Theory of Evolution

[timojin]

[QUOTE="Yazata, post:[/QUOTE]

 

[timojin]

thank you for illuminating my view , Your comment are appreciated

But a rational discussion might want to consider where the first creation story ends. If the discussion were a religious one, we might want to talk about the lessons taught in the first and second creation stories. But since the literal content of the two stories are at odds with one another, and with biological history and cosmology, there is no a priori reason to suspect either is a reliable factual account. Evaluation of evidence is part and parcel of rational discussion, and if timojin wishes to evade that burden, then he is proselytizing, speaking without listening, regardless of which forum is being used.

But that's off-topic for this thread, which is about the misunderstandings of evolution that bearer_of_truth wanted correction on.

What do you mean by proselyting I am not avoiding the burden if clarifying , is just that you guy take thing out of context and then pounce on it.

Are you really demanding we ignore part of the Bible? If so, fair enough. I demand you ignore Genesis 1 because I have decided it's incorrect.

I studied it for four years and he's pretty much spot-on.

Great! It's always a plus if you can admit you're wrong about something. I look forward to seeing you do so.

If you will not be persuaded by science, you might want to reconsider posting on a science forum, and find a Christian religious forum instead.

How snobbish of you by writing your last sentence "If you will not be persuaded by science, you might want to reconsider posting on a science forum, and find a Christian religious forum instead"
You have a University degree , so do I , Do you want to show your superiority ?
What did you study for four years , that I should be impressed ?
A creation was finished in chapter 2:3 the subsequent part could be a metaphor.

 

[Dywyddyr]

All I can say is that the stress in the wire cage trying to hold the 1000's of white crows that don't fit the present sci paradigm is presently beyond the elastic limit.
I.e. mind before matter.

No.
There is no evidence that this is so.
There are unsupported claims that "stuff happens" - but that isn't, in any way, "stressing" science.
By the way, thanks for posting the links you said you had.
Oh wait...

 

[Dywyddyr]

What do you mean by proselyting I am not avoiding the burden if clarifying

You aren't clarifying you're making claims.

How snobbish of you by writing your last sentence "If you will not be persuaded by science, you might want to reconsider posting on a science forum, and find a Christian religious forum instead"

It's not "snobbish" at all.
Your attitude here is similar to attending an opera and trying to organise a game of basketball in the middle of the performance: if you aren't going to operate as a scientist and instead persist on inserting (unsupported) religious claims then you are, quite simply, in the wrong pace.

A creation was finished in chapter 2:3 the subsequent part could be a metaphor.

And what stops all of it being a metaphor?

 

[billvon]

You have a University degree , so do I , Do you want to show your superiority ?

I am not suggesting that my opinions are superior to yours. I am suggesting that if you will not be persuaded by science, it is foolish to post on a science board. (Just as if you do not believe that cars are a valid mode of transportation, it would be foolish to post on an automotive enthusiast's forum.)

What did you study for four years , that I should be impressed ?

You mean the "university" degrees? That was a lot more than four years; it was almost all electrical engineering.
Do you mean the four years I studied the Bible? That was mandatory at my high school.

A creation was finished in chapter 2:3 the subsequent part could be a metaphor.

Absolutely. Or both could be metaphors - and most likely are.

 

[timojin]

You aren't clarifying you're making claims.


It's not "snobbish" at all.
Your attitude here is similar to attending an opera and trying to organise a game of basketball in the middle of the performance: if you aren't going to operate as a scientist and instead persist on inserting (unsupported) religious claims then you are, quite simply, in the wrong pace.


And what stops all of it being a metaphor?

Interesting :]You aren't clarifying you're making claims. Can you and Rpenner not see that Gen. 1 -2:3 is talking in evolution and science is verifying it . There is a change from vegetation then next step millions years to fish and birds then some other period or era to mammals and the final come man. and the job is finished
Check it out.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs...063647/xhtml/images/img00104.jpg&action=click

 

[DaveC426913]

How snobbish of you by writing your last sentence

I have been thinking the same thing as billvon. You seemed to take offense at a mis-perceived besmirchment. It was no insult and your questions seem oju-of-line. I too thought it odd that you would essentially dismiss the merits of science here - in the science forum.

 

[DaveC426913]

Interesting :]You aren't clarifying you're making claims. Can you and Rpenner not see that Gen. 1 -2:3 is talking in evolution and science is verifying it . There is a change from vegetation then next step millions years to fish and birds then some other period or era to mammals and the final come man. and the job is finished
Check it out.

Clarification of bolded text please. Define "there is a change from".

Perhaps it is my recollection of Genesis, but I recall that there was no "change" of any sort. He created plants and then he created fish and birds. i.e. each one from scratch.

Are you asserting that God made animals from plants? Not from clay?

