Is it a hoax?

[sfs]

Because they have the same designer? Why does the human body have many of the same elements as the earth? Same designer perhaps?

Um, what? I didn't ask why humans and chimpanzees were similar. I asked why their genetic differences look exactly like accumulated mutations.

 

[Suicidegirl1988]

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Darwins-Gi...id=1503838344&sr=1-3&keywords=Francisco+ayala

It is not wonderfully expensive, but of course you won't read it, because, like all YECs, you are fearful that anything written by somebody who knows what he is talking about would force you to change your views.

He can't explain first uncaused cause in that book and is stuck repeating topic in different words over and over , bunch of garbage.

 

[sfs]

Exactly, in fact, there is no evidence for much of the claims made by those that believe all life came from a single cell, speculation, conjecture, belief does not equate to evidence.

There is quite a lot of evidence that all life came from a single cell. What I haven't seen any evidence for is your claim that evolution is a giant hoax. You've accused me and my colleagues of perpetuating a con. I'd like you to back up that rather slanderous accusation, please.

 

[lesliedellow]

He can't explain first uncaused cause in that book and is stuck repeating topic in different words over and over , bunch of garbage.

So you haven't read even the first sentence, but already you know it is garbage. That's what I like to see - an open mind.

 

[xianghua]

Its an endictment when our faith is so fragile we cant consider any other evidence outside of a literal translation of the bible

why not? there are many evidence for design in nature and many evidence against evolution. for instance: the kinesin motor is like a robot that walk on two:

we know that such a structure is evidence for design and not a natural process. another problem is with the time we need to evolve such a complex system. even a small protein have a giant sequence space and 4.5 bilion years may be too short in time.

 

[Suicidegirl1988]

So you haven't read even the first sentence, but already you know it is garbage. That's what I like to see - an open mind.

He does not explain how DNA was created , just adding billion year to rock does not make it grow muscles .

 

[SkyWriting]

Then presumably a historian can't talk abot the American civil war, or, better yet, first century Palestine.

Sure. But history is completely fabricated in the mind of the story teller.
Any criminal attorney will explain that for you.

 

[tevans9129]

Your opinion, though wrong, is noted.

OK, I am perfectly willing to give you an opportunity to prove your opinion is correct.

I am willing to answer all questions that you may ask with plausible, verifiable answers and if I do not understand the question, I will ask for clarification or rephrasing and will then answer the question? No excuses, such as it is malformed, it is stupid, it is not relevant, etc. but clear, straightforward answers. I will also address each point that you present, IF, you are willing to reciprocate in like manner, are you? My offer to answer all questions is not unilateral.

If not, then I take your comments as nothing more than your unproven opinions, is that fair?

 

[SkyWriting]

But it can and does investigate the past using present day traces of that past.


Good hyptheses or theories win. Good hypotheses are the ones in accordance with known facts or data.

Hypothesis.

Below is a 1 hour documentary about how the Polynesians moved the giant statues on Easter Island (the Moai). There were hypotheses about this. But a team of scientists proposed a new way of moving them.
According to you view scientist couldn't have been doing this: investigate the past. Yet they did.
It fits the known data better, so a new hypothesis -- fiction-- was proposed.

But the hypotheses only changes the story people tell. It never actually recreates
the original events except in the mind of the story teller. It has zero effect on
the actual event.

Suppose that the easter island stones were found to have massive
marks of radiation on them. The new story would be "UFO transport."

 

[lesliedellow]

He does not explain how DNA was created , just adding billion year to rock does not make it grow muscles .

Creationists are great on their straw men, but nothing else.

 

[lesliedellow]

Sure. But history is completely fabricated in the mind of the story teller.
Any criminal attorney will explain that for you.

I trust it hasn't escaped your notice that the Bible contains history.

 

[tevans9129]

"you are fearful that anything written by somebody who knows what he is talking about would force you to change your views."

IF, someone "knows what" they are talking about, they would be willing and able to answer all questions they may be asked with plausible, verifiable answers rather than deflections, diversions and/or avoiding. I have seen very little, if any, evidence of folks willing to prove they know what they are talking about in this group. Many excuses but not so many plausible, verifiable answers.

 

[tevans9129]

There is quite a lot of evidence that all life came from a single cell. What I haven't seen any evidence for is your claim that evolution is a giant hoax. You've accused me and my colleagues of perpetuating a con. I'd like you to back up that rather slanderous accusation, please.

I would be thrilled to engage in a serious discussion of the subject, IF, you are interested in one as suggested below, are you?

"I am willing to answer all questions that you may ask with plausible, verifiable answers and if I do not understand the question, I will ask for clarification or rephrasing and will then answer the question? No excuses, such as it is malformed, it is stupid, it is not relevant, etc. but clear, straightforward answers. I will also address each point that you present, IF, you are willing to reciprocate in like manner, or will you have an excuse for not doing so? My offer to answer all questions is not unilateral which I would think would be obvious but seems not to be the case for some."

 

[SkyWriting]

The claim that all complex life forms evolved from one single cell is the largest con ever perpetrated on the world, IMO. Biology categorizes from the simplest cell to the most complex and that work is informative, interesting and should be applauded.

There is an alternate theory that is avoided that fits much better. The theory goes that the entire earth was a functioning organism that developed cells as a matter of better processing. So rather than life comming from one cell the various varieties of life developed as part of the one organism.

Support for this theory can be found in the way the planet recovers from trauma like meteor strikes or currently, lots of people burning coal and oil to keep warm.
God is a big thinker, so this makes more sense than the single cell model.

And it sounds too new age-y so researchers, religious or not, avoid publishing it.

 

[lesliedellow]

"you are fearful that anything written by somebody who knows what he is talking about would force you to change your views."

IF, someone "knows what" they are talking about, they would be willing and able to answer all questions they may be asked with plausible, verifiable answers rather than deflections, diversions and/or avoiding. I have seen very little, if any, evidence of folks willing to prove they know what they are talking about in this group. Many excuses but not so many plausible, verifiable answers.

Please answer me this question, if it is true that towers can only be built in Germany, and you say that the Eiffel Tower is located in France, please explain to me how it got there; otherwise I won't believe your fiction about the Eiffel Tower being in France.

Perhaps even you managed to notice the flawed premise. Well, your questions are exactly like that, which is why people have told you to go away, find out what the Theory of Evolution actually says, and then perhaps you will be able to come back and ask questions which actually make sense.

 

[SkyWriting]

I trust it hasn't escaped your notice that the Bible contains history.

That's the source of my claims.
The Four Synoptic Gospels

 

[SkyWriting]

Please answer me this question, if it is true that towers can only be built in Germany, and you say that the Eiffel Tower is located in France, please explain to me how it got there; otherwise I won't believe your fiction about the Eiffel Tower being in France.

I have heard that Statue of Liberty was not built by Americans.

 

[lesliedellow]

That's the source of my claims.
The Four Synoptic Gospels

I assume you mean the four canonical gospels.

If historians can write about the past, so can scientists, and even conservative scholars have the earliest gospel being written sometime after the event.

 

[SkyWriting]

I assume you mean the four canonical gospels.

If historians can write about the past, so can scientists, and even conservative scholars have the earliest gospel being written sometime after the event.

All historical writings are after the event.
So would current writings of history be less accurate in your book
that you are writing? Not nearly as accurate as your sources?
That's what you are claiming, that you cannot, today, write as accurate
as your source material?

 

[SkyWriting]

I assume you mean the four canonical gospels.

My mistake. The three synoptic gospels.
Why are Matthew, Mark, and Luke called the synoptic gospels?