You've Probably Seen a Fish with Lungs in Person

[xianghua]

Evolution is change in gene pools over time

according to this definition even if genesis story is true- evolution is still true. so its a problemamtic definition.

 

[Speedwell]

according to this definition even if genesis story is true- evolution is still true. so its a problemamtic definition.

Right. Now consider the theory of evolution, which explains how gene pools change over time.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You evidently don't understand atheists very well. They don't care very much whether you believe in God or not.

What are you doing?

How do you get all that from the fact I said some use the term Goddidit? What gave you the idea I cared what they care about or not? I made a polite as I could think of at the time comment to help clear up what seemed to me a misunderstanding...that's all.

It's that you deny science which concerns them.

After all my efforts, you are still trying to make it about denying science, when science is something that cannot be denied, it does nothing on it's own. As if calling it science means any conclusion drawn when using science is correct because it's science...can't lose with that perception.

Your comment is nothing but a very deceitful/useful tool among evolutionists that attempts to make anyone that doesn't agree with evolution look like they don't believe in science, and "seem" silly. When the "science" in itself is not something that can be believed in, only the conclusions that people draw using science can be believed or not believed.

And I thought we were way past all that. Since at this stage, I see I have good reason not to think were are, and you still may not get it, even with the long winded post this already is, let me try...again... to put it to rest.

"Mechanics" are used to describe the process of dealing with machines, see how the two words there are so close in spelling? Just as Science is the "process" of dealing with the natural.

Now, lets say you're the mechanic, and I'm, say, someone who knows mechanics but for whatever reasons I can't repair my own car now.

You saying I deny science is akin to my showing you how you messed up the rebuild on my car engine. Then when I show you why I'm correct over your claims to why you did not mess it up, and because it would be to your advantage to prove me wrong, you deceitfully throw your nose up in the air and say, well you deny mechanics then, when one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Of course I don't deny mechanics because it's nothing that can be denied. That's like saying i deny "cake" because I told you messed up the recipe for making it. I only deny your ability to make the cake/fix my car, or even to use mechanics (science) to draw proper conclusions, and you try to save face by claiming "If you don't agree with me, then you are denying mechanics (science)."

I always wounder why they feel the need to even use the deception to begin with? Is it because they can't make their case any other way, so they come up with a way to make them seem right about all of their own conclusions by simply calling science?

The existence of God does not deny science.

No, your perception of God/the bible doesn't deny science, but when your perception somehow finds evolution suggested in the bible, I for one doubt your perception is correct, or even close.

However, you already told me you don't take some of the bible literally, meaning, to some, they can change any part of the bible using that catch all, while to most what's clearly literal is literal and what is not, is not.

 

[tas8831]

Positing that one species arose from another is nothing more than a guess. As the song says, it's turtles all the way down.

Does this dismissal apply to the creationist Baraminologists, too?

 

[Speedwell]

What are you doing?

How do you get all that from the fact I said some use the term Goddidit? What gave you the idea I cared what they care about or not? I made a polite as I could think of at the time comment to help clear up what seemed to me a misunderstanding...that's all.

Because you're here. Because of what you posted:

Let's just say, i got the idea an Atheist would have a problem with it.

Because I see a tendency in creationists to turn the discussion into a theist v. atheist controversy. If that shoe doesn't fit you, don't wear it.

After all my efforts, you are still trying to make it about denying science, when science is something that cannot be denied, it does nothing on it's own. As if calling it science means any conclusion drawn when using science is correct because it's science...can't lose with that perception.

Your comment is nothing but a very deceitful/useful tool among evolutionists that attempts to make anyone that doesn't agree with evolution look like they don't believe in science, and "seem" silly. When the "science" in itself is not something that can be believed in, only the conclusions that people draw using science can be believed or not believed.

And I thought we were way past all that. Since at this stage, I see I have good reason not to think were are, and you still may not get it, even with the long winded post this already is, let me try...again... to put it to rest.

"Mechanics" are used to describe the process of dealing with machines, see how the two words there are so close in spelling? Just as Science is the "process" of dealing with the natural.

Now, lets say you're the mechanic, and I'm, say, someone who knows mechanics but for whatever reasons I can't repair my own car now.

