Evolution

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:07 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 9:25 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:50 pm
The evolution theory is not very precise. You cannot deny the existence of divine intervention. Even human is able to intervene in evolution.
Creationists don't think.

''Evolution is not very precise......'' What the hell is that supposed to mean?
It means that we cannot tell what happened to species with good precision.
But I have NEVER seen anywhere that states the "theory of evolution" is about, "what happened to species".

Also, if a species is not around anymore, then that species became extinct. Therefore, that is PRECISELY what happened to species. Otherwise, if a species is existing, then that 'came to exist'. They were ALL CREATED, through EVOLUTION.

This is just how Life, Itself, works.

Only when, and IF, you ask SPECIFIC questions, then SPECIFIC answers can be found. That is HOW 'good precision' is made.
bahman wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:07 pm We have different fossils but we don't know what is their exact age so we cannot tell whether there was a subject of intervention or not.
LOL
LOL
LOL

Have you ALREADY FORGOTTEN that you CLAIMED and TOLD US that; "We cannot deny the existence of divine intervention"?

So, WHY are you now stating that; "We cannot tell whether there was a subject of intervention or not"?

You have ALREADY informed us that THERE IS, which, also to YOUR BELIEF, "cannot be denied".
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:42 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:07 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 9:25 pm

Creationists don't think.

''Evolution is not very precise......'' What the hell is that supposed to mean?
It means that we cannot tell what happened to species with good precision. We have different fossils but we don't know what is their exact age so we cannot tell whether there was a subject of intervention or not.
It's worse than that, for the fossil record. One much bigger problem (and one recognized by Evolutionists, who keep trying to explain it) is the lack of the literally billions of transitional forms that ought to be present.
What are some of these, CLAIMED to be, "literally billions of transitional forms that "ought" to be present"?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:42 pm Think about it this way: evolution is a wasteful process. For every organism that proves "adaptive," there have to be billions of chance mutations that result, not in advantage but in survival-disadvantage or no survival relevance at all (like, say, an extra finger or toe, let us imagine). All organisms that have a survival disadvantage should die; and those with survival-neutral mutations must likewise die at some point. And all should be represented in the fossil record, statistically: for there ought to be literally billions and billions of them, so chance mutation can be the process implicated in producing the occasional survival advantage.

This here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of one SHOWING 'bias confirmation', and of 'trying to' "rationalize" one's ALREADY strongly held onto BELIEFS.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:42 pm Now, Darwin said that survival of the fittest cannot select for anything that does not immediately present a survival advantage. So even the animals that would eventually have a survival advantage, but don't have one right away, cannot be selected-for. So again, that means that there should be billions more animals represented in the fossil record that have mutations of no consequence...like a bump where an extra finger would eventually appear, but is not now.

The question, then, is "Where are they?" Why are only specific species, complete in their own forms, represented in the fossil record, and none of these billions of transitional forms that the theory assumes must have once existed? We should be snowed under with countless such forms, for every one complete specimen we have, if random mutation plus time are the mechanisms that produce evolution.

Something's really missing from that theory. Rather, billions of things are.
The only "thing" that is missing from 'that theory' is the 'thing' that you added into 'that theory', which does NOT even belong.

Creation AND evolution BOTH belong together, and, in fact, could NOT be separated. Contrary to popular belief, in the days when this was being written, thee Universe, and Life, Itself, could not and would NOT work without BOTH evolution AND creation.

To ASSUME or BELIEVE that it is either one OR the other is just ridiculous and absurd, in the extreme.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Age »

Lacewing wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 4:59 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 4:50 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 3:28 pm The rest of the natural world is of no consequence in the equation. God may have chosen to use any process He wished. But humans are a unique and deliberate creation of God, and the Fall is a literal event. Those are the elements that theologically matter.
I love the way this clown knows the mind of god :lol: :lol:
:lol: Indeed! He continually represents god in small, dense terms that reflect himself... thereby perfectly demonstrating the god created by man... through which, man can claim to know god and act/speak on behalf of god.

My question is... is I.C. aware of the sham he's wrapped himself up in?
The sham that "immanuel can" is wrapped up in, occurred EXACTLY like the same way the sham "lacewing" is been wrapped up in. Are either of these people AWARE of the sham that they are BOTH wrapped up in?

