How do I "stimulate", my Evolution? I can be stimulated to embrace the theory, but what next?

[klutedavid]

I think the point is that the rats can't stimulate their evolution.

We can influence our own genetics, what's the difference?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Looks like you're SOL then (short on luck).If you're presenting those bones as evidence, then I'm making the claim that science mislabeled them.

No, you have that backwards. As usual. Is it okay to misuse anagrams too? The anagram that you used is technically banned here.

And I'm also stating why I think science mislabeled them.

So what? You are merely stating an ignorant, or possibly even dishonest, belief. We know that your claims are false. Yet it is all but guaranteed that you will not learn why and how they have been refuted.

But keep up your overly literalistic approach to the Bible. As an atheist I should approve it since it has been shown to be the fastest road to atheism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're letting man determine what's a crime and what is not, not God.
but it's the other way around.
God defines what is wrong and what is not wrong, not man.
So yes, what is sin is a crime, it's against the law of God.

No, you are merely relying on your personal interpretation of the Bible. You should not blame God for your actions.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you have that backwards. Is it okay to misuse anagrams too?

You mean "acronyms"?

The anagram that you used is technically banned here.

That's news to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it okay to misuse anagrams too? You mean "acronym"?That's news to me.

Hey! You caught me in an error. I dah a feeling that I saw wrong

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We can influence our own genetics, what's the difference?

I don't think that was the point being made. But it was just a suggestion. Maybe you'd do better to ask the person that made the point in the first place.

 

[Frank Robert]

No, they weren't.

They were people with plagues.

I am not saying you and others don't believe they were people with plagues only that you are doing so as a belief and w/o any scientific evidence.

Different Christian denominations have varying beliefs of how to read the Bible from a literal reading to mytho-history with many in between. It doesn't tell us much when they all claim their belief is correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not saying you and others don't believe they were people with plagues only that you are doing so as a belief and w/o any scientific evidence.

I have the exact same evidence as is available to the entire world.

The difference is, I believe most people mislabel that evidence.

 

[Frank Robert]

You're letting man determine what's a crime and what is not, not God.
but it's the other way around.
God defines what is wrong and what is not wrong, not man.
So yes, what is sin is a crime, it's against the law of God.

Are you claiming crime is synonymous with sin?

Even if you are, different Christian denominations have differing views on what constitutes a sin. Would you take the word of what constitutes sin from a Christian brought up in a different denomination than you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have the exact same evidence as is available to the entire world.

The difference is, I believe most people mislabel that evidence.

Sorry, but you can claim that as much as you like but you will always be demonstrably wrong. You need to learn the difference between beliefs and evidence.

 

[Frank Robert]

I have the exact same evidence as is available to the entire world.

The difference is, I believe most people mislabel that evidence.

I agree with you in a sense. Many people do mislabel belief as evidence.

 

[SkyWriting]

Lol! If cars ended up looking that wonky just by everyday driving, without being crashed into, I'd call that terrible design

Cars out of alignment are dangerous. My feet work just fine.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, but you can claim that as much as you like but you will always be demonstrably wrong.

Then if I'm "demonstrably wrong," so is everyone else.

I use the same demonstrations as anyone else does.

Only labeled differently.

Historical events are exceptions, of course.

But with respect to what we're discussing, if science labels something as "Homo erectus," then I believe it is actually a "Homo sapiens."

(Not that I agree with that term, you understand.)

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree with you in a sense. Many people do mislabel belief as evidence.

Not with respect to what we're talking about though.

Take Neanderthals for example.

Someone finds a jawbone and labels it as coming from a Neanderthal.

I would label the same bone as coming from a plagued person.

King David at one time, if he would have died before he repented would, in my opinion, and if his bones were dug up ... would probably be labeled as a Cro-magnon or Neanderthal.

Read Psalm 38, where -- in my opinion -- God plagued him accordingly.

Psalm 38:7 For my loins are filled with a loathsome disease: and there is no soundness in my flesh.

Note what he says here:

Psalm 38:6 I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long.

