

God is Love

Junior Mint

God is Love

Similar threads