Evolution - and their take over/destruction of science

[DogmaHunter]

T Or you can just keep posting questions on the internet.

...while completely ignoring the answers given.

 

[juvenissun]

Why is that a problem?

You use "believe" in the definition of faith.
What is believe?
Should you trash that word too?

 

[DogmaHunter]

.. From what he calls the "Common Ancestor", the line on Dawkins chart goes to the gorilla, and every Evolution documentary points to gorilla changing into a chimp like creature. So "gorilla-chimp like, bonobo-human" is what were looking for!?

Ow, for crying out loud..............

Now, you even need it explained how family trees work?????????????

See that red circle? That's a common ancestor. This ancestor is not a human, not a chimp, not a gorilla and not a bonobo.

Let's make it extra clear:

See the red circle?
They are the common ancestors of the children at the bottom. The grand parents, in this case.

To say that "humans evolved from gorilla's" is the equivalent of saying that the boy in the red shirt on the bottom right, is the parent of the boy in the green shirt on the bottom left.

I can not believe that I have to explain this!!!



And those "evolution documentaries" you're talking about... were they by any chance made by creationists who don't know what they are talking about? Sure sounds like it.

Wow, I know a lot of good, kind, honest creationists, and they would never intentionally lie about the questions they have for atheistic-evolutionists, and neither would I!

And yet, creationists are caught lying at every turn, when it comes to the subjects of mainstream biology, chemistry, archeology, geology, physics,...

Perhaps they don't do it intentionally. In that case, it's willfull ignorance. Which also falls under intellectual dishonesty.

Like what you are doing. I can't even count the amount of times I had to explain to you that gorilla's did not evolve into humans.

I hope that this time, with the pictures and explanations above, it will finally sink in! Although I doubt it.

But I know a lot of atheists who show a heated resentment against the Bible, and those who hold the value of what the Bible teaches especially regarding "honesty, responsibility for your actions, rules and laws etc." lie about many things, without any regret.

That would be a relevant statement, if you could point out where I have ever done such a thing. I can point to many instances where it has been explained to you that humans aren't descendends from gorilla's though.....................

See your reaction to things you can't answer?

Invalid questions can't be answered, by definition.
The only proper response to such questions, is pointing out that they are invalid.

Did your goddess Mother Nature sit down first and plan out how a human should look like; two hands of equal size on both sides of the body, not to grow arms like she does tree branches, two eyes, when she knows that at least two more in the back of our heads would be really helpful especially in the ape-survival of the fittest stages, .. huh, .. did she?
No.

See? Invalid nonsense questions.

She don't care one way or another since there is no plan, or design, nor care one way or the other, so answer me why we didn't she grow eyes in the back of our head?

In order to answer that question, I'ld basicaly have to give you a crash course on how evolution actually works. I'm sorry that I'm not going to go through the trouble of writing an essay of a few thousands words for you on this forum.

Your ignorance on this subject matter is YOUR responsability, not mine.
You are the one who feels like you can argue AGAINST something you clearly have no knowledge about. Go away and study the basics of biology and then come back and try again.

But the bigger question is, where are all the horrible mutants that supposed to be going extinct, like those that can't stand up on their hind legs and walk upright because of the pain it causes them stepping on their eyeballs that's mutating on the bottom of their feet, .. huh?

See? More incredible exposure of sheer ignorance of the subject matter.
ps: "horrible mutants" generally don't survive.

You know, the color gradient between the two distinct species, specifically the "Red species and the Blue species", where the millions of in-between are slowly and agonizingly dying out like your "common ancestors" did? Where Are they??

Evolution is a gradual process. That's what the red to blue text example is about.
More things you don't seem to comprehend.

See, just about every "objection" you raise here, is simply rooted in a vast, vast ignorance on the subject matter. I don't have the time nore the energy to correct all these false assumptions because, as said, it would basically require me to give you a full high-school level course of basic evolutionary biology.

CLEARLY you are not interested in that... You are only interested in upholding your fundamentalist beliefs and you don't actually care what biology is REALLY about. If you cared, you would at least have spend some time studying up so that you could actually make an informed argument....

But at this point, your "objections" are the equivalent of arguing against gravity by saying that hammers float in the international space station.

It is beyond ridiculous.

Just as ridiculous as this Evolution story is

Yes, that strawman version of the "evolution story" that you have in your head, is quite ridiculous.

What did you expect, that I wouldn't point out the plethora of ridiculous claims in this story falsely labeled a scientific-theory?

You mean, in that strawman version that you picked up on some creationist website or heared from some pastor or something?

"Good grief"? It's a theory of mine, ok Charlie Brown?

A ridiculous "theory", build on false assumptions and extremely false understandings of how evolution actually works.

Look, what if those archeological discoveries where they find a bunch of skull and bones together in one spot actually belong to the same "common ancestor", that, caused by the chaotic environment grew many arms and legs, and for some reason died out!?

What if you would actually stick to reality, instead of fantasy?

There should be millions of them.

According to your false understandings, maybe.

Actually, since it's been 2.1 billion years of this chaotic environment, we should see Billions of these horrible mutations between two species going on right now, dying out each day, so where are they?

We should not. if you would actually understand the basics of biology, you'ld know that. But alas.....

Let me provide you with a good solution; "stay away from it, ridicule it, mock it, but don't go there because you'll just dig deeper for your Evolution grave."

