My Stupid Challenge

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think man was ever a different species....But once the 2 of every kind left the ark they speciated into the know animals of today.

Which is hilarious, because that would require you to believe in an evolutionary process that goes hundreds of times faster then what biology actually posits (and which goes against just about any observation and piece of evidence we have).

At the rate that this "super-evolution" would have to move forward, there'ld need to be no less then 16 new species PER DAY.

Funny how you have no problems with physically impossible boats, physically impossible floods, biologically unsustainable populations sizes, followed by an evolutionary process on steroids...

But a slow evolutionary process wich actually makes sensein context of the rates we observe in both living organism as well as in the fossil record... that somehow blows your mind....

 

[miknik5]

Come back and let us know how a man can change the spirit of another man

Adam couldn't.
His own wife who came forth from his own body wasn't like Adam

And they were only two in a fixed and perfect environment that before the fall could not affect and was itself not effected

 

[Jimmy D]

Not avoiding, I had no answer, but if you insist on something then, I don't know... why do you ask?

And why are you avoiding my question?

Thanks for the answer. I was asking because earlier you said....

"Why is the written record in the Bible, not considered a record? Do people think they weren't capable of keeping records that far back or what? "

I would suggest that it isn't considered a record because

a. It was written so long after the events (several thousand years?)
b. It contradicts many, many of our observations of the natural world.

Unless one holds very specific religious beliefs it's considered no more of a record of actual events than any other far-fetched religious creation story.

As for your question...

"Do you think the tales of, or about Darwin were written down at the time they were conceived, and if so, was that something you saw for yourself, or did you just read it from a book."

I assumed it was just a rhetorical question, obviously there was a lot written by him and about him during his lifetime, are you not aware of that?

 

[miknik5]

And now we have the "intelligence" to imitate an outward perfection?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Biologists, geneticists, molecular biologists, biochemists, etc, overwhelmingly disagree with your layman's opinion.

And they actually know what they are talking about - while you obviously don't.

That makes assumptions, just as your evolution does, and I expect no less from you, however it is not evidence of anything. It's only yammer designed to demean someone into believing you. I think I'd stick with your opinions over relying on comments like that to make your point.

Your insecurity with your beliefs are still alive and well, I see.

 

[miknik5]

Which is hilarious, because that would require you to believe in an evolutionary process that goes hundreds of times faster then what biology actually posits (and which goes against just about any observation and piece of evidence we have).

At the rate that this "super-evolution" would have to move forward, there'ld need to be no less then 16 new species PER DAY.

Funny how you have no problems with physically impossible boats, physically impossible floods, biologically unsustainable populations sizes, followed by an evolutionary process on steroids...

But a slow evolutionary process wich actually makes sensein context of the rates we observe in both living organism as well as in the fossil record... that somehow blows your mind....

evolving to?
And from where?

1. Further away from its SOURCE and ORIGINAL DESIGN?
2. Closer to its SOURCE and ORIGINAL DESIGN?

I say 1

 

[Jimmy D]

That makes assumptions, just as your evolution does, and I expect no less from you, however it is not evidence of anything. It's only yammer designed to demean someone into believing you. I think I'd stick with your opinions over relying on comments like that to make your point.

Your insecurity with your beliefs are still alive and well, I see.

What assumptions?

 

[Kenny'sID]

a. It was written so long after the events (several thousand years?)
b. It contradicts many, many of our observations of the natural world.

I'll leave B alone because that's all a matter of opinion. As to A...as I understand it, it all happened in 7 days and Adam was right there the get the 1st hand record from God, but still interested in why you say several thousand years.

And to speed things up a bit, to any reply of how do I know? I would say word of mouth/written record, same way you know. And on any comment that Darwin existed but God doesn't, I would answer, were you told Darwin existed?... if yes, so was I told God existed to start the record. Not saying you will ask those but just in case, point being there is just no good reason to believe these records are factual and those are not. there is a huge difference in the time between Darwin and now and creation and now, but I don't think that's necessarily a problem

I assumed it was just a rhetorical question, obviously there was a lot written by him and about him during his lifetime, are you not aware of that?

And vice versa.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes this is what I think was the intent of the poster who said something about our "fear of mutation"

Somehow getting the outside to look perfect (like the banana)

Again that does not (and actually will not) gaurantee that the inner man (not discussing his genes or DNA now) will be perfect

Evolution is not about becoming "perfect". Evolution is not a ladder.
Evolution is about being fit for the environment/habitat. And not "perfectly fit", but just "fit enough" to survive and reproduce.

You expose how ignorant you are on this subject with every post you make.

 

[Kenny'sID]

What assumptions?

Huge assumptions that those people are as brilliant as alluded to. Since evolution has not been proven fact and is still theory alone, there is absolutely no reason to believe those people are that smart at all. The assumption they are, assumes their conclusions are credible.

It's like saying, Wow! he's smart, he said he invented a time machine.

 

[miknik5]

Evolution is not about becoming "perfect". Evolution is not a ladder.
Evolution is about being fit for the environment/habitat. And not "perfectly fit", but just "fit enough" to survive and reproduce.

You expose how ignorant you are on this subject with every post you make.