He repents in Psalm 39 and requests healing:

Psalm 39:10 Remove thy stroke away from me: I am consumed by the blow of thine hand.

And God forgives him and heals him.

Psalm 40:1 I waited patiently for the LORD; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then if I'm "demonstrably wrong," so is everyone else.

I use the same demonstrations as anyone else does.

Only labeled differently.

Historical events are exceptions, of course.

But with respect to what we're discussing, if science labels something as "Homo erectus," then I believe it is actually a "Homo sapiens."

(Not that I agree with that term, you understand.)

No. They are not. There are standards for evidence and you do not appear to understand them. Belief is not evidence.

And your belief about Homo erectus is also demonstrably wrong. There are more factors than this but one of the factors that show it is not Homo sapiens is very related to the name of our species. The cranial volume of the two species is measurably different.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not with respect to what we're talking about though.

Take Neanderthals for example.

Someone finds a jawbone and labels it as coming from a Neanderthal.

I would label the same bone as coming from a plagued person.

King David at one time, if he would have died before he repented would, in my opinion, and if his bones were dug up ... would probably be labeled as a Cro-magnon or Neanderthal.

Read Psalm 38, where -- in my opinion -- God plagued him accordingly.

Psalm 38:7 For my loins are filled with a loathsome disease: and there is no soundness in my flesh.

Note what he says here:

Psalm 38:6 I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long.

He repents in Psalm 39 and requests healing:

Psalm 39:10 Remove thy stroke away from me: I am consumed by the blow of thine hand.

And God forgives him and heals him.

Psalm 40:1 I waited patiently for the LORD; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry.

Your claim might be valid if only one example was found. Guess what? That is not the case. More than 300 have been found of all ages. Once again the evidence disproves your claims:

List of Neanderthal fossils - Wikipedia.

 

[Jamdoc]

Are you claiming crime is synonymous with sin?

Even if you are, different Christian denominations have differing views on what constitutes a sin. Would you take the word of what constitutes sin from a Christian brought up in a different denomination than you?

Sin is a violation of the laws of God, a crime against God, so, a crime.
Denominations are a man created thing so no, on specific denomination can define what is and what is not sin, only the bible, and ultimately God, does. Anything outside of the bible that people would try to define as sin is only a guess.

The fatal flaw you have is you keep seeing Christianity as only an institution of man, and keep seeing everything in it, as man created.
You keep removing God
and I do mean it is a FATAL flaw.
until you see that, you are doomed to perish, eternally.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. They are not. There are standards for evidence and you do not appear to understand them.

I don't need to understand them; since whether I understand them or not, they are still there.

Just because I believe differently than you, doesn't mean those bones (or DNA or whatever) are going to go away.

Belief is not evidence.

That is correct.

And in the case of what we're talking about, which came first? the evidence or the belief?

And just to be clear here, we're talking about Linnaenan labels here -- not beliefs.

And your belief about Homo erectus is also demonstrably wrong.

Then so is yours.

There are more factors than this but one of the factors that show it is not Homo sapiens is very related to the name of our species. The cranial volume of the two species is measurably different.

If you want me to, I'll go hunt up my conversation with Split Rock about cranial size and the "burning ague" in the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your claim might be valid if only one example was found.

Let me point this out again.

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

Do you know what "of thy seed" means?

It means they had whole societies of ostracized people living in caves (what do you call them, "cave men"?), in the hills, here there and everywhere.

And all you have is 300!?

Keep looking!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't need to understand them; since whether I understand them or not, they are still there.

Just because I believe differently than you, doesn't mean those bones (or DNA or whatever) are going to go away.That is correct.

And in the case of what we're talking about, which came first? the evidence or the belief?

And just to be clear here, we're talking about Linnaenan labels here -- not beliefs.Then so is yours.If you want me to, I'll go hunt up my conversation with Split Rock about cranial size and the "burning ague" in the Bible.

Sorry, but to use evidence one must be able to understand it.

The rest of your post is just nonsense. Are you ready to learn what is and what is not evidence yet?