Survival of the Fittest: An Interesting Side Effect of Death

[SilenceInMotion]

It must be nice to win arguments by making claims without actually supporting any of it.

It must be nice to think you can say something isn't supported simply because you utterly refuse to deduce anything from what is given., even when it is deduced for you.

 

[toLiJC]

What does that have to do with evolution allegedly being false, exactly?

where in the Bible there is a biological or (a) reincarnational evolution?!, there is no such a thing, but it is quite visible that until now there have been only 5-6 millennia counted from the beginning onward(-s), and that there is no a rebirth/reincarnation in principle

Hebrews 9:24-28 "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."

Blessings

 

[SilenceInMotion]

where in the Bible there is a biological or (a) reincarnational evolution?!, there is no such a thing, but it is quite visible that until now there have been only 5-6 millennia counted from the beginning onward(-s), and that there is no a rebirth/reincarnation in principle

Hebrews 9:24-28 "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."

Blessings

Honestly, I've almost given up trying to explain what I see in Genesis, because YEC's don't want to open their eyes to it. Period.

That is why young Earth creatoinism is still around. Otherwise, it would have been long gone for the absurdity that it is when faced with reason and fact.

I mean, look at this thread for example. You all can't even get passed the basic, so how does one explain the more complicated?

 

[Godel]

It must be nice to think you can say something isn't supported simply because you utterly refuse to deduce anything from what is given., even when it is deduced for you.

Oh, it's "deduction", is it? So, since we see microevolution, then macroevolution just *must* happen. Is that it? Yeah, that means you only have an assumption.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Oh, it's "deduction", is it? So, since we see microevolution, then macroevolution just *must* happen. Is that it? Yeah, that means you only have an assumption.

Well it's a far better explanation then what you or any other anti-evolutionist comes up with.

I guess change doesn't cause change. It just causes nothing, because that's what causation does- nothing.
I assume that by hitting a ball with a bat will send the ball away, but hey, just an assumption right?

 

[Godel]

Well it's a far better explanation then what you or any other anti-evolutionist comes up with.

I guess change doesn't cause change. It just causes nothing, because that's what causation does- nothing.
I assume that by hitting a ball with a bat will send the ball away, but hey, just an assumption right?

It's easy to hide behind broad over-reaching generalizations.

Change cause change? Sure. But there's simply no basis other than assumption (which you just admitted is all you have) to then conclude it also must then apply to micro/macro evolution.

Bat & ball - an assumption? Well, we *observe* such phenomenon all the time. Micro- causing macroevolution? I'm still waiting for your demonstration of such.

 

[razeontherock]

Drive a car. I have no evidence to suggest that the gas meter is going to go down the more you drive it outside of the simple observation that your car consumes gas for energy.
Since you deny that observation, there is absolutely no other evidence I can give to suggest that your car will eventually run out of gas.

That is how it is like to argue with creatioinists. Mutations occur, and then they keep occuring, and even then, they keep occuring. What happens to the body eventually? Does it stay the same?
It is a ridiculous claim which goes against basic physics. But for people who deny gravity as well, that isn't such a big deal, is it?

No parallel

 

[razeontherock]

So, your complete misrepresentation is dually noted

Is that dually a Ford, or a Chevy?

 

[razeontherock]

Oh, it's "deduction", is it? So, since we see microevolution, then macroevolution just *must* happen. Is that it? Yeah, that means you only have an assumption.

Well it's a far better explanation then what you or any other anti-evolutionist comes up with.

I guess change doesn't cause change. It just causes nothing, because that's what causation does- nothing.
I assume that by hitting a ball with a bat will send the ball away, but hey, just an assumption right?

Seem to be confusion assumption with observation

 

[razeontherock]

Micro- causing macroevolution? I'm still waiting for your demonstration of such.

Definition of terms! Please see my initial post in this thread re: talking past each other w/o them

 

[SilenceInMotion]

You don't have to observe macroevolution to know that it is a fact.

