If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[tas8831]

Facts? You probably are referring to something called "facts" that are not the facts to be used to present the Bible as God's Word, or have seen those "facts" misinterpreted and misevaluated.

Right, whatever. But regardless of your definition argument, you have none in your favor.

 

[tas8831]

It is just so precious when Christians feel the need to label things they disagree with as 'religions.' It really says something when they think it 'takes you down a notch or two' to be called a follower of a religion.

This is not my objective at all.

Sure seems like it. Creationists very frequently will do this - call evolution a 'religion'. It is pretty obviously a desperate ploy.

I pretty much just go by proper definitions and sharing information, not trying to take people down a notch.

Really? So what proper definition of 'secular humanism' makes it a religion?

re·li·gion
[rəˈlijən]
NOUN

1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith · belief · worship · creed · sect · church · cult · denomination
2. a particular system of faith and worship:
"the world's great religions"
3. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance:
"consumerism is the new religion"

But your defensive response is understandable and natural.

Defensive? LOL! I am not the one trying to re-define something so as to make it easier to argue against.

But thanks for the projective and predictable response.

I just try to share the truth, and if people want to accept it or reject it that is their choice, and I accept that. Wishing them all well.

You mean you are trying to spread what YOU think is the truth.

Let's be honest.

 

[Speedwell]

In other words "Don't confuse me with the facts. I will go with the majority that says the Titantic is unsinkable."

Do you have any facts yourself? All I've seen so far is a shallow and theologically unsatisfying interpretation of the stories in Genesis.

 

[tas8831]

This is hilarious - when an Evangelical brings up that verse, you know that have nothing left to argue.

How about when God says to bash the heads of children on rocks and the cut up pregnant women, thus killing their unborn child, all because they lived in a land that did not worship Him?

You are wrong both on your assumption that evangelicals have nothing left to argue

No, I don't think I am. As I have mentioned, I have been doing this for more than 20 years. Christian fundamentalists generally show up on these forums and first they regurgitate the nonsense they're recently read on their favorite creationist website. Then, people with relevant scientific knowledge question their claims. Sometimes, the creationist will double-down and refuse to budge, then play martyr. Sometimes, they will realize that they are in over their heads, and pull out the old 'the fool hath...' verse. It is a tactic, whether it is a conscious act or an instinctual one I do not know.

(unless they choose not to argue for some very good reasons, not because of lack of information, resources, proofs, etc.)

It is almost always due to lack of information, resources, etc. Or more specifically, they are shown that their resources are phonies, etc.

and on your question relating to the mass annihilation of certain people groups. For the latter, do you yourself have a reasonable answer, no answer at all, or do you just find this annihilation offensive, disagreeable to you, and criticize it. I will leave the" answer/reason God did this" for another post

I have a very good answer - if God is real, then He is a childish bloodthirsty thug. More likely, it was just an act of barbarism of His 'chosen people' who then wrote that God said to do it, and since people in ancient times were superstitious and didn't know much about the world, believed them. And people alive today, in a time where the acts in Hosea should be seen as disgusting and horrific and evidence that the bible is NOT a good source of moral teaching, instead we see evangelicals making excuses and dodging.

But no, you have Truth and all that...

This is one of the reasons that I recently abandoned religion altogether.

 

[tas8831]

Yes, simple. Unlike some maybe the children are inquisitive enough to know the body turns to dust after it's dead?

It does?

So... What was God starting with since there had been nothing alive to die and 'turn to dust'?


Remember - you wrote:

". Especially when the Bible says we were created from the dust of the earth, right there on the spot, with no mention whatsoever of an evolving period. I mean that's what my bible says anyway so that's what I choose to believe."

But also smart enough to know a little commonsense and inquisitiveness goes a long way to not coming up with some of the most ridiculous alternative explanations, as in, it just happened....poof.

Right - they just prefer Poof + God breath.

Of course, we can always hope that this mystical inquisitive child would not feel the need to misrepresent the positions of others as you just did.

Did you know the dust of the earth can turn into some of the most beautiful and intricate things one has ever seen? And basically feed the world? Pretty impressive for a few "basic minerals". You probably have a lot of reading up to do on your own science there.

Really? Since you are so familiar with my science, perhaps you can tell me where I can read about minerals feeding the world.

Any insights on where you think man came from? I mean from the start...where did all the elements come from in order to just happen to all fall together and eventually turn into man?

So I t6ake it that despite the fact that you declared God to have made man from the dust of the ground, you do not have any "insights on the mechanism of human-creation from dust? I mean, dust is basically minerals. How did God transform minerals into organic molecules, into cells, etc.?" and you are content to engage in the burden shifting fallacy.

