Macroevolution:

[stevil]

Yup. In fact, it would require faith to accept it as a true story, in my opinion.

I assume you would consider faith to be a virtue. Something to be rewarded for in the afterlife?

Would you consider contradictory evidence to be a test of your faith or perhaps an opportunity to show how faithful you are?
Do you think a doubting Thomas is less virtuous than a person of strong faith?

 

[AV1611VET]

I assume you would consider faith to be a virtue.

Yes. Faith is one of the three virtues.

1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Something to be rewarded for in the afterlife?

And something to please God with in this life.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Would you consider contradictory evidence to be a test of your faith or perhaps an opportunity to show how faithful you are?

The latter.

I don't need to see some goofy shroud, or wheel at the bottom of the Red Sea, or an outline of Noah's Ark, or take a trip to the Promised Land to enhance my faith.

Do you think a doubting Thomas is less virtuous than a person of strong faith?

Yes.

We who walk by faith ... in my opinion ... are more blessed than even our brothers and sisters in Christ who need physical evidence to help them along.

As Jesus put it ...

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Those who haven't seen get a special blessing over those who have.

 

[stevil]

Yes. Faith is one of the three virtues.
And something to please God with in this life.

So, in some way it could be considered as a gift from you to god?
A show of unconditional love?

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Never having been a person of faith, I do struggle with this concept.
If you don't have any evidence, how do you choose one religion over another?
Doesn't it then come down to mere luck?

As a father of two, I teach my children skills in order to navigate life, to become independent and to make their own choices. I don't expect them to believe me, I am happy when they challenge me, I reward independent thought rather than conformity to MY authority, I reward skepticism and research. I am very proud (as a father) when my kids correct me or teach me on something.

I don't need to see some goofy shroud, or wheel at the bottom of the Red Sea, or an outline of Noah's Ark, or take a trip to the Promised Land to enhance my faith.

So you would prefer to have faith than to see,
Maintaining your faith in the face of seemingly conflicting evidence highlights that you will not turn your back on god under any circumstances?

We who walk by faith ... in my opinion ... are more blessed than even our brothers and sisters in Christ who need physical evidence to help them along.

Personally, I see it as a fruitless exercise, to try and find evidence for god. In many circumstances it comes down to finding gaps in scientific knowledge and pointing out, "we don't know how this happened so it must have been god!" but this doesn't recognise that science is a method of discovery. It is because we have gaps in our knowledge that we employ scientific endeavors.

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Those who haven't seen get a special blessing over those who have.

I'm not an expert in the bible, in fact I haven't read it, but I personally don't see this passage as being an endorsement for faith over evidence. Perhaps it is saying that either path is fine with Jesus?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you don't have any evidence, how do you choose one religion over another?

Call it a sixth sense, if it'll help; but as the Bible puts it ...

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

You admitted you haven't read the Bible, may I suggest you at least read the books of John & Romans?

Doesn't it then come down to mere luck?

We have a saying:

I'm a Christian by election and a Baptist by conviction.

 

[stevil]

Call it a sixth sense, if it'll help; but as the Bible puts it ...

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

You admitted you haven't read the Bible, may I suggest you at least read the books of John & Romans?

I have no sixth sense, not that I'm aware of.
Perhaps I'm slightly autistic or something, but I just can't make any sense of it.
For example, the phrase you posted above, I have no idea what is meant by that.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no sixth sense, not that I'm aware of.
Perhaps I'm slightly autistic or something, but I just can't make any sense of it.
For example, the phrase you posted above, I have no idea what is meant by that.

I applaud your honesty.

It means that faith comes, then grows as one reads God's word (the Bible).

 

[Kylie]

see my ferarri example above. making objects in order dont prove they evolved from each other. even if they were able to reproduce.

But when we see traits carried from one generation into the next, and a mechanism for carrying those traits across generations, all of which has been tested and shown to be real, what am I supposed to do? Ignore it?

 

[Kylie]

i can say the same thing to my car into airplane example.

We went over that, didn't we? Do you just pretend I didn't demolish your arguments then?

 

[xianghua]

We went over that, didn't we? Do you just pretend I didn't demolish your arguments then?

as far as i remember, you showed that a car can evolve into a gliding one. not an airplane. even a regular car can glide in some situations.

 

[PsychoSarah]

why not? it can help in many situations for humans.

-_- organisms don't evolve with the purpose of helping humans. Especially not via NATURAL selection. Remember that organisms such as cows and dogs are the products of ARTIFICIAL selection by our species.

for instance: a human can use this watch to meet someone.

-_- even if it were possible, through artificial selection, to produce a living watch, why would our species bother when we already have machines to tell time with?

i can say the same thing to my car into airplane example.

Demonstrably wrong; we make cars, we make airplanes, we know flying cars do not predate airplanes, and we know airplanes didn't come from cars. Nothing about the design of an airplane would even suggest a shared design thought process with that of cars. No car or airplane has ever appeared independent of human intervention. The comparison of living organisms to cars is so bad that, even if humans and cars had the same inventor, you'd never be able to tell by comparing them. That is, even from an intelligent design perspective, the "design" of living organisms and cars are too dissimilar for design in both to become apparent via comparison.

Your path of reasoning is so terrible that even if I was a creationist, I'd take issue with it.

 

[Loudmouth]

if they were not then why the paper conclude it may be the result of convergent loss?

So are they homologous or not? Where is the evidence for homology?

 

[xianghua]

-_- even if it were possible, through artificial selection, to produce a living watch, why would our species bother when we already have machines to tell time with?

maybe somone dont have any money? maybe it were better then our own watches? anything is possible.

Demonstrably wrong; we make cars, we make airplanes, we know flying cars do not predate airplanes,

true. as we know that the first tetrapod predate it's suppose ancestor. at least according to the fossils we have.

and we know airplanes didn't come from cars.

as we know that humans didnt come from fishes.

 

[xianghua]

So are they homologous or not? Where is the evidence for homology?

if the paper conclude that it's possible by a convergent evolution then they should be homologous. so or so: your claim about hierarchy have been flasified.

 

[Loudmouth]

if the paper conclude that it's possible by a convergent evolution then they should be homologous. so or so: your claim about hierarchy have been flasified.

If the paper is saying that they are convergent, then they are analogous, NOT homologous.

 

[stevil]

as we know that humans didnt come from fishes.

Humans did come from fish.

 

[xianghua]

Humans did come from fish.

you are welcome to believe it. but it's only a belief.

 

[Loudmouth]

and the evidence is a theory?

The evidence is the observed nested hierarchy of vertebrates.

 

[AV1611VET]

Humans did come from fish.

Each nation had a primary deity, usually with the deity coupled with man in some way; and the scientific community is no exception.

Sagittarius

Horus

Dagon

Minotaur

Evolution

 

[xianghua]

If the paper is saying that they are convergent, then they are analogous, NOT homologous.

i actually refer to convergent loss. if it's the result of convergetn loss- then they are homologous. but again: your claim about hierarchy is wrong in both cases.

 

[xianghua]

The evidence is the observed nested hierarchy of vertebrates.

it's already has been flasified.

 

[Loudmouth]

that already have been flasified.

Where?