Obviously they are not, otherwise they would not remain wrapped up in those shams.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:42 pm His obvious use of deceptions/distortions delivered with theatrical flair, say that he does! His commitment to nonsense, however, says that he doesn't!
ANOTHER great example of 'projection' here, by the one known as "lacewing" here.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:42 pm Either way, he's doing a great job of revealing the falseness and absurdity that support self-righteous theist delusions and stories -- which is in noticeable contrast to Christians who actually demonstrate Christ-like behavior.
Name a, so called, "christian" who actually demonstrate 'christ-like behavior'. And, what EXACTLY is 'christ-like behavior', here?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Age »

Lacewing wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 3:35 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 5:38 pm
Lacewing wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 4:59 pm :lol: Indeed! He continually represents god in small, dense terms that reflect himself... thereby perfectly demonstrating the god created by man... through which, man can claim to know god and act/speak on behalf of god.

My question is... is I.C. aware of the sham he's wrapped himself up in? His obvious use of deceptions/distortions delivered with theatrical flair, say that he does! His commitment to nonsense, however, says that he doesn't! Either way, he's doing a great job of revealing the falseness and absurdity that support self-righteous theist delusions and stories -- which is in noticeable contrast to Christians who actually demonstrate Christ-like behavior.
I seem to think that Osama Bin Laden had the same sort of delusion - so not just the Christians.
True. Men from many beliefs seem intoxicated with imagining themselves as god's representative.
EXACTLY LIKE how "lacewing" is intoxicated in its OWN BELIEFS, while imagining it KNOWS the divine and is the devine's representative. The 'projections' just do NOT stop with this one.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Age »

Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 7:27 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 3:15 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 12:32 pm Is truth a function of the subject's reasoning ?
Of course not.
If so, why would anyone revere or seek for truth?
Of course they wouldn't.

One doesn't have to "search" for a subjective opinion. It is whatever it is at the moment, and often has only an accidental relationship to truth, even when it has a relationship to it at all.
People do revere and seek absolute truth and know they will never find absolute truth.
If people 'know' some 'thing', like; "they will never find absolute truth", then is this 'a truth' or 'an absolute truth'?

See, if someone 'knows' some 'thing', then it would HAVE TO BE 'irrefutably true', to them. Otherwise they would NOT 'know' 'it', they, instead, would only 'think' 'it'.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:42 pm Absolute truth, like absolute goodness or absolute beauty, transcends experience.
But this is only what you claim.

I claim the opposite.

And, unlike you I can PROVE my claim. While, you could NEVER PROVE your claim.

See, either you claim is an 'absolute truth' or it is NOT, and if it is NOT, then it could (and even maybe MUST BE) Wrong in someway.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:42 pm Absolute truth is what we look towards without even being aware we are doing so, and we use absolute truth in order to have a contrast against our relative truths.
WHY do 'you', human beings, do this?

And, if you 'know' you are doing this, then WHY do it?

Also, WHY do you say you are NOT even aware you are doing this? This seems VERY CONTRADICTORY.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 7:53 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 7:27 pm People do revere and seek absolute truth and know they will never find absolute truth.
You're using the term "absolute" to mean both "accurate" and "comprehensive." Otherwise, your statement doesn't even make sense.

You can't say, for example, there's no "absolute truth" about whether or not Lincoln lived in Washington, whether or not a certain cyanide dose will kill a certain person, or whether or not scientific laws correspond to phenomena, or 2+2=4. Those things are, in fact, absolutely true.

But you can say nobody knows comprehensive truth, such as how big the universe is, how many species are in the Amazon, or what existed ten seconds before the world was created.
'Comprehensive truth' is just whatever 'it' is defined as being.

Thee Universe is infinite is size.

The 'world' was NOT created, in the sense of 'past tense'.

As each and all can be VERY EASILY, and irrefutably, PROVED True.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 7:53 pm Of course nobody knows that kind of absolute truth; but that's so obvious a claim that one might wonder while it matters at all. Why does one have to know the size of the universe in order to live in one?

