Evolution

[stevie]

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.

Religions like that laid down in the bible are just artefacts of evolution appearing for a period of time.

Literal interpretation of The Bible misses out on the poetry of The Bible. Genesis is full of feeling for the beauty of the world and the things in it. This feeling is true and for one thing Genesis shows that people long ago had similar feelings for the wonder and beauty of creation.It does not matter a lot whether or not God exists.

As I see it affirmation of the concept "creation" depends on affirmation of the concept "god". I prefer the concept "evolution" instead.

What matters is whether or not your God ,whatever you think God is, is good. I think you should simply enjoy Genesis ch1 without being troubled about whether it is 'true' or not.

Of course you are free to enjoy whatever you like. People find their enjoyments in different sources.

[Immanuel Can]

Religions like that laid down in the bible are just artefacts of evolution appearing for a period of time.

Well, let's suppose that some religions are "just artefacts...appearing for a period of time." I don't think that's an unreasonable belief, since relgions disagree on man fundamental points. And all of them, of course, disagree with the Evolutionary hypothesis you articulate: none of them says they are just "artifacts" of temporary provenance.

What that shows is is that many of them must be wrong; because, as Aristotle pointed out to us in the Law of Non-Contradiction, genuinely contradictory propositions cannot possibly be simultaneously true.

So we know that for sure, by rules of pure logic. And your bet is safe.

But do we know that ALL religions are untrue?

Aristotle taught us that when any two propositions contradict, two states of affairs are possible:

1. Both beliefs are false.

2. One belief is true, and the other is false.

What Aristotle taught us is never true is the third alternative: that both are true. Genuine contradiction renders that impossible.

So let's take your claim that creation of mankind is part of a myth, an "evolutionary artifact." If true, that means the creation stories are all false.

Likewise, if any creation of mankind story is true, then the "evolutionary artifact" hypothesis is false.

So the question becomes, "Do we have reason to know that mankind cannot possibly have been created, and that that belief reflects no truth and is an evolutionary artifact?" And it's clear that the answer to that is "No: we do not have such reasons."

We don't have them because the conventional ape-to-man theory is known now to have been fabricated, and has been rejected even by secular science. Science now believes in the "Common Ancestor" theory, but that theory stands not on a chain of proven cases (as the ape-to-man theory tried to make us believe it was) but rather on a very weak argument-from-analogy: namely, the blithe hope that IF other species evolved, man must have done the same -- though admittedly, we have no solid reason to think that's true.

So even if we were to show, say, that all other species were evolved, it would not tell us whether or not mankind was a unique exception to that, a special case, just as the Bible says. And if we accept as at all possible the idea that God might exist, we would have to be able to explain why it would be an utter impossiblity for an omnipotent God to make a special case of the creation of mankind.

Do we have that sort of argument? No, I think we do not.

The consequence? It is not at all clear that the special creation of man and woman in the Bible is not possibly true. And if God exists, it wouldn't even be remotely unreasonable as a hypothesis.

Meanwhile, the hypothesis that most religions are wrong about that remains solid -- with this proviso: that it is equally possible that the Evolutionists are also wrong,

[Immanuel Can]

Literal interpretation of The Bible misses out on the poetry of The Bible.

That's a stunningly obvious false dichotomy.

It's like saying, "If somebody now wrote a beautiful poem about the Napoleonic Wars, then it would make the Napoleonic Wars untrue."

I suppose it also would mean that if somebody sang you a beautiful song at your wedding, then you'd have to choose between your enjoyment of the song and your belief that you were actually married.

[Sculptor]

Literal interpretation of The Bible misses out on the poetry of The Bible.

That's a stunningly obvious false dichotomy.

It's like saying, "If somebody now wrote a beautiful poem about the Napoleonic Wars, then it would make the Napoleonic Wars untrue."

Your lack of comprehension is astounding.

I suppose it also would mean that if somebody sang you a beautiful song at your wedding, then you'd have to choose between your enjoyment of the song and your belief that you were actually married.

