Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, seriously. Links to all the relevant articles, interviews, rebuttals etc are in the blog. Is your best comeback "I can't be bothered checking what you've given me"?Using a blog as evidence, seriously???????
AND is there any evidence to confirm that allegation?
Wikipedia is not accepted as real evidence, it is often nothing more that a compilation of opinions.The wedge document is pretty clear evidence of underhanded tactics.
Ok so no evidence available from a reliable source.Yes, seriously. Links to all the relevant articles, interviews, rebuttals etc are in the blog. Is your best comeback "I can't be bothered checking what you've given me"?
You asked for evidence, I have provided it. Handwaving is really just a refusal to accept that creationist organisations are knowingly, and even openly, dishonest.
I am willing to review any evidence that might provide something worth learning.Good grief, get informed or get conned. Try searching for:
"discovery institute" liars
and do some learning on your own.
If it were the primary source, you would have a point. Wikipedia is a convenient source of introductory material, it also requires sources for it's content.Wikipedia is not accepted as real evidence, it is often nothing more that a compilation of opinions.
is there any generally acceptable evidence that confirms it and that it applies to the case at hand?If it were the primary source, you would have a point. Wikipedia is a convenient source of introductory material, it also requires sources for it's content.
Do you dispute the existence or veracity of wedge strategy document?
If you read through the article it was brought up in court.is there any generally acceptable evidence that confirms it and that it applies to the case at hand?
A fish remembers how to follow the river.
A fish out of water does not forget that breathing underwater ends with the water.
Much like fish and water: if we come from apes, why do we not remember ape like things?
I'm not aware of any evidence for animals possessing their ancestors memories.
In addition you idea is wrong, we do remember ape like things. We are able to grip and hang from a very early age; we have instincts to use our hands to manipulate things; we have vocal and non vocal methods of communication much like other apes.
There was that experiment where monkeys were hosed down for attempting to grasp a banana at the top of a ladder. One by one they replaced the monkeys with monkeys that knew nothing about the hosing - and eventually all of them avoided the banana, with no experience of being hosed down.
The point being, something should be reflected in our interpretation of our environment, even if it is not reflected in "fact".
You are pointing out similarities, but not nuance.
I am saying that the nuance to what we do (as humans) should reflect prior monkey influence.
That's evidence for culture or communication not the transfer of memories to offspring.
That doesn't actually clarify anything. Can you explain what you mean by nuance in this context and how it is different to the actual evidence?
The only thing that changes (in this example), if what the monkeys maintain does not evolve, then there is nothing for Evolution to evolve?
Similarities occur because of similar selection pressures, nuance occurs when something is maintained and maintained in such a way that honors the source of the inspiration behind that nuance. Similarities "build up", nuances 'redefine'.
You are mistaken about the differences and about evolution.
Your earlier was about expecting memories to carry on over hundreds of thousands of generations. Your only example supporting this was evidence of communication and culture over zero generations between living creatures existing in the same place and same situation, not separated by generations.
So what changes is:
The time frame, [...]
The method of communication,
[...]
[...]
Your statement "if what the monkeys maintain does not evolve, then there is nothing for Evolution to evolve?" does not make sense and does not in any reasonable way apply to evolution.
You don't clearly define what you think is being maintained and how that can be demonstrated.
And more significantly you imply that "something maintained" and evolution itself in some way might be able to evolve... this is wrong due to evolution being a process that happens to species over multiple generations.
People have attempted to explain this to you multiple times.
That is very unclear, can you present specific examples?
The point of this thread, is to determine whether being ready to evolve, has anything to do with how much you evolve when you do.
You can get to Heaven, and expect Evolution to be more and more complicated and be in Hell or you can get to Heaven, and expect Evolution to be simpler and simpler and be in Heaven forever?
I would say that is a choice worth taking seriously, wouldn't you?
It would help if you didn't cut important information, out of what I said. If I hadn't checked the difference, you would have left me completely confused about what was said.
Surely latent potential is gauged by moments in context, not series of divergence.
By implying the method is more important than the content, you remove what is evidently local, for the sake of that which is broad.
If Evolution is not 'maintained', how do you move from the context in which it is appropriate, to the one in which it is "relevant".
The problem you have is that you are made in the image of God, but you deny that image currency (you don't believe God exists, and you don't believe that God made you); then when you find you lack objectivity about a plethora of changes that are relevant to your species, you point to an image of your own making - but don't make clear how you arrive or depart from interpretation of that image.
I want to help you understand yourself, but you have to at least try to start with what you do know, not what you 'guess might happen'.
Similarities of a race, evidence shared instinct for observation; nuances of a race, evidence shared context for departure from common observation, in relation to that race.
One requires you to be true, the other requires you to be ready.
As I have said a couple of times now "the evolution of a specific survival, is different from the optimum survival for that evolution" - you are not addressing the whole of what is argued, needs to be begun.
Adam wasn't created without a way to pass on his genes, that didn't happen by accident.
I don't need to keep telling you how time began, when you have enough work cut out for you to live a whole and valued life, whatever God turns out to be, for you?
You are told repeatedly that evolution is not something anyone has control over. A being cannot b ready to evolve no more than you can be ready to breath. They just happen.
Why do you keep thinking that evolution is a matter of choice?
I posted the entire comment that i was replying to.
Gottservant said:The only thing that changes (in this example), is what the monkeys maintain - if what the monkeys maintain does not evolve, then there is nothing for Evolution to evolve?
Shemjaza of Gottservant said:The only thing that changes (in this example),[?] if what the monkeys maintain does not evolve, then there is nothing for Evolution to evolve?
Shemjaza said:That does not make sense and it does not have anything to do with how evolution is understood to operate
Whether I believe in God or not is completely irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
Creation could be true, or it could be false. Evolution could be true or it could be false.
You don't need to believe in something to understand what it proposes.
It was objective physical evidence that led to the proposal of the theory of evolution and that's why some Christians, atheists and many other kinds of religious people accept it.
Can you describe what this plethora of changes are? Can you explain the objective method you are proposing to detect them?
That doesn't actually clarify any specifics.
And you link to one of your older threads is full of the mistakes where you depict evolution of a possession or a choice, which is simply wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?