This smells a lot like a fallacy of equivocation: "the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)

 

[timojin]

I am not suggesting that my opinions are superior to yours. I am suggesting that if you will not be persuaded by science, it is foolish to post on a science board. (Just as if you do not believe that cars are a valid mode of transportation, it would be foolish to post on an automotive enthusiast's forum.)

You mean the "university" degrees? That was a lot more than four years; it was almost all electrical engineering.
Do you mean the four years I studied the Bible? That was mandatory at my high school.

Absolutely. Or both could be metaphors - and most likely are.

So I have a degree in chemistry beyond 4 years.
In my secondary religion was not necessary .
check my answer to Dywyddry.


https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs...063647/xhtml/images/img00104.jpg&action=click

 

[timojin]

Clarification of bolded text please. Define "there is a change from".

Perhaps it is my recollection of Genesis, but I recall that there was no "change" of any sort. He created plants and then he created fish and birds. i.e. each one from scratch.

Are you asserting that God made animals from plants? Not from clay?

This smells a lot like a fallacy of equivocation: "the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)

The problem here is I accept creation by God and it proceeds with evolution. First life is created then the original specie will change to adjust themselve to the environment, were the environment might force mutation . And that is what I equate that have taken place in over 600-700 million years.

 

[PhysBang]

What do you mean by proselyting I am not avoiding the burden if clarifying , is just that you guy take thing out of context and then pounce on it.

On the contrary. We actually ask that you take things in context and you refuse. You literally demanded that we ignore the context of the biblical quotations you offered.

This is exactly what I mean by dishonest behavior. You just accused your interlocutors of the very tactic that you were engaging in.

 

[billvon]

So I have a degree in chemistry beyond 4 years.
In my secondary religion was not necessary .

OK. (Believe me I wish it _hadn't_ been a requirement.)

The problem here is I accept creation by God and it proceeds with evolution. First life is created then the original specie will change to adjust themselve to the environment, were the environment might force mutation . And that is what I equate that have taken place in over 600-700 million years.

Uh - OK. There's no evidence of that, but OK. You realize life has been here on Earth for about 4 billion years, right?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Can you and Rpenner not see that Gen. 1 -2:3 is talking in evolution and science is verifying it

One more time: Genesis is NOT talking about evolution since it states that each "class" was created.
According to Genesis all animals - reptiles, fish, mammals and birds - appeared at the same time as fish, according to Genesis (the part you wish to ignore) women appeared after men.

There is a change from vegetation then next step millions years to fish and birds then some other period or era to mammals and the final come man. and the job is finished

This is a lie on at least two counts:
there is no mention (or even hint) of change. Each "class" is created.
there is no mention (or even hint) of millions of years.

The problem here is I accept creation by God

There is no evidence to support that claim.

First life is created then the original specie will change to adjust themselve to the environment, were the environment might force mutation

Except that "change", "adjustment" and "mutation" are not mentioned - there is no indication whatsoever that any "step" in that process was predicated on the previous one.

 

[spidergoat]

The problem here is I accept creation by God and it proceeds with evolution. First life is created then the original specie will change to adjust themselve to the environment, were the environment might force mutation . And that is what I equate that have taken place in over 600-700 million years.

What you get with the Bible is a list of things, not even in the right order. You are the one thinking it must be evolution because that's what science tells us, so you make the story fit the facts.

 

[DaveC426913]

The problem here is I accept creation by God and it proceeds with evolution. First life is created then the original specie will change to adjust themselve to the environment, were the environment might force mutation . And that is what I equate that have taken place in over 600-700 million years.

So, you are of the opinion that it isn't God creating new species, it's natural selection i.e. "environment might force mutation"?

And you are also of the opinion that Man arose as a new species from a simpler creature?

 

[timojin]

I am of the believe: God created life, and programmed it that life form will change, in order to survive, : were the ultimate its creation will evolve into man.

 

[timojin]

OK. (Believe me I wish it _hadn't_ been a requirement.)

Uh - OK. There's no evidence of that, but OK. You realize life has been here on Earth for about 4 billion years, right?

I do not know nor we know , But interestingly in Genesis # 1 : 9--12 it say let the dry land giveforward grass, so it is up to us to interpret it . Probably there was life .

 

[Dywyddyr]

I am of the believe: God created life, and programmed it that life form will change, in order to survive

Can you name any creature that's mentioned in the Bible that "changed" into something else?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Can you name any creature that's mentioned in the Bible that "changed" into something else?

Lucifer?

 

[billvon]

I do not know nor we know

Actually we do know. We have found fossilized microbial mats that we radioisotope-dated to 3.5 billion years ago, and biogenic substances (material that can only be produced by living organisms) 3.7 billion years ago.

But interestingly in Genesis # 1 : 9--12 it say let the dry land giveforward grass, so it is up to us to interpret it . Probably there was life .

No, probably it was the Nile after the yearly flood. The flood waters would recede, showing mud, then dry land - then grass would sprout. What would the author of Genesis be more likely to write about? A live-giving event he saw every year, or something that happened four billion years ago?