But

I see that there is no convincing YEC's. Nothing can, because they choose not to see reason. They just see a Bronze Age interpretation of God breathed words.
Remember that the same people, with their archaic and otherwise lacking knowledge, drew up the world and Heavens as they saw it in the Bible- it resembled something like a snowglobe.

But thanks to science, we know that it is gobbitygook, and you change your observation of Scripture to the correct one.
So why not Genesis? I believe all YEC's know deep down inside themselves that they are perpetuating a lie. If they didn't, they would be madmen because evolution is FACT. The evidence is overwhelming. Arguing 'pics or didn't happen' is cheap and otherwise a gambit of denial.

 

[razeontherock]

You don't have to observe macroevolution to know that it is a fact.

Why not just state "you don't have to define macroevolution nor use meaningful terms to have a meaningful conversation."

I see that there is no convincing YEC's. Nothing can, because they choose not to see reason.

All that has happened here, is speaking past one another.

They just see a Bronze Age interpretation of God breathed words.

Sorry mon frer - it is seeing the text as the original audience heard it that would bring enlightenment here! (Bronze Age interp would be progress)

Remember that the same people, with their archaic and otherwise lacking knowledge, drew up the world and Heavens as they saw it in the Bible- it resembled something like a snowglobe.

Irrelevant and invalid comparison. You are comparing something not Divinely inspired (snowglobe) to what is Divinely revealed (Scripture)

Please refrain!

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Why not just state "you don't have to define macroevolution nor use meaningful terms to have a meaningful conversation."

The definitions of micro and macro evolution are self-evident.

All that has happened here, is speaking past one another.

Well let's try having an indepth convo then. All I've gotten is 'pics or it didn't happen'. I haven't exactly gotten anything in return to the OP that is tangible for discussion.

Sorry mon frer - it is seeing the text as the original audience heard it that would bring enlightenment here! (Bronze Age interp would be progress)

Not when it comes to venturing upon the science of the Bible. Bronze Age people didn't know what we know now, and so their interpretation was off.
When you look at Genesis at a literal standpoint, it does not match what science has granted.
For example, ancient people did not know that stars were thousands of lightyears away. By extension, they did not know that it would take thousands of years for the light from those stars to even reach Earth to become visible. Therefore, they interpreted it literally, and it worked for them because they had no knowledge of the contrary.
And so, the Bronze Age interpretation is obsolete and cannot be used as support for creationism.

 

[Greg1234]

Bronze Age people didn't know what we know now

Wisdom was never measured by the accumulation of material wealth, bronze or otherwise.

 

[jilfe]

If macroevolutionism would be plausible, it has NOT happened yet, due to the truth of Biblical record, that all living systems were created thousands of years ago,

the Biblical record speaks of all living biological systems starting out in full maturity, by the Supernatural works of God, therefore again, macroevolution has not yet had enough time to fully function, because in itself, it is only thousands of years old.

This has nothing to do with young earth or universe, only God knows how long expanse of time the universe NONbiological existed, but GOD made it very clear that LIVING biological systems are definately young.

THe Bible has it written so PLAINLY for anyone who loves the TRUTH to see this very clearly as well.

Jesus Himself Has made it very clear, that all life started at the time of creation, this is not speaking of material matter, the universe but only biological living systems.

That's why if macroevolution was ctreated in the process, only GOD knows, then it has not yet fully functioned yegt, because it is only been created within the thousands of years, when God created life, on this earth.

The Bible is so clear about this,

Please, read what God has said about the origins of life.
　
...
　
　

 

[toLiJC]

Honestly, I've almost given up trying to explain what I see in Genesis, because YEC's don't want to open their eyes to it. Period.

That is why young Earth creatoinism is still around. Otherwise, it would have been long gone for the absurdity that it is when faced with reason and fact.