[Scott Mayers]

You are playing dumb...since you declare

No, it's not. I haven't actually given you religious arguments at all -- not one.

....yet...

Actually, this isn't true at all. According to the Bible, all men and women are made "in the image of God." You can't get less racist than that.

Thus, you are lying.

No, actually. For you allleged that being a Christian meant one had to accept your summary (you didn't ask, you told me that's what was my only "alternative"), and then you alleged it was racist in implication.

I was ONLY arguing for evolution and how Darwin's theory is the foundation of Modern Evolution and Genetics. This is not an opinion but a fact, and is something of which I CAN argue and prove.

You falsely asserted that Scientists have clearly disproven that humans are NOT included with the rest of the animals in respect to evolution. But your mere declaration of this as fact is intentionally "gaslighting"; this is the deceptive means of attempting to discredit the reputation others as though they are having some mental delusion regarding the facts.

[For others reading and unaware of the tactic, the term, "Gaslighting" is named after the movie of the same name, where a man, wanted to make his wife look like she's lost her mind hideously altered the gas lights (flickering on and off) as though the house was haunted in an attempt to get her legally committed 'insane' so that he can steal her inheritance he only married her for. ]

But why would or should any human being born on this Earth require proving that we are NOT co-evolved with all other living things here? This is the normal 'sane' thing! Yet, you are gaslighting this normal rationale as though this is the abnormal and insane fact instead. And the proof of this is that you keep STICKING to asserting the lie that all the intellectuals and scientists have definitively 'proven' that we are NOT co-evolved with the rest of the Earthly bound living things!!

IF and only IF you are not intentionally lying for some ulterior motive, you have to be arguing from a twisted interpretation of reality through some religious belief because ONLY religion presumes that we are 'special' beings that magically popped into existence without evolution by default. And it doesn't matter if the prior world before Darwin had believed in irrational religious beliefs about this because the first advanced civilizations learned early on that the means to control the masses is to train children early on that some magic being created them and that all other living things here on Earth are made for us as 'toy' souless beings meant for our 'special' existence.

You, therefore, are arguing ONLY from a religious perspective. I, not you, lack the delusion that we did not 'evolve' by at least SOME means. And it is the gaslighting that religion uses upon children early on that brainwashes them that they have to believe in what their authorities tell them is unquestionably true or risk being penalized in some way. These threats are intended to INNOCULATE them from rational thinking, making it easier for authorities to manipulate.

So....

I was responding to that claim, showing that far from advocating racism, Christianity (and Judaism) are excellent defenses against it. You clearly had misunderstood the implications of our beliefs, and were misrepresenting them.

In that case, the salient material to disprove your allegation is Scripture, which i duly provided. So that was a "can of worms" you opened.

I pointed out to you what denying Darwinian Evolutionary theory IMPLIES logically. The fact that you do not KNOW the distinction of the various prior theories of 'evolution' were makes you falsely misinterpret what Darwin was actually proving. Evolution is the fact (without allowing the bias of religious beliefs); Darwin only proved that nature evolves non- 'spontaneously' as some thought nor that any intellectual input by a thinking being (like by human or devine will) is required to gradually evolve us all (all living beings) from simple beings to more complex ones by the process called 'selection'.

He first argued how we humans have proven that we are able to act as 'nature' to artificially change living things but NOT directly. Prior to genetic engineering, we did not actually have power to alter directly the way other animals evolve. Dogs, like our modern variety of pets for instance, came originally from the wild wolf. He showed that the process to artifically make our modern 'domesticated' animals starts by first capturing the wild animal and getting them to breed lots. Then, by some unknown factors (of which later we discover are 'genes') causes some of the pups to have accidental mutations, like say, that one of the litter might be smaller and tamer than the rest. So if you then select this runt for further breeding and select (or weed) OUT the animals you do not want by preventing them from breeding, then the new offspring through the selected pup when bred will tend to have more small and timid pups on average. You then pick out the same qualities you prefer of the ideal you want from his/her litters and repeat.

