Study: understanding ToE = acceptance

[Bungle_Bear]

lol...I have said nothing at all about what I know or don't know about evolution. But then again, that was my point.

If it was your point, why didn't you say so?

As somebody has posted in this thread multiple times: "I can't understand your posts, you don't know how to communicate."

 

[durangodawood]

...If the Bible is right and God created man from the dust of the earth....

Poetry. Deep sacred poetry.

We are made of matter, the "dust of the earth". This applies whether evolution or literal biblical creation happened.

Evidence tends heavily toward evolution.

 

[KWCrazy]

Evidence tends heavily toward evolution.

You are entitled to and welcome to your own opinion.

 

[Ophiolite]

@KWCrazy. I would appreciate it if you would tone down the stridency of your responses. I understand that you feel strongly about these matters. I hope you can accept that I do also. However, the underlying tone of your posts is provocative and I'm a weak sort of chap who is liable to react to provocation and we'll enter a downward spiral in terms of quality and an upward spiral in terms of strident emotion. I don't think either of us wants that.

I apologise if you feel any of my posts initiated this seeming hostility between us.

Like genetic mutations increasing complexity as eradiating thousands of generations of fruit flies proved does not happen?

This has already been dealt with by another member. I am puzzled that you would bring it up again. In summary, the experiments were not designed to increase complexity; we would not expect such complexity to emerge from such short running experiments, where an increase in complexity was not the target. If you feel this summary is in error would you take the time to explain why you think evolutionists would expect such a complexity increase and pinpoint, in their research articles, where they state this was the aim.

Like pointing to adaptation; a conservative process; and claiming that repeated subtraction leads to addition?

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Help me:
In what way is adaptation a conservative process?
How is that statement related to the matter of subtraction and addition.
Please provide a citation from a mainstream biology journal or textbook that claims substraction leads to addition. I was unaware of any such claim.

Like claiming that benevolent mutations, which almost never happen, are the driving force of life in the universe?

What is your evidence for the rarity of benevolent mutations?
I don't recall any biologist claiming that mutations were the driving force of life in the universe. Where have your read this claim?
Certainly mutations are an essential component of the process of evolution, but that is not at all the same thing.

I would truly like to work with you through these claims and reach agreement as to their validity, or invalidity. At present, for the reasons illustrated by my statements and questions, I believe them to be invalid. You have an opportunity here to demonstrate I am mistaken and thereby change my mind. But I hope you are equally prepared to change your mind on these points. Rejecting all of them should have no impact whatsoever on your beliefs.

What about your grandmother, who many times felt the presence of the Holy Spirit? With no way to confirm her statements, do you call her a liar?

Sadly, as my mother was fostered I never met my maternal grandmother and as my paternal grandmother died of alcoholism shortly after I was born I had no opportunity to speak with her. Hypothetically, if both had spoken of feeling the presence of the Holy Spirit, I would not have called them liars, but sincerely and honestly mistaken.

I've read declarations by individuals who say they have felt the Holy Spirit. I've read statements by atheists and agnostics who have felt powerful emotions and perceptions concerning nature, or relationships, the trajectory of humanity, and the like. There are powerful similarities, I would say identities, between these and they match my own experiences. It appears that some choose to believe the source is the Holy Spirit. Others have different explanations.

What of your mother who taught you that Jesus is the son of God. Was she lying too?

When the New Testament portion of the New English Bible (a modern English version) was published in 1961 my mother, bless her, objected to it in that "it means they've changed the words of Jesus". She had no understanding that the original words were largely Greek, or that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic. So you see, any delclaration by her on matters of fact were unreliable.

She wasn't lying. She was sincerely mistaken. It is possible and very easy, for sincere people to be mistaken.

Did you ever stop to think how many MILLIONS of people have to be lying for evolution to be right?

Have you stopped to think of many millions more who, by your argument, would have to be lying for evolution to be false?

It may be taking us off topic, but I wonder why do you think the multitude of researchers who accept evolution would be lying about it? Why would the Catholic church and most Christian denominations, who accept evolution, be lying about it? Specifically, why would I be lying about it?

People died rather than recant their experiences and all of that means nothing because you can't see physical evidence of what they experienced?

