Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[AV1611VET]

You know you're an ape, right?

I've been called worse.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's the philosophy of evolution for you.

Invalid arguement #2 Invalid Arguments

We're all animals that are expected to act like human beings, aren't we?

-_- just as much as dogs are expected to act like dogs, I suppose.

A couple of guys who are educated to believe they are apes act like it, and the rest of the world wonders what went wrong?

Invalid argument #2 again.

Not all dogs are expected to act housebroken.

Not all parakeets are expected to talk.

Not all horses stand still for a rider.

Not all apes sit around and eat bananas and smile, do they?

Yes ... it's pathetic ... but there's a dark side to being raised to believe one is a simian.

You know that evolution supporters, including the atheist ones specifically, do not commit crimes at a higher rate than Christians do, right?

Also, interesting thing about parakeets is that males often can learn to talk, but females rarely do.

 

[Divide]

Nothing wrong with a bit of skepticism, I suggest a bit of reading into how evolution actually works though.

I don't mind spending a little while on it here and there but I prefer to read scripture moreso than the scientific stuff because I know it's truth.

 

[Divide]

I think I know!

Molon Labe Brother!

 

[Divide]

There is no "philosophy of evolution" though.

It is. When something is unproven...it's philosophy.

 

[Divide]

-_- you've never noticed that some people are more hairy than others? Consider also that there is a mutation becoming more prevalent in our species which reduces how long we need to sleep to be well rested; quite beneficial to have a couple more productive hours in a day in our modern society, isn't it? There are also mutations that are beneficial in nearly all circumstances, such as the one that produces bones so strong in humans that they make that guy from the movie Unbreakable look fragile.

Furthermore, even small things like eye color can be very beneficial; not necessarily to survival, but consider also reproduction. The genes for blue and green eyes didn't become prevalent in certain populations because they have any survival benefit, they became prevalent because they had an advantage in reproduction (people found it more attractive than brown eyes). Peacocks and other birds are great depictions of how traits that even aren't beneficial to survival can persist just because of how much they benefit reproduction.

Sure I have.
(The guy in Unbreakable was fragile!)

Green or blue eyes are more attractive to me. Though that doesn't mean that brown eyed girls are not, some of them are too!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sure I have.
(The guy in Unbreakable was fragile!)

I'm talking about the character played by Bruce Willis, not Samuel L. Jackson.

Green or blue eyes are more attractive to me. Though that doesn't mean that brown eyed girls are not, some of them are too!

Ok, but my overall point was that even small, seemingly insignificant changes to physiology can have a notable impact on survival/reproduction success, and a change doesn't have to improve both to persist via natural selection.

 

[gaara4158]

I've been called worse.

I just don’t want you coming away with the idea that calling people apes is incorrect in any way. It is not.

 

[gaara4158]

It is. When something is unproven...it's philosophy.

Wrong. Nothing outside of mathematics gets proven. There’s plenty outside philosophy that isn’t mathematics. Science, for instance.

 

[gaara4158]

I don't mind spending a little while on it here and there but I prefer to read scripture moreso than the scientific stuff because I know it's truth.

You’re welcome to believe whatever you want, but if you’re going to argue against something you’re better off having a solid understanding of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know that evolution supporters, including the atheist ones specifically, do not commit crimes at a higher rate than Christians do, right?

But when they do ... however rarely ... why do people stand around scratching their heads?

If I was an evolutionist, I would assume they did it because some animal instinct came to the forefront.

QV this song and listen carefully to the words:

Also, interesting thing about parakeets is that males often can learn to talk, but females rarely do.

That's because they know their proper place in the flock.

 

[AV1611VET]

I just don’t want you coming away with the idea that calling people apes is incorrect in any way.

I wouldn't think of it!

 

[Motherofkittens]

Allright now, I'm no scientist (Lol) but this strikes me a bit questionable. Ok let's say...an animal (or whatever) needs to grow fur because an ice age is coming on...it might not get fur with what your saying. It might get red eyes instead, lol.

