Ignoring The Evidence : Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

[Black Dog]

What part is made up?

I only quoted one sentence. That's the part.

 

[justlookinla]

I only quoted one sentence. That's the part.

That's not made up. It's the truth.

 

[Black Dog]

That's not made up. It's the truth.

No, it's made up.

I've read your posts, and it might be the "truth" for you. But that's only because you absolutely refuse to learn, no matter how much evidence, no matter how many facts, are placed in front of you, I suppose because you are afraid that if you believe even one small piece, you will be tortured for all eternity. Very sad.

 

[justlookinla]

No, it's made up.

I've read your posts, and it might be the "truth" for you. But that's only because you absolutely refuse to learn, no matter how much evidence, no matter how many facts, are placed in front of you, I suppose because you are afraid that if you believe even one small piece, you will be tortured for all eternity. Very sad.

The resolution of the issue is very simple. Offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for only naturalistic mechansims producing humanity, as well as all life we observe today, from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Now I expect your response to offer anything but what I've requested. Excuses will be made, evasion may be seen, personal attacks could be forthcoming, even an attempt to change the issue to common ancestry may be tried....but what we will not see is the evidence asked for. That's because it doesn't exist.

 

[Black Dog]

The resolution of the issue is very simple. Offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for only naturalistic mechansims producing humanity, as well as all life we observe today, from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Now I expect your response to offer anything but what I've requested. Excuses will be made, evasion may be seen, personal attacks could be forthcoming, even an attempt to change the issue to common ancestry may be tried....but what we will not see is the evidence asked for. That's because it doesn't exist.

First, you are the one who made the assertions, so you are the one is responsible for providing evidence.

Second, as I said, I've read your posts. Davian, Subduction Zone, and others have given you reams of evidence, and you simply refuse to accept any of it, and just make stuff up, as you did in the sentence I quoted. Even your own bible talks about people like you: Jeremiah 5:21 ‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not’.

So thanks, but I won't bother embarking on such a pointless journey.

 

[justlookinla]

First, you are the one who made the assertions, so you are the one is responsible for providing evidence.

You can't give evidence for something that doesn't exist.

Second, as I said, I've read your posts. Davian, Subduction Zone, and others have given you reams of evidence, and you simply refuse to accept any of it, and just make stuff up, as you did in the sentence I quoted. Even your own bible talks about people like you: Jeremiah 5:21 ‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not’.

So thanks, but I won't bother embarking on such a pointless journey.

Right. You simply wanted to make a worthless accusation. Job well done!

 

[Doveaman]

Then there is nothing that the scientific theory of evolution needs to explain.

That's because the scientific theory of evolution cannot explain the human spirit.

You cannot claim that humans evolved from apes while ignoring a fundamental element of human nature.

It's not possible for a human spirit to evolve from an ape.

 

[Davian]

Discussion by cartoon.

As allowed in the context of this forum.

Then move it to another section of forum. Stop attempting to introduce off-topic issues.

I've explained several times now (as in my last post) that I used the term 'scientific truth' in contrast with the guesses and suppositions of Darwinist evolution. Darwinist evolution discards scientific truth and embraces willy-nilly creation unsupported by the scientific method.

Indeed. I think everyone here is clear on how unfamiliar you are with the science involved.

And that my friend is an example of how you stay on-topic.

As soon as you somehow, someway, with your best effort actually introduce content in which Newtonian physics

..or red herrings...

is related to creationism...or evolution (the topics of the forum), I'll be glad to discuss whatever it is you're wanting to discuss.

How about your word usage here in this forum?

Currently, nobody has a clue what you're trying to say.

Well, I wouldn't refer to yourself as a nobody, but I still wonder why you are so evasive.

Let's make the example more generic: If you have two scientific truths, where one yields slightly more accurate predictions than the other, are they still both scientific truths?

 

[justlookinla]

As allowed in the context of this forum.

Could be, I don't know. I know I'm going to participate in discussion by cartoon.

Indeed. I think everyone here is clear on how unfamiliar you are with the science involved.

That's the point, there's no scientific evidence involved, based on the scientific method, for the claim that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity, as well as all life forms we observe today, from an alleged single life form of long ago. The view is nothing more than a faith-based view.