Or.... you could just pick up a book at a library and actually learn what biology is REALLY all about?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You see there is a difference between "not knowing what I'm talking about", .. and "not agreeing with you". You should start learning, and accepting the difference between those two.
It's OK to be wrong, who can blame you since we all been indoctrinated for sooo long.

Here's an observation I made......

Just about everybody that you are arguing with, is telling you that your statements expose an ignorance on the actual science.

Those who actually also bothered to correct some of your fundamental errors, are all saying the same thing as well.

So you should ask yourself this question: what is more likely?

That you are indeed incorrect about what you think evolution is about....
or
That ALL OF US except you are incorrect in the exact same way. While keeping in mind that some of us actually ARE scientists and at least one, to my knowledge, is actually a geneticist.


I think it's time for you to take a step back and engage in some honest reflection........

 

[DogmaHunter]

You "believe" your ancestors are 30% north European.
Is that a faith?
Are there evidences for that?

National Geographic Geno DNA Ancestry Kit | Human Migration, Population Genetics

 

[Shemjaza]

You use "believe" in the definition of faith.
What is believe?
Should you trash that word too?

Isn't a belief "something you think is true"?

And then we have other words which mean "belief" but with different justifications or levels of confidence.

For example: "Suspect", "Know" as well as "have faith", but that can either be a show a personal conviction based on evidence, or a testament of religious fervor: "I walk by faith, not by sight."

I personally don't have any problem with the word faith, but I feel some people are being disingenuous by not recognising these two different uses of the word.

 

[juvenissun]

Isn't a belief "something you think is true"?

And then we have other words which mean "belief" but with different justifications or levels of confidence.

For example: "Suspect", "Know" as well as "have faith", but that can either be a show a personal conviction based on evidence, or a testament of religious fervor: "I walk by faith, not by sight."

I personally don't have any problem with the word faith, but I feel some people are being disingenuous by not recognising these two different uses of the word.

It would be the same by using the word faith only.
How much faith?
It is a very common and reasonable question.
Not you, but some one put an illogical and tricky definition on the word faith, thus my question. That guy ran away.

 

[HitchSlap]

It would be the same by using the word faith only.
How much faith?
It is a very common and reasonable question.
Not you, but some one put an illogical and tricky definition on the word faith, thus my question. That guy ran away.

Beliefs shouldn’t require faith.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It would be the same by using the word faith only.
How much faith?
It is a very common and reasonable question.
Not you, but some one put an illogical and tricky definition on the word faith, thus my question. That guy ran away.

Let's try something else....

Consider these two statements:

"I have faith that the undetectable 7-headed dragon is protecting me against extra-dimensional aliens"

and

"I have faith that a boeing 747 will get met safely from London to Madrid".

Is the "faith" in the first statement of the same type as the "faith" in the second statement?
What is the difference between both?

 

[bhsmte]

Let's try something else....

Consider these two statements:

"I have faith that the undetectable 7-headed dragon is protecting me against extra-dimensional aliens"

and

"I have faith that a boeing 747 will get met safely from London to Madrid".

Is the "faith" in the first statement of the same type as the "faith" in the second statement?
What is the difference between both?

Good luck.

 

[Shemjaza]

It would be the same by using the word faith only.
How much faith?
It is a very common and reasonable question.
Not you, but some one put an illogical and tricky definition on the word faith, thus my question. That guy ran away.

Do you recognise that these are both common uses of the word "faith" and that they are different from each other?

 

[juvenissun]

Beliefs shouldn’t require faith.

If so, what is belief?

 

[juvenissun]

Do you recognise that these are both common uses of the word "faith" and that they are different from each other?

We could use the word in different capacity. But we do can find a valid basic definition for the use in all cases. And I say it again: there is no better definition than what's given in the Bible.

The guy wanted to delete the word faith from the dictionary because he thought he does not need it. But he failed to do that. That means, he NEEDS it. Like it or not.

 

[Shemjaza]

We could use the word in different capacity. But we do can find a valid basic definition for the use in all cases. And I say it again: there is no better definition than what's given in the Bible.

The guy wanted to delete the word faith from the dictionary because he thought he does not need it. But he failed to do that. That means, he NEEDS it. Like it or not.

What is your basic definition that works for all cases? Because I'm very dubious.

 

[juvenissun]

What is your basic definition that works for all cases? Because I'm very dubious.

It is already said in the OP:

Actual, Biblical definition of
Faith: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[juvenissun]

Let's try something else....

Consider these two statements:

"I have faith that the undetectable 7-headed dragon is protecting me against extra-dimensional aliens"

and

"I have faith that a boeing 747 will get met safely from London to Madrid".

Is the "faith" in the first statement of the same type as the "faith" in the second statement?
What is the difference between both?

No difference until one can test them.
And we can not compare them. They have to be tested individually. One is true does not mean the other is wrong.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If so, what is belief?

To believe = to accept a proposition as correct, true, accurate


Perhaps now you could explain the difference betwee:
"to believe on faith"
and
"to believe on evidence"

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for staff review. ​

 

[mnorian]

Mod hat on

This thread is being re-opened after a cleanup of flaming, goading, and trolling posts. We are going to try a reopening; but it will be permanently closed and more staff actions taken if more of those types of posts are posted.
Carry on.​