My Stupid Challenge

[Kenny'sID]

There was nothing inaccurate about my statement.

A biologist can be expected to know more about biology then any non-biologist.
Seems rather obvious.

Of course it was inaccurate, and saying a biologist for instance, knowing about biology was all there was to it, is also inaccurate. The subject was evolution and those people proving it fact. Yet now you selectively recall it was only about them being good in their field? Spin.

the "I" word is peeping over the fence again. You all really need to stop that. Honestly, you don't really want to use inaccuracies to win your arguments...right? Either way, it's time consuming to have to constantly point them out then get back on track.

 

[Jimmy D]

Why YOU bother? Surely I've made the point by now, those things do nothing at all. Stating science or the like says anything at all is only a trick that makes it sound as if the science is creating the fact, a fact that cannot be disputed because science says it, when it is not that way at all, and a trick even you yourself likely don't realize you are pulling on people. Those things cannot and do not disagree with anything, only people do that. And only the opinion they draw from all those things point to what you/they say it does, not those things themselves. That is the absolute truth and I have to wonder why you word things that way? Can't you prove your points without going to that level?

This is what I mean by insecurity with your end of this, I'm not saying that just to demean, I really believe there is something to it, If y'all were that secure with your arguments, you wouldn't do some of the things you do in order to get others to believe you. Good grief...hope I've made my point on that once in for all now, but If the past is any indication, I'll be repeating it again shortly.

I'm not really following you here sorry. Do you mean to say that scientific evidence is merely opinion?

I assumed it was passed down from generation to generation.

That's what I believe as well, as an oral tradition, for hundreds if not thousands of years, which is one of the reasons that it can't be considered an accurate record of events.

It's as nonsensical as it is to believe records of him are to be taken into consideration but other records are not.

But they aren't the same at all are they?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm not really following you here sorry. Do you mean to say that scientific evidence is merely opinion?

Give me just a quick/simple piece of scientific evidence that proves or even strongly suggests evolution and I'll make my point.

That's what I believe as well, as an oral tradition, for hundreds if not thousands of years, which is one of the reasons that it can't be considered an accurate record of events.

I've no reason to believe it was not written down way back when. Why would you think just word of mouth?

But they aren't the same at all are they?

It's only a matter of time.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Who would you say was the very first person who existed? Is there one such person?

Probably not, and I can't say since that's not an answer I know. But it's not Adam since Adam is a theological literary device for describing the human race, not actually referring to an actual person.

 

[Speedwell]

The Darwin nonsense was just that, and that was my point. It's as nonsensical as it is to believe records of him are to be taken into consideration but other records are not.

Taken into consideration for what? We're talking about science here, not history, and an account in a book is not, cannot be by definition, scientific evidence of anything. It may describe scientific evidence, and the conclusions drawn from it, but the evidence has to exist and be examinable. The Bible is no more scientific evidence of creationism than Darwin's Origin of Species is scientific evidence of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Probably not, and I can't say since that's not an answer I know. But it's not Adam since Adam is a theological literary device for describing the human race, not actually referring to an actual person.

He must not be a very good description of the human race then, eh?

Else scientists would reference him more often; don'tcha think?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

He must not be a very good description of the human race then, eh?

Else scientists would reference him more often; don'tcha think?

A literary device. That's all Adam is.

 

[Speedwell]

A literary device. That's all Adam is.

A literary device in an etiological folk myth. That's why his name is a pun.

 

[AV1611VET]

A literary device. That's all Adam is.

A literary device in an etiological folk myth. That's why his name is a pun.

As I said, he must not be a very good description of the human race then.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[Speedwell]

As I said, he must not be a very good description of the human race then.

In many ways he is. The author(s) of that story were very perceptive of human nature, which is why we still value the story and accord it the status of divine inspiration.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

As I said, he must not be a very good description of the human race then.

Thanks for the QED.

And that proves Adam was real how?

 

[AV1611VET]

In many ways he is.

In what way is Adam descriptive of the human race that scientists either deny or don't know about?

 

[AV1611VET]

And that proves Adam was real how?

Not very descriptive then, is he?

 

[Speedwell]

In what way is Adam descriptive of the human race that scientists either deny or don't know about?

Or agree with. The science we are talking about here, after all, is about the origin of our physical bodies, not about our moral natures.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not very descriptive then, is he?

What's your point?

 

[AV1611VET]

What's your point?

Science is myopic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course it was inaccurate, and saying a biologist for instance, knowing about biology was all there was to it, is also inaccurate. The subject was evolution and those people proving it fact. Yet now you selectively recall it was only about them being good in their field? Spin.

You seem surprised that the strawman you erected, isn't my actual stance...

Again, what I'm saying is that it's perfectly OK to expect an expert to have expertise in the subject he is an expert in....

You do that every day. You go to a car mechanic to take care of your car.
You go to a doctor to help you with an illness.

the "I" word is peeping over the fence again. You all really need to stop that. Honestly, you don't really want to use inaccuracies to win your arguments...right? Either way, it's time consuming to have to constantly point them out then get back on track.

Maybe you shouldn't waste energy on erecting strawmen, then..

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Science is myopic.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who would you say was the very first person who existed? Is there one such person?

No, there is no such person.
Because populations evolve, not individuals.
And because evolution is a gradual process, there is no 'line' between 2 generations where you have 'human' off-spring of 'non-human' parents.

Here's a fun analogy of gradual change:

Another cool example is language.

Spanish, Italian, Portugese and French all derive from Latin.

So in 100 BC, everyone spoke Latin.
Then 2100 years later, nobody speaks Latin as a native language anymore, but they do speak the other languages mentioned above - which did not exist in 100 BC

So, do you think that at some point a Latin-speaking mother gave birth to an Italian speaking child?

Does the question "who was the first person to speak italian" make sense here?
Or is that rather a loaded question, wich ignores the process by which italian evolved from Latin?

 

[AV1611VET]

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Actually "blind" is a better term.