If evolution is true

[inquiring mind]

In other words they don't stick to one particular environment. Why aren't they afraid to venture off?

I think they’re kind of fond of trees.

 

[inquiring mind]

You didn’t have to. You demonstrated it.

No I didn't.

You aren’t engaging with the content of the responses your ill-formed questions are receiving, instead focusing on excuses to dismiss them.

This crowd wouldn't have given my responses near the attention they have if they were too ill-formed.

Many animals migrate and shape their environments as they see fit, and the superior intelligence and dexterity of humans has allowed them to do so more effectively than any other animal on the planet.

No argument there.

 

[gaara4158]

No I didn't.


This crowd wouldn't have given my responses near the attention they have if they were too ill-formed.


No argument there.

On the contrary, one of the most effective ways to get a lot of replies is to have something wrong with your question. People love correcting one another.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No question is bogus, answers on the other hand...

There are plenty of bogus questions. One's that are not asked in good faith, such as yours, would qualify as such.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you are not "just questioning" you are dismissing supported instances of direct observation, the existence of homologies and fossils, and biogeographical patterns and expect others to consider a literal interpretation of bronze age religious book as a replacement.

Iron age actually. The Bible is far younger than is claimed by literalists. Most of it was written during the Babylonian captivity. There is almost nothing that predates that period. The best that I know of is some pottery with what may be paraphrased Bible verses or the lore that eventually became part of the Bible. So think for the most part (Job is an exception) 600 BC or younger.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... The Bible is far younger than is claimed by literalists.
... So think for the most part (Job is an exception) 600 BC or younger.

?

 

[inquiring mind]

But you are not "just questioning" you are dismissing supported instances of direct observation, the existence of homologies and fossils, and biogeographical patterns and expect others to consider a literal interpretation of bronze age religious book as a replacement.

No, you are wrong in your assessment of me. I understand that the Bible is not like other books… in that it is ‘spiritually’ discerned. Unbelievers, on the other hand, see problems where there are none because they try to understand it ‘naturally’. What other question could they have, but ‘how could this be?’ Literal interpreters, myself included sometimes, can also run into problems because we often don’t understand customs and languages that span Bible settings covering many lands and centuries (Bronze Age, Iron Age and the Roman period). Yet, even though men wrote it, it holds to one story and a consistent message the entire time. If it wasn’t inspired by God, I don’t see how that could be. Because I hold it in that regard, and for other reasons too, I feel something is lacking in your 'natural only' message. So, I question.

 

[inquiring mind]

There are plenty of bogus questions. One's that are not asked in good faith, such as yours, would qualify as such.

Good faith… so, questions have to be of a category that you can easily answer within the parameters of TOE?

 

[inquiring mind]

Iron age actually. The Bible is far younger than is claimed by literalists. Most of it was written during the Babylonian captivity. There is almost nothing that predates that period. The best that I know of is some pottery with what may be paraphrased Bible verses or the lore that eventually became part of the Bible. So think for the most part (Job is an exception) 600 BC or younger.

When it comes to changing lives, God’s inspired word and the message is never outdated.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, you are wrong in your assessment of me.

I would say they're pretty spot on.

 

[Gene2memE]

No, you are wrong in your assessment of me. I understand that the Bible is not like other books… in that it is ‘spiritually’ discerned. Unbelievers, on the other hand, see problems where there are none because they try to understand it ‘naturally’. What other question could they have, but ‘how could this be?’ Literal interpreters, myself included sometimes, can also run into problems because we often don’t understand customs and languages that span Bible settings covering many lands and centuries (Bronze Age, Iron Age and the Roman period). Yet, even though men wrote it, it holds to one story and a consistent message the entire time. If it wasn’t inspired by God, I don’t see how that could be. Because I hold it in that regard, and for other reasons too, I feel something is lacking in your 'natural only' message. So, I question.

"My book is right, because it's special. If you don't think it's special, and understand it in this special way, you can't see how its right."

You see how this is circular reasoning, don't you?

 

[gaara4158]

Good faith… so, questions have to be of a category that you can easily answer within the parameters of TOE?

Good faith just means you’re making an honest effort to understand and respond to your interlocutor’s argument as they meant it. If you’re not able to make a case against evolution in good faith, you might want to ask yourself why you’re trying to do so in the first place.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Yet, even though men wrote it, it holds to one story and a consistent message the entire time. If it wasn’t inspired by God, I don’t see how that could be.

Does this mean that the consistent stories and messages of thousands of other religions, were inspired by their gods? If not, why not?

 

[Frank Robert]

No, you are wrong in your assessment of me. I understand that the Bible is not like other books… in that it is ‘spiritually’ discerned. Unbelievers, on the other hand, see problems where there are none because they try to understand it ‘naturally’. What other question could they have, but ‘how could this be?’ Literal interpreters, myself included sometimes, can also run into problems because we often don’t understand customs and languages that span Bible settings covering many lands and centuries (Bronze Age, Iron Age and the Roman period). Yet, even though men wrote it, it holds to one story and a consistent message the entire time. If it wasn’t inspired by God, I don’t see how that could be. Because I hold it in that regard, and for other reasons too, I feel something is lacking in your 'natural only' message. So, I question.

Genesis tells the story that God created the earth. Your question is did God do it through natural laws or directly. Regardless of what you personally hold, the evidence points to natural means. The evidence for natural means, while not complete, is overwhelming and is substantiated by consilience of evidence from multiple independent scientific fields. If you jettison the evidence it raises the question Is God a Great Deceiver?

 

[inquiring mind]

You all appear to be non-believers, so like I said before, what else can you say but ‘how can this be?’

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You all appear to be non-believers, so like I said before, what else can you say but ‘how can this be?’

You want a religious answer to a question about biology. You're not going to get the answer you want.

 

[inquiring mind]

Does this mean that the consistent stories and messages of thousands of other religions, were inspired by their gods? If not, why not?

Which other one involves an empty grave and we'll discuss it.

 

[inquiring mind]

You want a religious answer to a question about biology. You're not going to get the answer you want.

No, my question does not require a religious answer at all.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, my question does not require a religious answer at all.

Then why did you begin your statement with "You all appear to be non-believers,"? If you split a group into believers and non-believers, then you're automatically asking a religious question.

 

[inquiring mind]

Then why did you begin your statement with "You all appear to be non-believers,"? If you split a group into believers and non-believers, then you're automatically asking a religious question.

No, that reference is to 'your questions' (how can this be?); you've established you have no 'answer' to my question, other than a TOE one... I'm just asking why would the average chimp, even extraordinary ones, venture beyond his relative safety and the norm? I can't see hunger doing it or they all would have left or moved to another forest, I can't see preditors running them off, they were use to that.