People died in the name of Allah. If we are assessing the truth of a belief on the basis of how many people are willing to die for it, then we have come to a pretty sorry pass. People have been willing to die for all sorts of reasons, some bizarre, some noble. It does not represent a good measure of truth.

That said, I can understand how difficult it would be for you to accept that they had died needlessly. I simply ask you to consider that their willingness to die is not in itself prove of the validity of their belief.

The latest mindless stupidity I've read on the subject in the name of "science" claims that the totality of the universe came from matter the size of a pin head.

"mindless stupidity" is a rather emotive phrase. Cosmology has the benefits of some of the most briliant minds on the planet. Perhaps you feel the Catholic priest, George Lemaitre, who first proposed that the universe arose from a "cosmic egg" or "primeval atom" was both mindless and stupid. He didn't go so far as to specify it's size, but the hypothesis grew to what we know today as the Big Bang theory.
(As an aside, I'm reasonably sure that whatever was the size of a pin head was not matter, but that's incidental.)

The difference between us is that we believe God created the universe and you believe it was "science magic."

I have few beliefs in this area. True, I currently accept the Big Bang because the weight of evidence is in favour of it. I don't believe in the Big Bang, because I object to it on broad philosophical and specific epistemological grounds.

I think that the universe may be eternal, in which case it was not necessarily created at all.

I have known many Christians who have no difficulty believing that the Big Bang was God's act of creation.

Summary: you are mistaken as to the difference between us, but that is incidental to the main topic.

The second law of thermodynamics precludes the eternity of matter.

I don't see what relevance you think that has. Would you explain.

TInterestingly, most people believe in the laws of science only until they interfere with what they've chosen to believe.

When it comes to science I have limited interest in "what most people believe". It's not relevant. In science what is relevant is what the evidence points to.

Personally, I believe the laws of science are immutable until they are superseded by a greater force; like God's will.

I suspect a few things:
1. We have not yet identified all the "laws" of science. Consequently it is too early to say if they are immutable or not.
2. If there is a god, who created those "laws", then it can probably change them at will.
3. Some of the "laws" might have an expiry date on them.

The Big Bang happened on day four of creation when the entity called light became the sun, moon and stars.

It's certainly poetic and in its way inspiring, but it is contradicted by the evidence.

None?
Not any?

I shall study these links and get back to you.

You mean your VERSION or reality. The denial of the supernatural equals the denial of half of reality.

This is an assertion that would require at least a couple of years to debate properly. I suggest we clear the other items first.

 

[Jimmy D]

lol...you already proved my point why should I evidence another point, a different point just because you don't want to accept the fact that many of you all judge without taking time to listen?

How did I prove your point?

I am aware of the correct definitions of micro and macro evolution, it appears that other posters that took the time to respond to you are as well.

Why not quit the tap dancing and just admit what you wrote was incorrect?

Your exact words were.....

"when talking to evolutionists it is important to explain what you mean by that because they are not able to understand the difference between what is commonly referred to as macro and micro evolution."

Which doesn't appear to be true.

You like to act as if you're intellectually superior to everyone who has the audacity to question the nonsense you post, but I'm afraid that won't wash if you have to act dishonestly and/or can't provide evidence for your assertions.

 

[Rivga]

You are entitled to and welcome to your own opinion.

“Evolution is fake!”
“We have evidence here it is”
“You’re entitled to your opinion”


You should be a defence lawyer

“My client did not kill him you honor”
“We have seven witnesses, CCTV recording, a confession and your client had the murder weapon in his hands when the police picked him up”
“You’re entitled to your opinion”

 

[razzelflabben]

The weekend is over and I am tired of your games so I am on to something worthwhile. My point from the beginning to this point in time is and has been that people who are zealous about a topic do not take the time to listen to others that they deem wrong no matter what they believe. The discussion is so emotionally charged that no real communication can happen. In fact, that is why I refuse to speak about what I believe on the topic. My refusal to express what I know and believe is one reason I know you all are not listening because a couple of the posts on this thread presume to know what I believe when I refuse to speak about what I believe because of the emotionally charged non listening nature of many here.

The truly funny thing is that this lack of listening thus lack of communication goes for everyone who is zealous about a topic, iow's it's human nature. Many of the people here who have been doing this to me and others are the same people who accuse creationists of doing similar things....lol. Both groups do it which insures no communication or at least meaningful communication will ever happen. You all see it in others but refuse to open your eyes to you doing it yourselves.