Then, he argued that this is the same process that nature without human intervention does regardless. For instance, when an animal eats fruits, grass or other vegetation, they have seeds in them that do not always get digested and so pass on through their feces. This seed-embedded feces then fertilizes them, and grows more of the favored fruit that again gets eaten more and thus 'selects' naturally those seeds that are most ideal. The fruit that doesn't get eaten or gets destroyed by digestion, weeds out their seeds. It can be something as accidental of a some odd fruit of many to have been mutated by something like the radiation of the sun that might make it more sweet tasting to some animals. Then these fruits get favored while the ones that are less sweet are no longer as tasty by comparison and are let alone to rot without their seeds being passed on. The species of the less favored varieties then go extinct.

This process is ALL that Darwin was demonstrating and is the first foundational logic that leads to modern genetics.

The logic is HARD (or "strong") evidence. The kind of reasoning you used to dismiss evolution is SOFT (or "weak") logic. The only place we use SOFT forms of argument are in SOCIAL issues, like politics. In courts of law, although we prefer hard evidence, we are often forced to use the soft forms, like 'circumstantial' evidence, that a jury GAMBLES is a likely but never certain cause. This is ONLY a 'practical' reality and is practiced by all animals only where we have no certainty otherwise.

So you cannot use your soft arguments regarding circumstantial frauds to dismiss the LOGIC of evolution. After the hard proof exits, you cannot UNDO it by discrediting the people perpetrating frauds. The fossils are also 'soft' and only act as means to help determine what prior animals existed and helps us to link them by patterns. Humans are included in these and there are now plenty of such that helped us.

As for HARD evidence, given we now have genetics, we have proven our link to such animals as chimpanzies. We also have genes in us that belong to plants and fish. Some people have had our prior genes still in us turned on which also prove we come from prior different species.

But nothing I said in refutation of Evolutionism depended on Scripture: and that was the point I was emphasizing. The Ascent of Man needs no further refutation than the history of how it was created -- the dishonesty, the errors, the phony pretensions to being "science," and the subsequent refusal of the Evolutionists to retract and admit their errors over not merely PIltdown, but the many others as well.

The right refutaiton for bad science is good science. That's what I pointed to.

This is 'soft' evidence of the faults of humans. This does not act as 'hard' evidence against evolution because biology, chemistry, and physics are not SOCIALLY proven things.

In contrast, religion is a SOCIAL construct ONLY and NO 'hard' evidence exists for any facts claimed for it. You have to gamble on circumstantial evidence, like history, politics, or pychology (part hard and soft) sciences. And the WEAKEST of all evidence is 'testimonials', something that ONLY your religous thinking people think has force. [One reason why absurd religion exists on the Right wing ideology is because they are 'business' favoring capitalists who can PROFIT more by those who irrationally believe in things like 'testamonials' as though they were as equivalent to hard evidence. Thus encourgaging people to such strict non-liberal religions are intended to WEAKEN the minds of the people as proven by your belief that your evidence above has 'hard' proof that evolution is somehow wrong.]


I told you the facts about Evolution and I DO have an educated background regarding it that you clearly lack and disrespect. You falsely state that the facts of Evolution and regardless of how I attempt to argue with you and is why I had to question your own political and religious intents. I have proven above in logical argument why humans have to be included in the logic of evolution or is otherwise a SOCIAL argument by your religion (or the politics attempting to empower religious thinking).

The rest of your arguments regarding the continuous linking of politics is SOCIAL and thus not a means to disprove Darwinian foundational logic. If you disagree, then you must think that it is impossible for an evil person, like Hitler, to be able to create something good, like a piece of art [He actually had been a good street artist before becoming a cruel dictator]. "Reputation" is a social construct that ONLY affects the 'soft' logic of SOCIAL related factors, not the 'hard' logic that separates ones' related qualities from one another.