..or red herrings...

Where?

How about your word usage here in this forum?

How about your complete and total failure to provide the evidence asked for?

Well, I wouldn't refer to yourself as a nobody, but I still wonder why you are so evasive.

I wonder why you can't discuss the issues on-topic. Well......not really.

Let's make the example more generic: If you have two scientific truths, where one yields slightly more accurate predictions than the other, are they still both scientific truths?

I doubt you're going to actually tell us how that's related to creation and/or evolution.

 

[Davian]

Could be, I don't know. I know I'm going to participate in discussion by cartoon.

Me too, whenever I feel it appropriate.

That's the point, there's no scientific evidence involved, based on the scientific method, for the claim that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity, as well as all life forms we observe today, from an alleged single life form of long ago. The view is nothing more than a faith-based view.

Exactly the sort of thing to say when you cannot address the science involved. No need to go on.

Where?

Each time you suggest that your word usage in this forum is off topic for this forum.

How about your complete and total failure to provide the evidence asked for?

Point out where I made a claim that required such. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else again.

I wonder why you can't discuss the issues on-topic. Well......not really.

I doubt you're going to actually tell us how that's related to creation and/or evolution.

A little slow on the uptake today? As I said in my previous post, let's make the example generic, so that it can apply to this - or any - science forum: If you have two scientific truths, where one yields slightly more accurate predictions than the other, are they still both scientific truths?

I will understand if this question makes you uncomfortable, and you must again obfuscate. Don't you have some sort of relationship with an allegedly all-knowing something-or-other that you can appeal to get just the right answer to deal with this, or the other science in this forum? No?

 

[justlookinla]

Me too, whenever I feel it appropriate.

Your discussion by cartoon would certainly be unique.

Exactly the sort of thing to say when you cannot address the science involved. No need to go on.

There is no science, supported by the scientific method, involved. Unless you consider your cartoon to be scientific evidence of course.

Each time you suggest that your word usage in this forum is off topic for this forum.

My word usage isn't off-topic, your Newtonian physics is the attempt at off-topic discussion.

Point out where I made a claim that required such. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else again.

I asked for evidence, based on the scientific method, for the view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity, as well as all life we observe today, from an alleged single life form of long ago. You've utterly failed to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for such a view. It's nothing more than a faith-based view.

A little slow on the uptake today? As I said in my previous post, let's make the example generic, so that it can apply to this - or any - science forum: If you have two scientific truths, where one yields slightly more accurate predictions than the other, are they still both scientific truths?

I will understand if this question makes you uncomfortable, and you must again obfuscate. Don't you have some sort of relationship with an allegedly all-knowing something-or-other that you can appeal to get just the right answer to deal with this, or the other science in this forum? No?

How about actually addressing creation and evolution? That would be a great start for you.

 

[Hoghead1]

I think that much depends on how you vie the relationship of spirit or mind to matter. I hold mind and matter are one reality, not two. I believe that all things, in all their aspects, consist exclusively of souls. So I have no trouble seeing how the human mind or soul evolved from lower life forms.

 

[Davian]

Your discussion by cartoon would certainly be unique.

Not to these forums.

There is no science, supported by the scientific method, involved.

Nothing that you are able to falsify, it seems.

Unless you consider your cartoon to be scientific evidence of course.

My word usage isn't off-topic, your Newtonian physics is the attempt at off-topic discussion.

Yet you refuse to discuss your word usage, even with a generic example.

I asked for evidence, based on the scientific method, for the view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity, as well as all life we observe today, from an alleged single life form of long ago. You've utterly failed to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for such a view.

So you do have me confused with someone else again. I have made no such claim. I have never seen anyone make such a claim in these forums.

It's nothing more than a faith-based view.

It never ceases to amaze me to see religionists use their own nomenclature in the pejorative.

How about actually addressing creation and evolution? That would be a great start for you.

I did not think you had any such relationship.

But, my point was that, unlike religious truths, scientific truths are not necessarily incompatible, so to suggest that a newer, more accurate scientific truth/theory/hypothesis turns the previous iteration into a lie, or falsehood, is to express ignorance, or intellectual dishonesty.