Variations within populations are nice (especially in girls, lol) but...they are random and not specific.
See what I mean? It needs specific information...add fur etc., have you any examples of variations of expected specific variation within a species? I don't think we have that.

There's a good reason for it too, Sister...

Colossians 1:17
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.../ !!

Mutations and genetic drift are random. However "the selections," such as natural and sexual are not. That is exactly why 99.9% of all living organisms are now extinct and the ones that aren't appear to be so suited for the environment they are in.

Some people mistake that and say "a conscious designer made them." Of course since it was not a conscious designer, at least there is no evidence of it/them yet, there are flaws and the living organisms are good enough (sometimes just barely, while others thrive) to reproduce at least for now, if all conditions stay the same or the population can evolve to the new conditions.

I think you'll like this analogy.

"It is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it...!"

 

[PsychoSarah]

But when they do ... however rarely ... why do people stand around scratching their heads?

-_- rather than assume, like you do, that their motivation for committing crimes was the fact that they were atheists or evolution supporters? Most evolution supporters don't view humans as disposable things they should be able to harm without consequences, and plenty of atheists highly value life (as most view it as the only brief existence they will have). That is, neither of these things make for a logical motivation to commit crimes in and of themselves.

If I was an evolutionist, I would assume they did it because some animal instinct came to the forefront.

I usually assume that people willing to commit crimes, particularly violent ones, are experiencing out of the ordinary stress conditions (such as their life falling apart) or they have deviant psychology. Or both. The only exceptions to that are those with very strong ties to ideologies or religion... which atheism wouldn't contribute to because it has no tenants. I swear, 99% of the bad people associate with atheism is actually related more to communism.

That's because they know their proper place in the flock.

Looks like Paul is going to have to tell off the male parakeets for chatting in church instead

 

[Divide]

Wrong. Nothing outside of mathematics gets proven. There’s plenty outside philosophy that isn’t mathematics. Science, for instance.

1 Timothy 6:20-21
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.../

 

[gaara4158]

1 Timothy 6:20-21
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.../

Give me one good reason to take any of that seriously.

 

[Ophiolite]

1 Timothy 6:20-21
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.../

Would you explain the significance of these words in the context of this thread, please.

Also, could you comment on the choice of "science" as a translation of γνῶσις. I believe this is the only instance in the KJV that it is translated in that way. In all other cases it is rendered as knowledge. Science, as we now understand the word, was not the meaning in use at the time of the KJV. Does this colour the signifcance of these verses in anyway, or the message you are seeking to extract from them?

 

[Divide]

Give me one good reason to take any of that seriously.

Because it is the word of the Almighty God Brother!

 

[Divide]

Would you explain the significance of these words in the context of this thread, please.

Also, could you comment on the choice of "science" as a translation of γνῶσις. I believe this is the only instance in the KJV that it is translated in that way. In all other cases it is rendered as knowledge. Science, as we now understand the word, was not the meaning in use at the time of the KJV. Does this colour the signifcance of these verses in anyway, or the message you are seeking to extract from them?

Well we was talking about science being a philosophy and I seen that scripture this morning so I posted it...

I see you looked it up in the BLB, lol. So did I just now, and perhaps you make a good point about that. It would seem that it is not talking about earthly science, but but perhaps some who twist scripture? I believe that it might be the root word for Gnostic, the way it reads...

Good catch Brother!

I do believe that earthly science is good to an extent. We do know a lot of things. But there is also very much deception in the world, and that does include the scientific community. Many people blindly accept whatever they say (not being scientists themselves), just because they trot out government schills, like that Mikaku guy or Neil Degrass Tyson. I don't. If they did tell all the truthm then all scientists would agree! But they don't and it's for that reason.

 

[tas8831]

Because it is the word of the Almighty God Brother!

Special plead much?