Eugenics involves 'hard' factors scientifically (whether for 'true' or 'false' logical facts) but we disapprove of it for 'soft' factors related to our emotional distaste of using certain SOCIAL tactics that are relatively repugnant to many. These too change with the times. For instance, we kill animals and think nothing of it for our food. But there will come a time when we might be able to make artificial meat without having to kill. Then it too would join the ranks of 'eugenics' as being interpreted as something 'evil'.

Evolution is neither good nor evil. It is a hard scientific fact that would require new theories that are equally hard in order to disprove or replace.

[Immanuel Can]

You are playing dumb...since you declare



....yet...


Thus, you are lying.

No, actually. For you allleged that being a Christian meant one had to accept your summary (you didn't ask, you told me that's what was my only "alternative"), and then you alleged it was racist in implication.

I was ONLY arguing for evolution and how Darwin's theory is the foundation of Modern Evolution and Genetics.

Oh? So you didn't mean it when you said that the only alternative was for a Theist to believe in a racist ideology?

Good to know. Your earlier wording left that impression.

But why would or should any human being born on this Earth require proving that we ARE not co-evolved with all other living things here?

That's obvious. It's because there's a plausible alternative. Whenever that's the case, we need evidence on both sides in order to decide the case.

...it doesn't matter if the prior world before Darwin had believed in irrational religious beliefs

Actually, it does...unless you're prepared to think that all those people were simply fools. You would need to prove, not merely assert, that their beliefs were irrational before you were warranted in calling the entire previous world crazy.

You, therefore, are arguing ONLY from a religious perspective.

Not at all. I'm arguing from the facts that science now admits are true. The "Ascent of Man" scheme was a fraud. You don't need to be religious at all to know that's true. One only has to be an honest scientist or historian.

I pointed what denying Darwinian Evolutionary theory IMPLIES logically.

But you were incorrect. No "logic" compels a non-Darwinian to "imply" anything of the kind. So I was correcting the misimpression.

Prior to genetic engineering, we did not actually have power to alter directly the way other animals evolve. Dogs, like our modern variety of pets for instance, came originally from the wild wolf.

Two problems here: one, and a big one, is that you are now arguing in favour of eugenics, which is Hitler's favourite understanding of Darwin.

Secondly, interbreeding does not show any evolution. That we can breed spaniels and daschunds and get a wiener-spaniel only shows that there is variety WITHIN a "species." It does not show evolution. Showing evolution would require you to demonstrate a dog turning into a squirrel, or a cat into a fish.

Such a thing is still not demonstrable. You've been too easily impressed.

This process is ALL that Darwin was demonstrating and is the first foundational logic that leads to modern genetics.

It's not, actually. Darwin knew nothing of genetics...that was one of his major faults. And genetics is a science that is derivable from observation...your DNA can be isolated and inspected, even today, as you know. But showing that your DNA can turn feline or bovine...that is a thing that has never been done. And that's what something like Evolutionism would require.

the LOGIC of evolution

Evolutionism is not logic. It's argument-by-analogy-and-assumption. No more.

After the hard proof exits

It doesn't, of course.

But nothing I said in refutation of Evolutionism depended on Scripture: and that was the point I was emphasizing. The Ascent of Man needs no further refutation than the history of how it was created -- the dishonesty, the errors, the phony pretensions to being "science," and the subsequent refusal of the Evolutionists to retract and admit their errors over not merely PIltdown, but the many others as well.

The right refutaiton for bad science is good science. That's what I pointed to.

This is 'soft' evidence of the faults of humans.

No, actually. It's confirmed, historical evidence for the defrauding of the public by Evolutionists. And today's scientists agree with me on that, for they have totally abandoned the ape-to-man paradigm. They would now be embarrassed even to profess the old "Ascent of Man" story. They've now gone for "Common Ancestor" instead.

Don't you believe today's scientists about that? Are you still going to argue, against them, that ape-to-man theory is true?

I DO have an educated background

I will not wave mine in your face. But I do, too, of course. But I think you knew that.

I'm not looking to fight with you, Scott. But neither am I going to cave on the truth here. There's no reason I ought to. The "Ascent of Man" theory was a verified debacle. And you don't even have to believe me to know that's true. Just believe today's scientists.

[Scott Mayers]

...

I just set a warning for you not to respond because I was editing for spelling and grammar errors. Can you please look up and use quotes from that edit? I set the warning above and erased it just now only to discover that you selected to quickly respond before I can edit. I missed another word I saw but could not find. Somewhere I also used the word "exits" rather than "exists". I couldn't find that one. I'll wait a bit to see if you fixed this and then look to respond. Thanks.

It is hard to read the plain text and so I only notice the errors after posting and then edit.

The warning I posted above my last post before the two edits was

[Wait. I am editing for spelling and grammar. I will take a break and then erase this when I am done. Thank you.]

You had to have seen this and opted to rush to respond. Please rewrite your response to the last post and I'll re-respond when I see that you've 'edited'. Thanks.

[Immanuel Can]

I just set a warning for you not to respond because I was editing for spelling and grammar errors.

That's not necessary. Just don't press "submit" before you're happy with what you're sending. Use the "preview" feature instead. You can still correct minor errors afterward, using the "pencil" icon on the post.

It is hard to read the plain text and so I only notice the errors after posting and then edit.

That problem is what the "preview" feature solves. You can see your post exactly as it will appear, but without having sent it yet.

The warning I posted above my last post before the two edits was

[Wait. I am editing for spelling and grammar. I will take a break and then erase this when I am done. Thank you.]

You had to have seen this and opted to rush to respond.

I didn't, actually. When I responded, it did not appear on your post, for some reason. I don't know why.

And don't worry; I don't rush. I take my time.

[stevie]

Religions like that laid down in the bible are just artefacts of evolution appearing for a period of time.

Well, let's suppose that some religions are "just artefacts...appearing for a period of time." I don't think that's an unreasonable belief, since relgions disagree on man fundamental points. And all of them, of course, disagree with the Evolutionary hypothesis you articulate: none of them says they are just "artifacts" of temporary provenance.

What that shows is is that many of them must be wrong; because, as Aristotle pointed out to us in the Law of Non-Contradiction, genuinely contradictory propositions cannot possibly be simultaneously true.

So we know that for sure, by rules of pure logic. And your bet is safe.

But do we know that ALL religions are untrue?

Aristotle taught us that when any two propositions contradict, two states of affairs are possible:

1. Both beliefs are false.

2. One belief is true, and the other is false.

What Aristotle taught us is never true is the third alternative: that both are true. Genuine contradiction renders that impossible.

So let's take your claim that creation of mankind is part of a myth, an "evolutionary artifact." If true, that means the creation stories are all false.

Likewise, if any creation of mankind story is true, then the "evolutionary artifact" hypothesis is false.

So the question becomes, "Do we have reason to know that mankind cannot possibly have been created, and that that belief reflects no truth and is an evolutionary artifact?" And it's clear that the answer to that is "No: we do not have such reasons."

We don't have them because the conventional ape-to-man theory is known now to have been fabricated, and has been rejected even by secular science. Science now believes in the "Common Ancestor" theory, but that theory stands not on a chain of proven cases (as the ape-to-man theory tried to make us believe it was) but rather on a very weak argument-from-analogy: namely, the blithe hope that IF other species evolved, man must have done the same -- though admittedly, we have no solid reason to think that's true.

So even if we were to show, say, that all other species were evolved, it would not tell us whether or not mankind was a unique exception to that, a special case, just as the Bible says. And if we accept as at all possible the idea that God might exist, we would have to be able to explain why it would be an utter impossiblity for an omnipotent God to make a special case of the creation of mankind.

Do we have that sort of argument? No, I think we do not.

The consequence? It is not at all clear that the special creation of man and woman in the Bible is not possibly true. And if God exists, it wouldn't even be remotely unreasonable as a hypothesis.

Meanwhile, the hypothesis that most religions are wrong about that remains solid -- with this proviso: that it is equally possible that the Evolutionists are also wrong,

Well, all you are saying again is just an artefact of evolution which may appear for a period of time if you are not the only one to hold such a view/belief.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, all you are saying again is just an artefact of evolution...

No, actually.

Logic is not an "artifact of evolution," and certainly not a temporary one. Like the laws of mathematics, logic transcends any such process...be it real or imaginary. Laws of logic would stil be true if there were no world, in fact. Arguably, those laws might even be true in any possible universe...at least none of us can imagine a universe in which they would not be.

[stevie]

Well, all you are saying again is just an artefact of evolution...

No, actually.

Logic is not an "artifact of evolution," and certainly not a temporary one. Like the laws of mathematics, logic transcends any such process...be it real or imaginary. Laws of logic would stil be true if there were no world, in fact. Arguably, those laws might even be true in any possible universe...at least none of us can imagine a universe in which they would not be.

Well, be happy with your beliefs that I do not share.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, all you are saying again is just an artefact of evolution...

No, actually.

Logic is not an "artifact of evolution," and certainly not a temporary one. Like the laws of mathematics, logic transcends any such process...be it real or imaginary. Laws of logic would stil be true if there were no world, in fact. Arguably, those laws might even be true in any possible universe...at least none of us can imagine a universe in which they would not be.

Well, be happy with your beliefs that I do not share.

You don't believe in logic? That's like saying, "Well, I don't believe in mathematics, so for me, 2+2+5."

All it signals is that the speaker has no idea what "mathematics" or "logic" actually is.

[Scott Mayers]

But why would or should any human being born on this Earth require proving that we ARE not co-evolved with all other living things here?

That's obvious. It's because there's a plausible alternative. Whenever that's the case, we need evidence on both sides in order to decide the case.

Can you tell me what this 'plausible alternative' is that you also keep denying as religious, please?

...it doesn't matter if the prior world before Darwin had believed in irrational religious beliefs

Actually, it does...unless you're prepared to think that all those people were simply fools. You would need to prove, not merely assert, that their beliefs were irrational before you were warranted in calling the entire previous world crazy.

So, with this reasoning, do you think that children are such 'fools' as to not know by default where they came from that they need to be taught anything about God? I mean, if you just left them without telling them about any religion, they SHOULD KNOW the reality of religous truths without needing to be brainwashed while their little brains are forming. In fact, religion teaches children to DENY their natural atheism. So are you in effect insulting them by treating them as ...um....naive children?

Society has used PARTICULAR 'fundamentalist' dictations regarding things they cannot prove nor disprove but will promise that one doubing shall be threatened to death (or at least for today, eternal suffering) should they DARE to doubt their parental authorities' fairytale as 'real'.

No one can expend the infinite energy needed to dispell each and every possible fairytale proposed before being permitted to deal with the reality before our eyes. You know that your religion is NOT the only one either, right? And given how you resist change by being so religious now, how can those of even your enemy religions not resist change (like the Taliban and ISIS in Afghanistan) with the same ineffectiveness? In other words, there is NO means to 'disprove' a fairytale. But there are an infinite continity MORE of falsehoods that anyone can simply make a new religious assertion up in a heartbeat. And so NO, you are extremely ignorant about this fact not to mention you have the burden to disprove all other religions before proposing your own 'alternative' story of our origins.

The intelligence favors the FACT that I can see myself in the mirror by default and not some ghost sitting beside me. If Nature (like your God) is at this moment telling me that he gave children the default LACK of knowledge, then this Nature (or for you, God) should not be required to default to knowing Nature (or God) prior to them determining it through their SENSES that this Nature (or God) gave them.