My other point was that my teenagers did not believe me when I told them about how evasive a religionist could be in these matters, so this provided an appropriate demonstration. Thanks for your participation.

Merry Christmas!

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's because the scientific theory of evolution cannot explain the human spirit.

You cannot claim that humans evolved from apes while ignoring a fundamental element of human nature.

It's not possible for a human spirit to evolve from an ape.

A human what?

 

[Doveaman]

A human what?

Yes.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Because evolution does not explain the origin of the human spirit.

*For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.* -- (1 Cor 2:11-12).

It is the human spirit that empowers us with human life, consciousness and intelligence, just as God's Spirit empowers us with divine life, consciousness and intelligence.

It is not possible for apes and monkeys to evolve a human spirit.

The human spirit is a gift from God just as God's Spirit is.

You're quite correct and as far as I understand neither do the Christian sacred texts. At most we can speculate about the evolution of religion and morality but as to tying it down to a specific date, we'd be making a guess. Some such as Dr. David Lahti and Prof. Jeffrey Schloss engaged in some rather interesting discussions about this.

I'd suggest you spend a little time studying Anthropology and getting a better handle on the subject before you wade in and get your wings singed Oh Doveaman.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

My faith-based belief is that humans came from the creator, God.

Please explain how 'humans came from the creator, God.' ?

 

[justlookinla]

Please explain how 'humans came from the creator, God.' ?

I'm not God therefore I can't explain the process. It's far beyond human ability to create humans therefore it remains a mystery.

 

[justlookinla]

Not to these forums.

I know of no one who attempts discussion by cartoon.

Nothing that you are able to falsify, it seems.

You've offered nothing to falsify.

Yet you refuse to discuss your word usage, even with a generic example.

I've defined my word usage many times now.

So you do have me confused with someone else again. I have made no such claim. I have never seen anyone make such a claim in these forums.

Darwinist 'creationism' makes the claim. You, and others here, openly embrace the faith-based view of Darwinism.

It never ceases to amaze me to see religionists use their own nomenclature in the pejorative.

It's simply an indicator of the views of Darwinist 'creationism'.

I did not think you had any such relationship.

But, my point was that, unlike religious truths, scientific truths are not necessarily incompatible, so to suggest that a newer, more accurate scientific truth/theory/hypothesis turns the previous iteration into a lie, or falsehood, is to express ignorance, or intellectual dishonesty.[/QUOTE]

The point was, you're attempting to introduce an off-topic discuss. The other point is that in spite of your repeated attempt, your attempts failed.

My other point was that my teenagers did not believe me when I told them about how evasive a religionist could be in these matters, so this provided an appropriate demonstration. Thanks for your participation.

Merry Christmas!

I don't address references to one's family. Those are off limit.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I'm not God therefore I can't explain the process. It's far beyond human ability to create humans therefore it remains a mystery.

Don't be shy. We all know how this is explained by Moses and Jesus.
It's something which doesn't settle too comfortably with the current science but it's nonetheless reasonably understood --- and to the faithful, we trust that this is how they (and many still) believed it had been accomplished. Allow me to elucidate us:

approximately 6000 years ago:

a). '....the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. ....'*
b). '....the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. ....'**-

*- Genesis 2
**- Genesis 2

It seems it wasn't beyond Jesus to read this and draw the sort of conclusion most of us would do by simply reading it:

approximately 4000 years later:

c). '...."Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'....'***

***- Matthew 19

some time after Jesus, St. Paul's letters contain the following --- which makes it clear that such beliefs were held to be so in the Early Church:

d). '....So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being” ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man. ....'****

****- 1 Corinthians 15

sometime in 2006 ~ Neil Shubin and his team discovered :

e). Obviously these ( a, b, c & d ) are very ancient ideas and as we learn more about our distant past, we're coming to understand through both the fossil record and DnA --- that they might have imagined these great events but it's more likely that we emerged from the oceans. *****/******

*****- (i.e. Tiktaalik -- read Neil Shubin's site: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ )

******- '....Tiktaalik was almost certainly not our direct ancestor, but a distant cousin......' ( http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/01/casey-luskin-em.html : current blogs by PZ Meyers : http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ )