I don't believe in evolution... (2)

[Archaeopteryx]

tulc quote

...really? Because what I see? Is the Levite and the Priest evaluated, the Samaritan saw the need and helped. Which of the three were the wounded man's neighbor? Which one are you clirus?

Response

What you see is what you want to see, at the exclusion of other information.

Lets say you saw Hitler in a ditch (and you knew it was Hitler), would you help him?

I do not see any justification in the Bible of Christians helping Atheists, except to offer the salvation of accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

The Bible definitely says Christians should help Christians.

On an individual level, the decision to help is between God and the person, but from a policy perspective, I do not believe it is best for Christians to help Atheists other than to offer salvation.

You still haven't answered my question regarding the Atheist in the burning house.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The problem is hope. Atheists hope facts never enter into the discussion of the Theory of Evolution.

The Theory of Evolution cannot be proved, thus it remains a theory because it cannot be proved.

When the word "theory" is used it means it cannot be proved.

Honestly, clirus, are you sure that you're not just an extremely dedicated troll? Either way, you are living proof of Poe's Law, sounding just like an insane parody of the most extreme fundamentalist fringe.

 

[mzungu]

Honestly, clirus, are you sure that you're not just an extremely dedicated troll? Either way, you are living proof of Poe's Law, sounding just like an insane parody of the most extreme fundamentalist fringe.

Honestly Jane, just ignore her; Your time is worth more!

 

[tulc]

What you see is what you want to see, at the exclusion of other information.

Really? I posted the Scriptures, pointed out the things I saw and then contrasted it with what you said. If there's more information I didn't address I'd be happy to look at it.

Lets say you saw Hitler in a ditch (and you knew it was Hitler), would you help him?

...Hitler was in the story of the Good Samaritan? (what translation are you reading? And as a Christian who tries to do as the Bible says I have to say: :Yes, I'd help him.

I do not see any justification in the Bible of Christians helping Atheists, except to offer the salvation of accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

Well to quote the only person who's opinion you appear to believe is infallible:

What you see is what you want to see, at the exclusion of other information.

The Bible definitely says Christians should help Christians.

I agree.

On an individual level, the decision to help is between God and the person, but from a policy perspective, I do not believe it is best for Christians to help Atheists other than to offer salvation.

That's up to you. Where the trouble comes in is when you appear to want to make your opinion out to be God's opinion also.
tulc(knows it's not)

 

[Nathan Poe]

...Hitler was in the story of the Good Samaritan? (what translation are you reading? And as a Christian who tries to do as the Bible says I have to say: :Yes, I'd help him.

Here's a question -- In the eyes of God, what makes Hitler any less deserving of help than any of us?

Most of the "Christians" I know can't answer this question correctly.

 

[HosannaHM]

I suspect that you copy pasted from a creo site so please provide a Source for your claims and make sure it is a peer reviewed one too!

Well I appreciate you thinking that I copied and pasted that but it is actually information that I know. I'm really interested in this subject so I do my research on both creationist/non-creationist websites. I wouldn't say I have a "lazy mind" either. I'm probably just as interested in this topic as you if not more.

 

[HosannaHM]

See, the funny thing about probability theory is this: it can predict the likelihood of an event, but it cannot predict when it will occur, or whether it will occur.

To illustrate this, let's look at nuclear power plants: in terms of probability, the risk of a disaster beyond maximum credible accident-level measures at one per ten thousand years. However, this does NOT mean that it'll take ten thousand years until such a disaster takes place - it can happen today, or tomorrow, or on any other day within that time period. The only thing that can be predicted with probability is that there most likely won't be more than one such event per ten thousand years (per power plant, that is...).
Or take the lottery: winning the jackpot is even LESS likely than experiencing a nuclear meltdown - and yet people keep doing it.

The thing is: extremely unlikely events take place all the time, everywhere. An extremely small likelihood does not prevent them from happening - it only means that they're not very probable.

Take a handful of sand. Pour it onto the table. Now, how likely do you think it is that the grains fall *exactly* in the pattern you've just created?
You could spend your whole life picking the grains up and pouring them again, and yet it is almost impossible for you to re-create the original pattern. It could still happen - it's just extremely unlikely. But even more importantly: even that first pouring created an extremely unlikely pattern. You've basically just created something that's statistically impossible. You didn't do so intentionally- it just happened.

To conclude, it may be extremely unlikely for a planet to exhibit all the characteristics that it needs in order to make it sustain protein-based life. The earth does exhibit them, however, and it does not take miracles to explain that. Life forming on a planet with liquid water is no more miraculous than a puddle forming in a cavity.

I'm aware that probability doesn't mean that it will take a certain amount of time for a scenario to happen. However, you didn't answer one of the questions I asked that was giving a plausible outcome to take place. Scientists know that amino acids would break down in nature before they would "create" these proteins. So again I ask what would be a plausible scenario?

Even if they were to assemble, as you know DNA holds the coding for how life works. The thing about coding is that it's information that isn't a tangible object. So where did the coding come from?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Even if they were to assemble, as you know DNA holds the coding for how life works. The thing about coding is that it's information that isn't a tangible object. So where did the coding come from?

There's more than just one hypothesis with regards to that: Eigen, Hoffmann, Wächtershausen, the UVTAR model, radioactive beach hypothesis, thermal vents...

And I'm by no means a specialist with regards to abiogenesis. I know far more about evolution theory than about the current models regarding the origin of biological life.

Personally, I believe that the underlying concept of reality is information - but that's more of a hunch than a viable scientific hypothesis.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Wikipedia, does not define Gravitation as a theory.

Gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gravitation can be measured and the measurements repeated by anyone.

The very first section of that article is titled 'History of gravitational theory'.

The part of the Theory of Evolution where non living matter becomes living matter, cannot be done by scientists, thus the Theory of Evolution remains a theory.

But no part of the theory of Evolution says that at all. And people keep reminding you of that... you just continue to ignore it. Two things have become clear from this 'dialogue': you neither understand the theory of Evolution nor do you have any desire to understand it. Your comments on the subject, therefore, are deemed less than credible.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The key elements of the Theory of Evolution that do not agree with the Bible are also mostly a "hunch".

Except that they are not.

But why am I telling this to a person who still insists that the theory of evolution is about the origin of organic life and the big bang, even after people have repeatedly explained that these are not even tangentially related?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The very first section of that article is titled 'History of gravitational theory'.

Fantastic, isn't it?

I've never encountered a person who suffered so severely from selective blindness, seeing only what she wanted to see.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So why not call the subject "Adaptation", which is what Darwin observed. Adaptation is consistent with the Bible.

There are words that are really repulsive.

I believe the E-word (Evolution) is just as offensive to Christians as the N-word is to blacks.

Many Christians - who actually understand Evolution - disagree with you, your suggestion that Evolution is offensive, and your misrepresentation of what the theory claims.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So why not call the subject "Adaptation", which is what Darwin observed. Adaptation is consistent with the Bible.

There are words that are really repulsive.

I believe the E-word (Evolution) is just as offensive to Christians as the N-word is to blacks.

Well, that's your belief -- alas, nobody cares what you believe.

 

[DaisyDay]

So why not call the subject "Adaptation", which is what Darwin observed. Adaptation is consistent with the Bible.

There are words that are really repulsive.

I believe the E-word (Evolution) is just as offensive to Christians as the N-word is to blacks.

Evolution does not treat Christians different from the rest of humanity, so perhaps you should rethink that.

 

[Insane_Duck]

So why not call the subject "Adaptation", which is what Darwin observed. Adaptation is consistent with the Bible.

There are words that are really repulsive.

I believe the E-word (Evolution) is just as offensive to Christians as the N-word is to blacks.

Reality being proven different than your world view is offensive? That's a worrying over-reaction...

 

[Insane_Duck]

Evolution does not treat Christians different from the rest of humanity, so perhaps you should rethink that.

Maybe that's what is offensinve about it?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Maybe that's what is offensinve about it?

You might be on to something here. Especially considering how creationists tend to huff and puff about "my great-grandfather wasn't a stupid APE!!!"

I have a feeling that it's not about God at all. It's about some people's needs to feel extra-special, and thinking quite poorly about the rest of the universe. So, they're not centre-stage any longer? That cannot be true!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Maybe that's what is offensinve about it?

Indeed -- I've noticed that the very Chrisitans who are offended by evolution are the ones who consider themselves innately superior to non-Christians.

Those Christians who are blessed with humility, OTOH, seem more willing to listen and learn.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Jane_The_Bane/Nathan Poe:

I have a feeling the whole idea of creationism (going back 7,000 some years) and perhaps religion is born out of a need to both not die and feel superior. My God can beat up your God...

 

[tulc]

So why not call the subject "Adaptation", which is what Darwin observed. Adaptation is consistent with the Bible.

There are words that are really repulsive.

I believe the E-word (Evolution) is just as offensive to Christians as the N-word is to blacks.

So...you want people to practice "Political Correctness" when it comes to this subject?
tulc(just wondering)