Why Evolution is True (3)

[createdtoworship]

If you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt it is just a guess.

If you don't know everything, you know nothing which is a form of nihilism.

Then asserting that the hips being seen from the front is to deceive as many as possible which could be seen as a touch of paranoia.

Racking up a score aren't we?

Dizredux

prove it, besides speaking of paranonia-

over a week and a half ago I asked you a question which you have dodged three or four times:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-6/#post66208491

now you are dodging it currently by saying it has nothing to do with macroevolution, however that is dependent on our interpretation of genesis. Some believe evolution to be embedded in the text, so I simply am asking a question. Perfectly okay to try to logically justify evolution with the Bible, they are called Theistic evolutionists. ( I personally don't agree with it)

So again dizredux here is my question, lets see if you can answer it this time:

Do you believe Genesis is the word of God, Do you believe it is literal?

if not, then how can people be called sinners if adam was never there to begin the process of "the fall". Without being called sinners, how can someone be forgiven of sin by Christ's sacrifice, and lastly, how can one be saved with no theological roots to the fall. Granted one may in fact come upon the doctrine of original sin, and depravity by other means, but what is the ultimate point if the original sin, did not sin, because He didn't exist?

answer my questions, and I will answer yours.

 

[createdtoworship]

Those can't be declared transitional, and some may or may not have transitioned. One thing for sure man did not transition from lucy.


Refuted may be a strong word for that. I think we can say that the evidence is not there to claim that they are certainly transitional from one kind to another. To do so would merely be a biased and ignorant denial of the creation of God.

true

 

[Dizredux]

prove it, besides speaking of paranonia-

over a week and a half ago I asked you a question which you have dodged three or four times:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-6/#post66208491

now you are dodging it currently by saying it has nothing to do with macroevolution, however that is dependent on our interpretation of genesis. Some believe evolution to be embedded in the text, so I simply am asking a question. Perfectly okay to try to logically justify evolution with the Bible, they are called Theistic evolutionists. ( I personally don't agree with it)

So again dizredux here is my question, lets see if you can answer it this time:

Do you believe Genesis is the word of God, Do you believe it is literal?

if not, then how can people be called sinners if adam was never there to begin the process of "the fall". Without being called sinners, how can someone be forgiven of sin by Christ's sacrifice, and lastly, how can one be saved with no theological roots to the fall. Granted one may in fact come upon the doctrine of original sin, and depravity by other means, but what is the ultimate point if the original sin, did not sin, because He didn't exist?

answer my questions, and I will answer yours.

Grady, you are being not very honest. I explained to you clearly why I was not going to respond to this question way back in post 31 and again in post 375. That you either did not take the effort to read them or simply ignored what I said is not surprising and fairly typical.

Please understand that if you want to run away by not answering my questions, it is not of much importance to me. Answer or not as you please but try to do whatever you do with honesty.


Dizredux

 

[dad]

Such an assurance is logically impossible to make by someone, such as yourself, that asserts the past may have had any number of previous states that render all projected knowledge of what it was like impossible to construct.

Amen! So stop reconstructing all things from this state unless and until it is proven to have existed.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Amen! So stop reconstructing all things from this state unless and until it is proven to have existed.

Sorry, it doesn't really matter that to the rest of us that you believe there is no reconstructing of the past state in any way, shape, or form. The rest of us normal people believe it is perfectly possible, and we ignore you denial of that.

Just because I pointed out you were being inconsistent doesn't change that.

You, with your denial of ability to discern past states, cannot say the conclusions of science are wrong . . . they just might have actually BEEN a correct interpretation of past states, by accident!

 

[completeme]

Absolutely because their rules never acknowledge a creator vs creation.

 

[dad]

Sorry, it doesn't really matter that to the rest of us that you believe there is no reconstructing of the past state in any way, shape, or form.

Strawman, I never said that. I do know that you sure can't do it though in any meaningful way. Yours seems to be a more kindergarten type approach of dumping beliefs on to whatever you can find, to try to make it seems as if there was no creation in a biblical sense, and reinventing the wheel of yesterday to conform to the feel of today!

The rest of us normal people believe it is perfectly possible, and we ignore you denial of that.

Nice try at associating yourself with the word normal. I understand you crave to be that way. I am here to help. Rome wasn't built in a day, though, so be patient.

Just because I pointed out you were being inconsistent doesn't change that.

You claiming others are inconsistent would require some substantive demonstration, rather than a repetitive droning.

You, with your denial of ability to discern past states, cannot say the conclusions of science are wrong

You need to do more than allude to some magic ability to 'discern past states' to make the fables of so called science overrule God Almighty!

. . . they just might have actually BEEN a correct interpretation of past states, by accident!

Get a grip, man. You go from almost sounding reasonable and normal, or at least having a desire to do so, to this sort of incoherent babble.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Strawman, I never said that. I do know that you sure can't do it though in any meaningful way. Yours seems to be a more kindergarten type approach of dumping beliefs on to whatever you can find, to try to make it seems as if there was no creation in a biblical sense, and reinventing the wheel of yesterday to conform to the feel of today!


Nice try at associating yourself with the word normal. I understand you crave to be that way. I am here to help. Rome wasn't built in a day, though, so be patient.

You claiming others are inconsistent would require some substantive demonstration, rather than a repetitive droning.



You need to do more than allude to some magic ability to 'discern past states' to make the fables of so called science overrule God Almighty!

Get a grip, man. You go from almost sounding reasonable and normal, or at least having a desire to do so, to this sort of incoherent babble.

Here, let me make it simple for you. We can safely assume that the same laws of physics existed in the past going back millions and billions of years and by doing that draw perfectly reasonable conclusions about the past history of the earth. This is shown, in among other ways, by astronomical observations.

 

[dad]

Here, let me make it simple for you. We can safely assume that the same laws of physics existed in the past going back millions and billions of years and by doing that draw perfectly reasonable conclusions about the past history of the earth.

The insane conclusions, such as that flatworms are living common ancestors to man, or that the entire universe sailed out of a hot little soup are not reasonable. They are also ungodly.

This is shown, in among other ways, by astronomical observations.

That is false. No observation of the universe in any way whatsoever does anything remotely like what you falsely claim here. You just imposed your belief system outward.

 

[bhsmte]

The insane conclusions, such as that flatworms are living common ancestors to man, or that the entire universe sailed out of a hot little soup are not reasonable. They are also ungodly.


That is false. No observation of the universe in any way whatsoever does anything remotely like what you falsely claim here. You just imposed your belief system outward.

Speaking of insane.....................

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The insane conclusions, such as that flatworms are living common ancestors to man, or that the entire universe sailed out of a hot little soup are not reasonable. They are also ungodly.


That is false. No observation of the universe in any way whatsoever does anything remotely like what you falsely claim here. You just imposed your belief system outward.

Well, the flatworms that are alive today are definately not in our ancestral line. Like all my human ancestors beyond my biological mother, all the previous animals that were in our line are also dead.

Merely declaring settled science to be "insane" is not much of an argument. Nor is declaring such things "ungodly". Truth cannot be "ungodly".

 

[dad]

Well, the flatworms that are alive today are definately not in our ancestral line. Like all my human ancestors beyond my biological mother, all the previous animals that were in our line are also dead.

Merely declaring settled science to be "insane" is not much of an argument. Nor is declaring such things "ungodly". Truth cannot be "ungodly".

Well this articles didn't seem to make that distinction.

"
Flatworms Are Oldest Living Ancestors To Those Of Us With Right And Left Sides, Researchers Report In Science

​

March 22, 1999

​

American Association For The Advancement Of Science

​

A team of scientists from Spain and the UK has determined that a certain curiously primitive group of flatworms are the oldest living ancestors to all "bilateral" animals-

Flatworms Are Oldest Living Ancestors To Those Of Us With Right And Left Sides, Researchers Report In Science -- ScienceDaily

Perhaps your point is that the form they are talking about is not extant today? That wouldn't really make much difference to the claim.

 

[dad]

Speaking of insane.....................

Yes, the conclusions of men such as that the universe came from a little hot soup too small to even see with the naked eye at one time, is insane. No wonder God calls some men fools. That is a great example of people who say in their heart..'there is no God'.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Well this articles didn't seem to make that distinction.

"
Flatworms Are Oldest Living Ancestors To Those Of Us With Right And Left Sides, Researchers Report In Science

​

March 22, 1999

​

American Association For The Advancement Of Science

​

A team of scientists from Spain and the UK has determined that a certain curiously primitive group of flatworms are the oldest living ancestors to all "bilateral" animals-

Flatworms Are Oldest Living Ancestors To Those Of Us With Right And Left Sides, Researchers Report In Science -- ScienceDaily

Perhaps your point is that the form they are talking about is not extant today? That wouldn't really make much difference to the claim.

No, my point was that the flatworms today aren't our ancestors . . . individually. They were none of them even hatched from their eggs back when our ancestors according to the flesh evolved beyond being flatworms. It was earlier, now deceased, flatworms that were directly involved with the population splitoff that led to us.

 

[dad]

No, my point was that the flatworms today aren't our ancestors . . . individually. They were none of them even hatched from their eggs back when our ancestors according to the flesh evolved beyond being flatworms. It was earlier, now deceased, flatworms that were directly involved with the population splitoff that led to us.

Ha. Obviously flatworms with short lifespans were not the ones that science claims were having sex and eventually led to mankind! But it is basically the same creature that is alive right now as we speak. In the same way, you are not Alexander the Great, but you are a man.

Is not all that obvious? Just admit that you truly believe that all mankind came about as a direct result of flatworms having sex in the far past.

By the way, since you share about 50% of genes with a potato, and think you share parentage long ago, does that make you a cannibal if you eat one?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Ha. Obviously flatworms with short lifespans were not the ones that science claims were having sex and eventually led to mankind! But it is basically the same creature that is alive right now as we speak. In the same way, you are not Alexander the Great, but you are a man.

Is not all that obvious? Just admit that you truly believe that all mankind came about as a direct result of flatworms having sex in the far past.

By the way, since you share about 50% of genes with a potato, and think you share parentage long ago, does that make you a cannibal if you eat one?

Well of course, since evolution of sex goes way way back, the mere fact that we are the result of successful reproductions means successful sex, even at the flatworm stage.

But no, cannibalism is defined as eating of the same species, and we are not the same species as potatoes.

If a shark eats you, it is not a cannibal because of that.

Likewise, if you eat a shark. Which is far more likely.

 

[completeme]

Well Said!!!

 

[dad]

Well of course, since evolution of sex goes way way back, the mere fact that we are the result of successful reproductions means successful sex, even at the flatworm stage.

Specifically at the flatworm stage according to the article. However, man was created, so flatworms were not any stage for us.

But no, cannibalism is defined as eating of the same species, and we are not the same species as potatoes.

OK, more like eating distant relatives I guess! (in the evo mind)

If a shark eats you, it is not a cannibal because of that.

I doubt a shark is dumb enough to think it descended from us.

Likewise, if you eat a shark. Which is far more likely.

I am not dumb enough to think I am related to a shark either.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Ha. Obviously flatworms with short lifespans were not the ones that science claims were having sex and eventually led to mankind! But it is basically the same creature that is alive right now as we speak. In the same way, you are not Alexander the Great, but you are a man.

Is not all that obvious? Just admit that you truly believe that all mankind came about as a direct result of flatworms having sex in the far past.

Did you know that 90% of the DNA in your body is bacterial? You are a walking luxury hotel for tiny beasties. You would not be alive without them.

 

[dad]

Did you know that 90% of the DNA in your body is bacterial? You are a walking luxury hotel for tiny beasties. You would not be alive without them.

So? At least I don't think I am a beast, or descended from them. God has many facets of creation some small, some big, all wonderfully made. Those who think it is an accident are deranged.