None of that even remotely implies that truth is relative.

Ironically, have you not been arguing that Evolutionism is absolutely true? If you don't think it is, why argue for it? But if you do, on what basis do you think you've found the absolute truth about that, when you want to deny that other people can have the absolute truth?

Your position on truth is not sounding...truthful.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by Sculptor »

Age wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 1:50 am
Sculptor wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 4:52 pm
Jori wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:09 am I think evolution is irreconcilable with the literal interpretation of the Bible. In case of non-literal or figurative interpretation, evolution is reconcilable with creation (not creationism). in the first place, there should be no conflict between creation and evolution because creation is an act, while evolution is a process.

Creationists believe that God created humans, but not through evolution. Some evolutionists think that humans came to being through evolution, but no one started and directed the process.
Yes evolution is irreconcilable with not only the Bible, but with the concept of god too.
What's your point?
Evolution was NEVER NOT reconciled with the bible nor with the concept of 'God'.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm not sure which is funnier; the double negative, or that fact that Age wants to shout it from the roof with CAPS. :D
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 9:08 am
Age wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 1:50 am
Sculptor wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 4:52 pm

Yes evolution is irreconcilable with not only the Bible, but with the concept of god too.
What's your point?
Evolution was NEVER NOT reconciled with the bible nor with the concept of 'God'.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm not sure which is funnier; the double negative, or that fact that Age wants to shout it from the roof with CAPS. :D
1. I am NOT SHOUTING.

And you would ALREADY KNOW this, IF you EVER spend the time to gain CLARIFICATION, instead of wasting time making ASSUMPTIONS.

2. If you find the DOUBLE NEGATIVE funny, then so be it.

The bible, God, evolution, AND creation are UNIFIED, and thus TOTALLY reconciled.

If you ASSUME and BELIEVE otherwise, then so be it. But, you are just plain old Wrong. Which can be, WILL BE, and ALWAYS IS PROVEN True.

3. Do you find the double positive funny also?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Scott Mayers »

Belinda wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 12:36 am ...

I enjoyed hearing he kept pigeons as a hobby and so was already au fait with artificial selection to change the characteristics of offspring. Speciation was something else (NB His published book was called "On The Origin Of Species").He noted populations of Galapagos finches differed significantly between one island and the next.
There were a lot of prepatory discoveries that he initially used from ...

(1)population studies of London(which showed that where more people struggled, they both had more children AND higher death rates.)
(2)fossils (which showed a lot of species no longer existing than exist suggesting that most species die off and where he recognized that death itself is a significant factor of the 'selection' process that weeds out those that do not (or no longer) 'fit' to the environement.)
(3)geological layers (that have a common universal set of patterns regardless of where one is in the world) [Although not well established yet, the geologists would notice the layering that we now use to define eras. For instance, the lowest levels would have no species, then simple ones, then more and more complex ones up to the dinosaurs showing a distinct cut of of their existence, etc.]
(4)geological mapping (that suggests land masses (continents) linked as though they once were together; this one was what may have suggested why he looked closer at a small scale version of this by the Galapalos islands.)
(5)geological age of Earth (whereby the layering mentioned above suggested Earth had to be much older than we used to think was much earlier)

The above are just some of the major notices from other areas of the then developing sciences which initiates his argument before proposing his theory as set out in "On the origin of the species". He thus postulated that Variation was important where population explosions occur and pruning of life by Death as a selection mechanism. Then he argued for how we humans can affect other animals (Artificial Selection) first to begin his theory. The latter part of the book then put all these together to show that Nature Selects in the same way. [We are part of Nature but many would not accept this due to our religious bias of being 'special' with respect to other animals. So he had to argue Nature as an extension or 'generalized' Selector.]

I'm only going mostly on memory (but have the book if I want to check up the particulars). But the logical factors are relatively easy and most of what I mentioned above. This is just an outline though.

I asked what others know here because I am surprised THAT most who are critical of the theory from religious apologetics literally have not read the book and also do not know that Darwin was ONLY a start. What followed Darwin's version became more and more clear by post-Darwinian studies. Mendel, for instance, had studied peas and where genetics suggested the mechanism that Darwin would not know in his day. Statistics and other math also contributed later; new chemistry knowledge also contributed and so today, "evolutionary theory" is well developed beyond Darwin.