Now to further illustrate my point, one post on this topic commented about not being able to understand my posts because there was nothing in it to argue about. See, zealots seek to argue and disagree rather than listen and exchange ideas and opinions in a meaningful way. So now you have been given two direct examples of what I am talking about being evidenced in this thread. I tried years ago to communicate on the topic of origins and it went very much like this thread has. I say something painfully benign only to be insulted and attacked for beliefs that I never said I had and quite frankly most of the "invented" beliefs are insulting to what I really do believe. Today, I will occasionally go to a thread like this with a benign comment and test the waters so to speak and see if anything has changed, see if it is possible to have meaningful communication. As you all have demonstrated, that still isn't possible on this topic which is why I am taking my leave.

So now, the floor is yours to prove me right once again by attacking me, insulting me, telling me you can't follow what I said, etc. If nothing else it has been entertaining to see you trip over yourselves to prove me right about how zealots argue on these boards. Enjoy your bashing of one another and your prideful displays of arrogance and disrespect for others.

 

[HitchSlap]

The weekend is over and I am tired of your games so I am on to something worthwhile. My point from the beginning to this point in time is and has been that people who are zealous about a topic do not take the time to listen to others that they deem wrong no matter what they believe. The discussion is so emotionally charged that no real communication can happen. In fact, that is why I refuse to speak about what I believe on the topic. My refusal to express what I know and believe is one reason I know you all are not listening because a couple of the posts on this thread presume to know what I believe when I refuse to speak about what I believe because of the emotionally charged non listening nature of many here.

The truly funny thing is that this lack of listening thus lack of communication goes for everyone who is zealous about a topic, iow's it's human nature. Many of the people here who have been doing this to me and others are the same people who accuse creationists of doing similar things....lol. Both groups do it which insures no communication or at least meaningful communication will ever happen. You all see it in others but refuse to open your eyes to you doing it yourselves.

Now to further illustrate my point, one post on this topic commented about not being able to understand my posts because there was nothing in it to argue about. See, zealots seek to argue and disagree rather than listen and exchange ideas and opinions in a meaningful way. So now you have been given two direct examples of what I am talking about being evidenced in this thread. I tried years ago to communicate on the topic of origins and it went very much like this thread has. I say something painfully benign only to be insulted and attacked for beliefs that I never said I had and quite frankly most of the "invented" beliefs are insulting to what I really do believe. Today, I will occasionally go to a thread like this with a benign comment and test the waters so to speak and see if anything has changed, see if it is possible to have meaningful communication. As you all have demonstrated, that still isn't possible on this topic which is why I am taking my leave.

So now, the floor is yours to prove me right once again by attacking me, insulting me, telling me you can't follow what I said, etc. If nothing else it has been entertaining to see you trip over yourselves to prove me right about how zealots argue on these boards. Enjoy your bashing of one another and your prideful displays of arrogance and disrespect for others.

For heaven’s sake, get over yourself already.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

And if they are not?
If the Bible is right and God created man from the dust of the earth; if evolution never happened; what is the consequence?

well, nothing, we all carry on I guess. Luckily we know that evolution does happen, so this is a grand highway to nowhere.

Science is the study of the natural world. God is supernatural. There is not a single one of His miracles that can be invalidated through science. That includes the origination of life, which science CANNOT explain.

.....yet.

 

[Speedwell]

Like genetic mutations increasing complexity as eradiating thousands of generations of fruit flies proved does not happen?
Like pointing to adaptation; a conservative process; and claiming that repeated subtraction leads to addition?
Like claiming that benevolent mutations, which almost never happen, are the driving force of life in the universe?

What about your grandmother, who many times felt the presence of the Holy Spirit? With no way to confirm her statements, do you call her a liar? What of your mother who taught you that Jesus is the son of God. Was she lying too? Did you ever stop to think how many MILLIONS of people have to be lying for evolution to be right? People died rather than recant their experiences and all of that means nothing because you can't see physical evidence of what they experienced?

The latest mindless stupidity I've read on the subject in the name of "science" claims that the totality of the universe came from matter the size of a pin head. The difference between us is that we believe God created the universe and you believe it was "science magic."