I mean, look at this thread for example. You all can't even get passed the basic, so how does one explain the more complicated?

why should the Truth of God be complicated, especially since He has (already) made it simple to us?!, if there is some big knowledge in God which only His mind can carry, and which He has not accommodated for any human, why should we care about it?!, especially since it has been said and written:

Matthew 6:31-33 "take no thought, saying, What shall we eat(ie what knowledge should we find/develop)? or, What shall we drink(ie or what spirituality should we make)? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed(ie or what should be our glory)? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek(ie because the seeking of resources, means and information is ordinary for the disbelievers/irreligious people): ) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom(ie the love) of God, and his righteousness(ie and its perfection); and all these things shall be added unto you.",

Mark 13:11 "take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.",

Luke 21:14-15 "Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist."

there are many invisible things which are quite difficult to be able for the humans to comprehend/understand (them), for example, how the phenomena/occurrences of the true God and the "darkness" are interlaced, e.g., until now the "darkness" succeeded to re-create evil nature in many ensouled beings, many fossils in the ground, and to age many parts and layers of it, and there is no guarantee what else the "darkness" heretofore did/made in that part of the cosmos which the humans still explore/examine and which they have not completely examined yet, after all (regardless of whatever it was ever until now) the important is all humans to be provided with abundant life right to the end of this eternity - this is the Will of God towards us

Blessings

 

[SilenceInMotion]

You all pretty much make God the author of confusion, because to blive everything was created in six days is complete lunacy.

Saying the same thing over and over again does not make it it true. No matter how much you point at Scripture, all you are really doing is pointing at your frustratingly dumbed down, literal, shallow view of it.

Should've known it was a mistake to even attempt to have an intelligible discussion, because there is nothing intelligible about young Earth creationism. People who labor under such delusions are impossible to speak to. I think that such claims of origins being literal is frankly an insult to Christianity.

 

[juvenissun]

You all pretty much make God the author of confusion, because to blive everything was created in six days is complete lunacy.

Saying the same thing over and over again does not make it it true. No matter how much you point at Scripture, all you are really doing is pointing at your frustratingly dumbed down, literal, shallow view of it.

Should've known it was a mistake to even attempt to have an intelligible discussion, because there is nothing intelligible about young Earth creationism. People who labor under such delusions are impossible to speak to. I think that such claims of origins being literal is frankly an insult to Christianity.

Hey, be scientific. That is the only way for you to convince anyone.
You ran away from my question: human mutates, but human does not evolve. What can you say?
Don't run. Face this question.

 

[Papias]

jilfe wrote:

If macroevolutionism would be plausible, it has NOT happened yet, due to the truth of Biblical record, that all living systems were created thousands of years ago,

What? Macroevolution has been directly observed many times. One example is Culex pipiens, another is the evolution of a new species of apple maggot fly, nereid worm, and others. What usually happens in these discussions is when it is pointed out that macroevolution has been directly observed, and cases shown, the creationists usually just move the goalposts, asking for changes at higher taxonomic levels. It's like denying continental drift, and then when some motion is shown, moving the goalposts and demanding to see more than a 1 mile of movement.

the Biblical record speaks of all living biological systems starting out in full maturity, by the Supernatural works of God, therefore again, macroevolution has not yet had enough time to fully function, because in itself, it is only thousands of years old.

That only comes from taking figurative sections literally. Just like the Biblical record describing the Jews being flown out Egypt on giant eagles, and the earth being under a big hard dome like the truman show.

This has nothing to do with young earth or universe, only God knows how long expanse of time the universe NONbiological existed, but GOD made it very clear that LIVING biological systems are definately young.

Just to be clear here, are you saying that the Bible is consistent with a universe billions of years old?

Papias

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Hey, be scientific. That is the only way for you to convince anyone.
You ran away from my question: human mutates, but human does not evolve. What can you say?
Don't run. Face this question.

It doesn't matter what I say, it will be responded with 'pics or it didn't happen'. I'm not running away from a question, I'm ignoring it because it's vain to respond.

Papias has stated the same thing I have, just in a much better analogy. You see the mechanism at work, see that it demands, and yet YEC's deny it.

If there is one thing YEC's shouldn't be doing, for the sake of their own standing, is acting as if they have some upper hand and approaching the debate like you have just done. If you can't show your interpretation of Scripture to be plausible, then you have already lost the argument.