You saying I deny science is akin to my showing you how you messed up the rebuild on my car engine. Then when I show you why I'm correct over your claims to why you did not mess it up, and because it would be to your advantage to prove me wrong, you deceitfully throw your nose up in the air and say, well you deny mechanics then, when one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Of course I don't deny mechanics because it's nothing that can be denied. That's like saying i deny "cake" because I told you messed up the recipe for making it. I only deny your ability to make the cake/fix my car, or even to use mechanics (science) to draw proper conclusions, and you try to save face by claiming "If you don't agree with me, then you are denying mechanics (science)."

I always wounder why they feel the need to even use the deception to begin with? Is it because they can't make their case any other way, so they come up with a way to make them seem right about all of their own conclusions by simply calling science?

You have never made a credible scientific case against the theory of evolution.

No, your perception of God/the bible doesn't deny science, but when your perception somehow finds evolution suggested in the bible, I for one doubt your perception is correct, or even close.

You aren't paying attention. I have never found that evolution is suggested in the Bible.

However, you already told me you don't take some of the bible literally, meaning, to some, they can change any part of the bible using that catch all...

That's not how it works. Just because I don't take a passage of scripture literally doesn't mean I can make it say anything I want. There is a large body of scholarly exegesis which I take seriously. You don't think I made up my interpretation of scripture all by myself, do you?

...while to most what's clearly literal is literal and what is not, is not.

If you are referring to Christians generally, then "most" is not correct. What you have paraphrased is the Doctrine of Perspicuity, which is a relatively recent Protestant novelty.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Evolution has been observed countless times in the lab and in the wild. It's fact. You can dispute the ToE, but changes in the heritable characteristics of populations over successive generations are demonstrable.

Do you really believe that explains the full spectrum of what is referred to as evolution as a whole? If not, then your comment is deceptive at best due to making that claim in a conversation talking about evolution as a whole.

I'm talking evolution as the whole they claim it to be, not some little drop in the bucket, mountain out of a mole hill. But I think you know that..

Sad thing is, there are those foolish enough to see it that way, as if to say "See, this little thing evolve? That's evolution in action and that means man came from an ape/monkey." or whatever they're claiming at this point in time, when it has absolutely nothing to do with that.

And I assume you are talking about a virus, something that isn't even an animal, and something you never made clear.

 

[Speedwell]

Sad thing is, there are those foolish enough to see it that way, as if to say "See, this little thing evolve? That's evolution in action and that means man came from an ape/monkey." or whatever they're claiming at this point in time, when it has absolutely nothing to do with that.

It does have something to do with it. It shows that it's possible, and in the absence of a better explanation I have no problem with accepting that's how God did it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Because you're here. Because of what you posted:

Then you are saying an Atheist would not have a problem with it?

Because I see a tendency in creationists to turn the discussion into a theist v. atheist controversy. If that shoe doesn't fit you, don't wear it.

I can understand why you have chosen not to see the correlation..

You have never made a credible scientific case against the theory of evolution.

Cop out. That has zero to do with my point. I suppose that same denial as well as the consistent need for the false back up to your claims is why you keep using the "Then you don't agree with science", another cop out.

Obviously, you couldn't answer to my accusation..

You aren't paying attention. I have never found that evolution is suggested in the Bible.

No, it was you that wasn't paying attention...the point of the comment was to get you to say just what you said. So, yeah, you're right, there is not even a hint of evolution in the bible.

That's not how it works. Just because I don't take a passage of scripture literally doesn't mean I can make it say anything I want. There is a large body of scholarly exegesis which I take seriously. You don't think I made up my interpretation of scripture all by myself, do you?

Of course it "can" for some. And what is that particular "passage" you don't take literally.

If you are referring to Christians generally, then "most" is not correct. What you have paraphrased is the Doctrine of Perspicuity, which is a relatively recent Protestant novelty.

Prove that, please? I ask because I've been told that before, then ran into claims that it's simply not true.

 

[Speedwell]

Then you are saying an Atheist would not have a problem with it?

I have never come across an atheist in this forum who was ever more than mildly scornful of a belief in God, and that has been rare. Most of the time we are arguing with creationists about the Bible--who like to pretend that it's about theism v. atheism.

No, it was you that wasn't paying attention...the point of the comment was to get you to say just what you said. So, yeah, you're right, there is not even a hint of evolution in the bible.

Did you really think that you had to "trick" me into saying that? I'll shout it from the rooftops if you want.

Of course it "can" for some. And what is that particular "passage" you don't take literally.

LOL! There are many.

Prove that, please? I ask because I've been told that before, then ran into claims that it's simply not true.

Clarity of scripture - Wikipedia

 

[Kenny'sID]

You don't think I made up my interpretation of scripture all by myself, do you?

I have always found it to be true that believing what someone else made up, is as good as making it up yourself...serves the same purpose...it's what you choose to believe.

 

[Speedwell]

I have always found it to be true that believing what someone else made up, is as good as making it up yourself...serves the same purpose...it's what you choose to believe.

And so we both make up stuff about the Bible and choose to believe it. Amen.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It does have something to do with it. It shows that it's possible, and in the absence of a better explanation I have no problem with accepting that's how God did it.

Dude, it's not even an animal and easy to see why God would allow that change while it offers no backing whatsoever for evolution in it's entirety. I personally think God was aware we would come up with vaccines, so he made it possible to have newer and stronger ones. But even if what seems obvious to me is not the reason I've no doubt there was a good one.

Believe what you choose, won't be the first time.

 

[Kenny'sID]

And so with both make up stuff about the Bible and choose to believe it. Amen.

?

 

[Speedwell]

?

Typo. Fixed now.

And so we both make up stuff about the Bible and choose to believe it. Amen.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I have never come across an atheist in this forum who was ever more than mildly scornful of a belief in God,

Never said you did. i was taking about, well...Atheists.

Did you really think that you had to "trick" me into saying that? I'll shout it from the rooftops if you want.

See, the problem with that, i asked you where the bible suggests evolution once before, and you didn't exactly shout it from those rooftops, as I recall you didn't even reply, so I figured I'd give that a shot.

Clarity of scripture - Wikipedia

Does that mean you cannot prove it?

 

[Jimmy D]

Sad thing is, there are those foolish enough to see it that way, as if to say "See, this little thing evolve? That's evolution in action and that means man came from an ape/monkey." or whatever they're claiming at this point in time, when it has absolutely nothing to do with that.

No one has done or said anything of the sort.

Typical creationist dishonesty in action.

(I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren’t “intellectually challenged” enough to believe that the evidence for human evolution is based on “this little thing evolving”).

 

[Kenny'sID]

Typo. Fixed now.

I believe what the bible says about evolution by taking the scripture literally, while you choose not to. In affect you are saying God creating the animals as they are, as it is written, is not true, something that is easily seen as made up unless you have good reason to not take it literally.

And if you do, by all means say why you don't take it literally?

 

[Speedwell]

Does that mean you cannot prove it?

Prove what? That Perspicuity is a Protestant Doctrine?

"7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."

--Article 7 of the Westminster Confession (1646)​

Westminster Confession of Faith - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[Speedwell]

I believe what the bible says about evolution by taking the scripture literally, while you choose not to. In affect you are saying God creating the animals as they are, as it is written, is not true, something that is easily seen as made up unless you have good reason to not take it literally.

And if you do, by all means say why you don't take it literally?

Because it is not the sort of narrative one takes literally. Gen 1 has a cadenced quality, not quite formal Hebrew poetry, but very like hymnody. It certainly wouldn't occur to me right off to take the words of a hymn as 100% accurate literal history.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you really believe that explains the full spectrum of what is referred to as evolution as a whole? If not, then your comment is deceptive at best due to making that claim in a conversation talking about evolution as a whole.

Evolution 'as a whole' involves changes in the heritable characteristics of populations over successive generations. That's what it is.

Sad thing is, there are those foolish enough to see it that way, as if to say "See, this little thing evolve? That's evolution in action and that means man came from an ape/monkey." or whatever they're claiming at this point in time, when it has absolutely nothing to do with that.

If you can't even get the claim you're disputing correct, it's no wonder you find it hard to accept.

And I assume you are talking about a virus, something that isn't even an animal, and something you never made clear.

Lol! No, it's been observed in a huge number of animal and plant species, including humans.