Understood.

With your knowledge of dust, I'd keep "seeking" if I were you.

Unless you can prove what ever else you *think* you have explained, thus far it looks like you are failing miserably.

Haven't read them but I'd guess the rest of your posts are as baseless as this one, so may or may not bother.

Don't. I don't care, I get enough projection and dodging and unwarranted condescension from the rest of your 'brethren.'


But it is so special how you think so highly of your face-saving antics. So special.

 

[tas8831]

Where are they not accurate?

Well... For 1, they are internally inconsistent.

And before you try the old 'Genesis 2 is just adding more detail to Genesis 1' routine, Genesis 2 describes some things as happening in a different order than Genesis 1. That is not an issue of detail, it is pretty obvious.
The Two Contradictory Creation Accounts

Now I know that there are all sorts of excuses and doges and 'just so stories' that try to rescue this obvious problem, but none are intellectually satisfying.

 

[tas8831]

This is your own erroneous faulty position, that you have learned from other atheistic scientist. Just because you keep repeating it for 300 years doesn't make it true. Why are argue, neither of us are going to switch our positions we so cherish.

Same to you - Just because you keep repeating it for 300 years doesn't make it true. You just think the earth is 6000 years old because a creationistic non-scientist told you to believe because Jesus said so.

 

[tas8831]

True science is true, factual, actual "knowledge" of nature and it's laws, such as centrifugal force, gravity, etc. It is not man's opinion or theory or hope, and has 0% chance of being incorrect.

LOL! Who told you that - Pastor John?

I see in your vast scientific education, you never learned what "theory" means in science....

 

[tas8831]

They thought the unicorn was a myth, until they found such examples of fossils of large animals with one horn coming out of it's skull. Imagine the surprise of the first modern person to see a narwhal in the ocean. A whale with a horn coming out of it's head. They thought the Hittites were a myth, until archaeology unearth ancient records speaking of them. Same with King David and a tone of other things. People that don't want to believe, call so many things "myths" that really existed. Take dragons. Not Disney dragons exactly, but fire breathing dinosaurs. There are insects today that could be cited, like "the bombardier beetle".

They thought the Greek gods were myths, then they discovered Troy.

Fire-breathing dinosaurs? Bombadier-beetle? What on earth are you talking about?

 

[tas8831]

I don't need a pastor to tell me these things. I am not a kid. I am a retired pastor, that also had an interest in true science.

Of course...

I also have a nature as not just to take everything pastors say as accurate. I have been like that for over 45 years. The flip side might be that you only believe it is not literal because your secular or misguided religious teachers told you so.

Or, maybe there are people that were not pastors, and were not brainwashed into the cult-like beliefs of biblical literalist, who took the time to study and learn and do real research, and discovered that the bible tales in Genesis cannot possibly be literally true? Is that a possibility?

Tell you what - instead of this back and forth about truth and true science and unicorns and such, how about you dazzle us with your TRUE SCIENCE? Show us some facts and evidence that support a young earth and post-flood hyperspeciation? Tell us the mechanisms that allow for this, tell us how an olive tree survived being submerged in brackish water for a year, and so on?

With TRUE FACTS and SCIENCE, and no miracle escape-clauses, etc.

 

[tas8831]

I understand that. 1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 1:22.
1 Corinthians 14:38; John 12:48.

And there you go with the bible verse escape clauses.


A sign of someone unable to defend their claims with TRUE facts and TRUE science.

I have found that those that hide behind these silly shields of bible verses have nothing intellectually viable to offer.

 

[Speedwell]

They thought the Greek gods were myths, then they discovered Troy.

Fire-breathing dinosaurs? Bombadier-beetle? What on earth are you talking about?

I would be interested to know who this "modern person" is supposed to be, and "they," who sound like a pretty ignorant crowd.

 

[tas8831]

There is no evolutionary biology that is true science.

Assertion.

Darwins finches did not evolve, they adapted different size beaks, but they all were still finches.

They are examples of evolution in action. Nobody said they became something other than finches. Your ignorance of the facts is not grounds to dismiss those facts.

Different size horses and dogs is not evolution, because they all are still horses and dogs. Different sizes and shapes of humans is not evolution, because they are all still... well you should get the idea.

Yes, we get the idea - you believe the cartoon version of evolution pushed on you by your religious handlers and by the charlatans that run YEC websites and the like.

Adaption is not evolution. Nothing has evolved. They all continue to stay the same or have missing links in their supposed evolution.

So many TRUE FACTS and TRUE SCIENCE in your baseless assertions, I feel the need to cower with the security offered by the religion of secular humanism...