The second law of thermodynamics precludes the eternity of matter. Interestingly, most people believe in the laws of science only until they interfere with what they've chosen to believe. Personally, I believe the laws of science are immutable until they are superseded by a greater force; like God's will.

The Big Bang happened on day four of creation when the entity called light became the sun, moon and stars.

None?
Not any?

You mean your VERSION or reality. The denial of the supernatural equals the denial of half of reality.

Here's the post I meant, Kenny.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What is your evidence for the rarity of benevolent mutations?

I can help with this; in fruit flies, it was measured that measurably benign mutations make up about 5% of mutations overall, making them less common than either neutral or detrimental mutations. Various studies of different organisms result in a different percentage, but a common theme among them all is that benign mutations by far make up the lowest percentage.

However, people seem to not comprehend that detrimental ranges from a barely measurable disadvantage to death, and any which result in death before sexual maturity never get passed down to afflict the next generation. However, benign mutations are more likely to be passed down the more of a benefit that they are, thus natural selection will favor individuals with such mutations even if they have a few detrimental ones.

Plus, what is and isn't detrimental or benign depends upon the context of the environment. A mutation that results in less water loss in cells has no benefit to a freshwater fish but could have immense benefits for a desert dwelling lizard. Sickle cell anemia is a disadvantage in environments that lack the malaria parasite, but in environments with malaria it becomes an advantage because people with that condition have a resistance to it and malaria is by far the deadlier of the two.

 

[KWCrazy]

“You’re entitled to your opinion”

Yes.
You are not entitled to represent your opinion as factual.
You CAN represent the word of God as being factual, because after all it IS the word of God. If you represent the word of God, you need to back up what you say with actual passages of Scripture, which I do.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Yes.
You are not entitled to represent your opinion as factual.
You CAN represent the word of God as being factual, because after all it IS the word of God. If you represent the word of God, you need to back up what you say with actual passages of Scripture, which I do.

But how can you be sure what's in the scripture are actually God's words?

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Yes.
You are not entitled to represent your opinion as factual.
You CAN represent the word of God as being factual, because after all it IS the word of God. If you represent the word of God, you need to back up what you say with actual passages of Scripture, which I do.

Hey! I made a religion yesterday and a new God who says:
Evolution is true
I wrote it down on a piece of paper, so my God has a scripture.
#Fact
#Sarcasm

 

[HitchSlap]

...because after all it IS the word of God.

How do you know?

 

[Aman777]

How do you know?

We know because ONLY God could have told us of the latest scientific discoveries, which are just now being announced....in Genesis. It's proof of God since His Truth AGREES in every way with every discovery of mankind....IF you have the proper interpretation of Genesis, which you apparently don't. Amen?

 

[HitchSlap]

We know because ONLY God could have told us of the latest scientific discoveries, which are just now being announced....in Genesis. It's proof of God since His Truth AGREES in every way with every discovery of mankind....IF you have the proper interpretation of Genesis, which you apparently don't. Amen?

So, what you're saying is, we know god told us because god told us?

Tautology... amen?!

 

[USincognito]

We know because ONLY God could have told us of the latest scientific discoveries, which are just now being announced....in Genesis.

Hmmm. Which latest scientific discoveries would those be?

 

[Rivga]

Yes.
You are not entitled to represent your opinion as factual.
.

I am able to present facts as factual - I am also able to present things as factual if it has met its burden of proof, with verifiable evidence.
You can stick you hands over your ears and state that it "has not been verified by you" but that does not matter, fact is it has been verified and accepted by those people with knowledge and skills (with the exception of a few crackpots claiming to be scientists).

You CAN represent the word of God as being factual, because after all it IS the word of God. If you represent the word of God, you need to back up what you say with actual passages of Scripture, which I do.

How can you state that I cannot represent my opinion as factual and then state that "You can represent the word of God..."
You have just contradicted yourself, do you have proof that is verifiable that God exists, once you get that proof do you have proof again verifiable that your scriptures are the word of God?
You have faith, but that s not evidence - let alone verifiable evidence.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Many who deny ToE do not really have a great understanding of it. Do you think it's possible to have a thorough understanding of ToE and still reject it?

Yes. Some people are so wedded to their beliefs that they will reject any argument and evidence to the contrary. This will, for the most hard-headed individuals, survive a thorough understanding of evolution.