I'm not ignorant to ONE TRUTH sir and I know that when HE who hold all things back is taken out of the way all the laws of nature will not hold

That includes the laws of science, our mind, our intellect, our health and even our DNA

All these things which we have held as long held "truths" will no longer hold because it as GOD in HIS EVERYDAY GRACE upon all who held these things so that we were never totally destroyed

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That makes assumptions, just as your evolution does, and I expect no less from you, however it is not evidence of anything. It's only yammer designed to demean someone into believing you. I think I'd stick with your opinions over relying on comments like that to make your point.

Your insecurity with your beliefs are still alive and well, I see.

I have no insecurities about my beliefs, nore do I demand anyone to just believe like I do.

Quite the opposite. I encourage people to actually go and learn about biology instead.
Don't take my word for it, by any means. Instead, just learn the actual subject.

At this point, this thread is a collection of one strawman after the other.
For crying out loud, we even have people here who ask for X 'as evidence of evolution', while X would actually falsify it instead.

That's how deep the ignorance runs... It's a bad joke and nothing more.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

evolving to?
And from where?

1. Further away from its SOURCE and ORIGINAL DESIGN?
2. Closer to its SOURCE and ORIGINAL DESIGN?

I say 1

Evolution is always a vertical process.
Species speciate into subspecies.

It's like a branching tree. A branch can split into two (or more) sub-branches.
But it never jumps from one branch to the other.

You can't be closer related to your cousins then you are to your brother and sisters.

 

[Jimmy D]

I'll leave B alone because that's all a matter of opinion.

It's times like this I wonder why I bother. The fields of geology, archaelogy, paleontolgy, history, biology, in fact any field of study concerned with the past, disagrees with you.

As to A...as I understand it, it all happened in 7 days and Adam was right there the get the 1st hand record from God, but still interested in why you say several thousand years.

Don't you think Moses wrote down Genesis?

And on any comment that Darwin existed but God doesn't, I would answer, were you told Darwin existed?

I suggest we drop this Darwin nonsense, he obviously existed, and if he didn't so what? I couldn't care less, the Theory of Evolution still stands after 200 years.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's how deep the ignorance runs... It's a bad joke and nothing more

My only point was the one I made. I wasn't speaking for or against the other stuff you mention.

the insecurity comment was only my thinking on why one would go to a level of inaccurate statements to back themselves...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Huge assumptions that those people are as brilliant as alluded to.

I didn't call them "brillian".
Neither is it an assumption.

These people were educated in these fields. They hold phd's in these fields. They work in these fields. They publish papers in these fields. Working in these fields as scientists literally is their job.

There is no assumption.

Note that I also don't state that whatever a biologists says should be blindly believed. I'm not making an appeal to authority. It's rather an appeal to expertise. Which is totally fine.

When you have a problem with your pc - you ask and IT guy for advice.
When you have a health problem - you go and see a medical doctor.
When your car is giving you troubles - you go and see a car mechanic.

So when you have a question about biology, what on earth is wrong with asking a biologist???

Since evolution has not been proven fact and is still theory alone

Being dishonest again?
Tell me, how many times have you been told by now what the word "theory" in science actually means and how "theories" NEVER turn into "facts", and how theories in science EXPLAIN facts?

www.notjustatheory.com

, there is absolutely no reason to believe those people are that smart at all.

lol!

Did you really just say that there is "absolutely no reason" to believe that a biologist, knows a thing or two about biology? LOL!!!

It's like saying, Wow! he's smart, he said he invented a time machine.

No. It's rather like saying... "wow, he's smart, look... he invented this machine"

Not just "he said he did". Rather: he actually did.

A licensed medical doctor or a phd biologists, doesn't just claim to know about his field. He has the qualifications and the trackrecord of treating patients / publishing science papers to SHOW he knows about his field of expertise.

 

[Jimmy D]

Huge assumptions that those people are as brilliant as alluded to. Since evolution has not been proven fact and is still theory alone, there is absolutely no reason to believe those people are that smart at all. The assumption they are, assumes their conclusions are credible.

It's like saying, Wow! he's smart, he said he invented a time machine.

That's not what he said though is it? He said that they knew more about the topic than you, there is plenty of rock solid evidence for that on this very forum. Do you know what an 'assumption' is? It seems you think it's a magical word that lets you win any debate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not ignorant to ONE TRUTH sir and I know that when HE who hold all things back is taken out of the way all the laws of nature will not hold

That includes the laws of science, our mind, our intellect, our health and even our DNA

All these things which we have held as long held "truths" will no longer hold because it as GOD in HIS EVERYDAY GRACE upon all who held these things so that we were never totally destroyed

When you are done preaching and are ready to actually address the points being talked about, give me a poke.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My only point was the one I made. I wasn't speaking for or against the other stuff you mention.

the insecurity comment was only my thinking on why one would go to a level of inaccurate statements to back themselves...

There was nothing inaccurate about my statement.

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

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's times like this I wonder why I bother. The fields of geology, archaelogy, paleontolgy, history, biology, in fact any field of study concerned with the past, disagrees with you.

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.

Don't you think Moses wrote down Genesis?

I assumed it was passed down from generation to generation.

I suggest we drop this Darwin nonsense, he obviously existed, and if he didn't so what? I couldn't care less, the Theory of Evolution still stands after 200 years

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.