"well substantiated, repeatable body of observation from nature and experimentation" This sounds nice to you, it just doesn't exist for "true evolution."

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "



Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."


But no, no TRUE SCIENCE here...

 

[tas8831]

He who laughs last laughs best. The scientific community said the ceolacanth was extinct, until fishermen pulled a live one out of the sea.

Gee, golly, that was because nobody had seen one until then. Imagine that...

"They all" laughed at Trump when he ran for president, and then "they all" cried when he won.

Of course people are crying that he won - look at the damage to the country!
Trump fan?

Riddle me this - how can a Christian support a serial adulterer, thrice-married worshipper of money?

Never mind - not a topic for this forum.

 

[tas8831]

In other words "Don't confuse me with the facts. I will go with the majority that says the Titantic is unsinkable."

Your facts are trivially irrelevant.

Regarding the unsinkable Titanic, I saw polling data the other day that shows that Christianity is a failing religion in the USA - the number of young people that identify as Christian (especially evangelical Christian) has dropped to well below similar data from previous years. The number of people identifying with no religion is rising, also among young people.
Looks like you are a dying breed, sir.

 

[tas8831]

I would be interested to know who this "modern person" is supposed to be, and "they," who sound like a pretty ignorant crowd.

Indeed.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It does?

Of course it does.

Honestly, you really should have picked up on that by now, but I did my best to help.

So... What was God starting with since there had been nothing alive to die and 'turn to dust'?

I think I countered that with a question, let's see if you answered what your evolution started with.

Remember - you wrote:

". Especially when the Bible says we were created from the dust of the earth, right there on the spot, with no mention whatsoever of an evolving period. I mean that's what my bible says anyway so that's what I choose to believe."

I know what I said, what is your point exactly?

Right - they just prefer Poof + God breath.

Surely you have done this enough where you know that always leads to a draw? Show me your proof and I'll show you mine? Get it? Waste of time.

Of course, we can always hope that this mystical inquisitive child would not feel the need to misrepresent the positions of others as you just did.

LOL, you are desperate for an upper hand, aren't you.

Maybe you haven't done this so much after all. Hilarious.

Really? Since you are so familiar with my science, perhaps you can tell me where I can read about minerals feeding the world.

There you go again, suggesting that is all there is in dust. They're doing a "No one left behind" seminar on dust here next April 1st...let me know if you need the time/exact address.

So I t6ake it that despite the fact that you declared God to have made man from the dust of the ground, you do not have any "insights on the mechanism of human-creation from dust? I mean, dust is basically minerals. How did God transform minerals into organic molecules, into cells, etc.?" and you are content to engage in the burden shifting fallacy.


Understood.

I, more strongly than ever, suggest that that seminar....Wow

And is that to say you have no insight on where what it took to evolve man came from either? Remember that draw I mentioned...told you so. If you have no explanation of your own, who are you to tell me the Bible is wrong....It always makes more sense, to me anyway, when someone says what they have is made, and didn't just appear in their living room on it's own...but that's just me.

Don't. I don't care, I get enough projection and dodging and unwarranted condescension from the rest of your 'brethren.'

But it is so special how you think so highly of your face-saving antics. So special.

Not sure where any face saving was necessary for me, but if you say so...at least I can save mine.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They thought the unicorn was a myth, until they found such examples of fossils of large animals with one horn coming out of it's skull. Imagine the surprise of the first modern person to see a narwhal in the ocean. A whale with a horn coming out of it's head. They thought the Hittites were a myth, until archaeology unearth ancient records speaking of them. Same with King David and a tone of other things. People that don't want to believe, call so many things "myths" that really existed. Take dragons. Not Disney dragons exactly, but fire breathing dinosaurs. There are insects today that could be cited, like "the bombardier beetle".

I really don't think you fully understand what you're talking about in this situation.
When people say 'unicorn', they mean a horse with a horn on the head. Not a narwhal or a rhino. They mean a horse with a horn on it's head.
When people say 'dragon's, they mean a flying/non-flying lizard of immense size that can breath fire. Not a beetle that shoots a form of acid out of it. They mean a giant lizard that breaths fire.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Same to you - Just because you keep repeating it for 300 years doesn't make it true. You just think the earth is 6000 years old because a creationistic non-scientist told you to believe because Jesus said so.

"Because Jesus said so" You reject Jesus? John 12:48.

 

[bhsmte]

"Because Jesus said so" You reject Jesus? John 12:48.

A book of stories said so, which by the way, was penned by anonymous authors.

You can still believe it though, knock yourself out.