[For odd reasons, many Christian apologists falsely assume that if you somehow discredit Darwin himself that it would suffice to discredit the theory when what followed him could remove Darwin's historical role and still have enough evidence to assure evolution is true. The theory is not reliant on who the historical contingencies themselves 'evolved' and are not based on personal virtues. Darwin could have potentially become the worst infamous character in the world and it would have no power to remove the evidence and logic used to argue for evolution.]
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Belinda »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:12 am
Belinda wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 12:36 am ...

I enjoyed hearing he kept pigeons as a hobby and so was already au fait with artificial selection to change the characteristics of offspring. Speciation was something else (NB His published book was called "On The Origin Of Species").He noted populations of Galapagos finches differed significantly between one island and the next.
There were a lot of prepatory discoveries that he initially used from ...

(1)population studies of London(which showed that where more people struggled, they both had more children AND higher death rates.)
(2)fossils (which showed a lot of species no longer existing than exist suggesting that most species die off and where he recognized that death itself is a significant factor of the 'selection' process that weeds out those that do not (or no longer) 'fit' to the environement.)
(3)geological layers (that have a common universal set of patterns regardless of where one is in the world) [Although not well established yet, the geologists would notice the layering that we now use to define eras. For instance, the lowest levels would have no species, then simple ones, then more and more complex ones up to the dinosaurs showing a distinct cut of of their existence, etc.]
(4)geological mapping (that suggests land masses (continents) linked as though they once were together; this one was what may have suggested why he looked closer at a small scale version of this by the Galapalos islands.)
(5)geological age of Earth (whereby the layering mentioned above suggested Earth had to be much older than we used to think was much earlier)

The above are just some of the major notices from other areas of the then developing sciences which initiates his argument before proposing his theory as set out in "On the origin of the species". He thus postulated that Variation was important where population explosions occur and pruning of life by Death as a selection mechanism. Then he argued for how we humans can affect other animals (Artificial Selection) first to begin his theory. The latter part of the book then put all these together to show that Nature Selects in the same way. [We are part of Nature but many would not accept this due to our religious bias of being 'special' with respect to other animals. So he had to argue Nature as an extension or 'generalized' Selector.]

I'm only going mostly on memory (but have the book if I want to check up the particulars). But the logical factors are relatively easy and most of what I mentioned above. This is just an outline though.

I asked what others know here because I am surprised THAT most who are critical of the theory from religious apologetics literally have not read the book and also do not know that Darwin was ONLY a start. What followed Darwin's version became more and more clear by post-Darwinian studies. Mendel, for instance, had studied peas and where genetics suggested the mechanism that Darwin would not know in his day. Statistics and other math also contributed later; new chemistry knowledge also contributed and so today, "evolutionary theory" is well developed beyond Darwin.


[For odd reasons, many Christian apologists falsely assume that if you somehow discredit Darwin himself that it would suffice to discredit the theory when what followed him could remove Darwin's historical role and still have enough evidence to assure evolution is true. The theory is not reliant on who the historical contingencies themselves 'evolved' and are not based on personal virtues. Darwin could have potentially become the worst infamous character in the world and it would have no power to remove the evidence and logic used to argue for evolution.]
Thank you. I enjoyed being reminded of the preparatory and subsequent discoveries, and hope I will remember them . I note especially that you quote Darwin's book as "On the origin of the species" which I suggest signifies that Darwin knew and accepted that " the" species is mankind and that his publication would create a lot of controversy and even hatred.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by Immanuel Can »

Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 9:48 pm You are expressing false thoughts on Darwin.
Not "thoughts" Scott...and not "expressing." I'm just passing on information. What you do with it is up to you.

Refutations of Darwin's initial theorys have been many and frequent -- and not merely from Theists, but from Evolutionists as well. Nagel's recent critique is perhaps the most serious: that the evolutionary progressivism inherent in the theory stands to cripple secular science form any prospect of understanding things like mind and consciousness. But a faulty cosmological theory is a scientific problem not necessarily a theological one.

As I said earlier, it really doesn't matter, from a theological perspective, if we were to ignore all the important critiques that have been offered by both sides, and merely take animal evolutionism on faith. That makes no difference to theology, since God could choose to use any process in order to create animals that He wished...progressivist or instantaneous. "Day," in Scritpture, sometimes refers to a 24 hour period, but often refers to an era, such as "the day of the Lord," which is clearly not merely a 24 hour day.

What matters, where the pith of the matter of disagreement between Evolutionism and Theism is strictly over the status of mankind. Is mankind a unique creation, or is he/she merely a latter-day animal, one grown up accidentally from the muck and doomed to oblivion?

My suggestion about the latter would be that nobody believes it. And you can tell both by the way they live and what they say about man. It's fair to say that everybody knows mankind is actually special and unique, and the most ardent Evolutionist doesn't actually react to mankind as if Evolutionism is true.

So that's the starting point. Animal descent is irrelevant; the alleged "ascent of man" is all that is important.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Scott Mayers »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:02 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 9:48 pm You are expressing false thoughts on Darwin.
Not "thoughts" Scott...and not "expressing." I'm just passing on information. What you do with it is up to you.

Refutations of Darwin's initial theorys have been many and frequent -- and not merely from Theists, but from Evolutionists as well. Nagel's recent critique is perhaps the most serious: that the evolutionary progressivism inherent in the theory stands to cripple secular science form any prospect of understanding things like mind and consciousness. But a faulty cosmological theory is a scientific problem not necessarily a theological one.

As I said earlier, it really doesn't matter, from a theological perspective, if we were to ignore all the important critiques that have been offered by both sides, and merely take animal evolutionism on faith. That makes no difference to theology, since God could choose to use any process in order to create animals that He wished...progressivist or instantaneous. "Day," in Scritpture, sometimes refers to a 24 hour period, but often refers to an era, such as "the day of the Lord," which is clearly not merely a 24 hour day.

What matters, where the pith of the matter of disagreement between Evolutionism and Theism is strictly over the status of mankind. Is mankind a unique creation, or is he/she merely a latter-day animal, one grown up accidentally from the muck and doomed to oblivion?

My suggestion about the latter would be that nobody believes it. And you can tell both by the way they live and what they say about man. It's fair to say that everybody knows mankind is actually special and unique, and the most ardent Evolutionist doesn't actually react to mankind as if Evolutionism is true.

So that's the starting point. Animal descent is irrelevant; the alleged "ascent of man" is all that is important.
Evolution is a fact, not merely a 'theory'. I don't know who you grant authority to as 'scientist' but know that the 'creationist' extends their definition and so includes non-scientists without concern of whether they are qualified (by non-religious institutes). "Science" means 'sense-inferrence' and so non-science is simply non-sense-inferrences.

Darwin only started the field and is incomplete by itself, but still necessarily true. Evolution theory is now Genetics in practice. That is, if Genetics is true, then Darwin is true. If Darwin is false, then Genetics is false.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by Immanuel Can »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:43 pm If Darwin is false, then Genetics is false.
Not at all. Genetics is just fine.

Actually, it's genetics that puts the nail in the coffin of the old "ascent of man" theory...though it was already dying of its own dishonesty before that. Read about the various scandals associated with the "missing links." Start with the famous "Piltdown Man" Incident, which should also make it quite clear to everyone that something other than scientific honesty is operating in that theory.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:54 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:43 pm If Darwin is false, then Genetics is false.
Not at all. Genetics is just fine.

Actually, it's genetics that puts the nail in the coffin of the old "ascent of man" theory...though it was already dying of its own dishonesty before that. Read about the various scandals associated with the "missing links." Start with the famous "Piltdown Man" Incident, which should also make it quite clear to everyone that something other than scientific honesty is operating in that theory.
Scientific dishonesty exists because scientific honesty is normal.

In your opinion is it only mankind that has attained the pinnacle of evolution?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 3:34 pm Scientific dishonesty exists because scientific honesty is normal.
Ah.

So now...conclusive evidence of dishonesty is...evidence of honesty. :shock:

You're going to have to give me a few minutes to get my head around that logic. :roll:
Post Reply