You are spitting in the face of your God for arrogantly attempting to deny what your God gave you. Perhaps the real test is to see if we can learn by using what he gave us SENSIBLY prior to having 'faith' in it? If you take a calculator and try to get it to function for you, would you prefer one that operated as you designed or do you think one that spits out accolades about how obviously loving and kind the user was rather than actually adding the fucking numbers one is trying to add into it? Which would be the better calculator to keep?

Why SHOULD God favor you for NOT using the functions he gave you to reason with? I think he'd toss you out in the same way one would toss out a bad calculator that sparks out fireworks and begs for constant repairs!

Now THAT is Darwinian evolution!

You, therefore, are arguing ONLY from a religious perspective.

Not at all. I'm arguing from the facts that science now admits are true. The "Ascent of Man" scheme was a fraud. You don't need to be religious at all to know that's true. One only has to be an honest scientist or historian.

Repeating the lie is just attempting to gaslight others into making them think you MUST be seeing something real because how could someone maintain such apparent certainty in light of all contrary evidence?

You think I insulted you as some fool yet treat me this way? Fuck you! You are like God's fallen angel if you think that deception is fine when it is all for the Great A.I. Programmer in the Sky! [As though God can't take care of himself!?] Do you think you are acting on His side? ...or are the tactics of Deception you are practicing here what your 'god' is whispering to you as one of his commandments?

I think if you were to succeed in making me religious, I'd only recognize you as the 'God of Deception', not the 'God of Wisdom'.

The Curse of EVEryone is that to KNOW of God and the wisdom to be lile Him means to recognize that that Eden is merely an illusion. And once you learn that, you cannot unlearn it. It means that you are now responsible as a 'mature' adult that childish fairytales have to be left behind. It means that Death itself is the ideal end, not eternal selfish privilege given to you by some Caretaker because you cannot live by the free choice to think yourself. The choice taken by the Adam and Eve represents the FACT that you DID choose to be mature.

And yet you remain as a spoiled brat demanding that you and all others shall worship your wish to remain in Eden or you'll throw a tantrum by making EVEryone else suffer your wrath for NOT believing in your delusion!

Wake up!

I pointed what denying Darwinian Evolutionary theory IMPLIES logically.

But you were incorrect. No "logic" compels a non-Darwinian to "imply" anything of the kind. So I was correcting the misimpression.

You imply your childish games of pretend are more valid than the reality of the senses. Thus you arrogantly act as though you DESERVE and EARNED your wisdom to know who has the 'correct' beliefs about whether I am supposed to lay down and die because you shot me with your pretend gun when playing good-guy/bad-guy. I'm not playing your pretend game of cops and robbers because as a mature being who DID opt to learn of the secrets of the Gods I know have the power to CHOOSE to act mature and accept reality for what it is.

The belief that you have of interpreting some literal beings such as Adam and Eve don't CURSE you, they Curse all the rest of us, EVEreyone else who now has to placate the child still OBEDIANT to the belief that he has no choice but to stay in the garden while expecting everyone else to feed his fantasy.

When is it time for you to start questioning why God placed a tree in the Garden and warned you not to eat it as though He were powerless to simply have not planted it in the first place? Why do you think it is called, The Tree of Wisdom? Are you afraid that someone might see your tiny penis and feel ashamed?

Prior to genetic engineering, we did not actually have power to alter directly the way other animals evolve. Dogs, like our modern variety of pets for instance, came originally from the wild wolf.

Two problems here: one, and a big one, is that you are now arguing in favour of eugenics, which is Hitler's favourite understanding of Darwin.

NO, I am asserting that eugenics IS scientifically valid, not that it should be used. We actually still practice it. The original practice was politically motivated by Hitler to IMPROVE the species based upon an ignorant rendering of Darwin's meaning of "fit", that the Social Darwinians thought valid. We know that variety is necessary because contrary to their false interpretation, if you weed out with force all that one believes is inferior, it leads to the likelihood of eventual death of the species because those who SEEM to be inferior are simply 'fit' in distinct environments.

For instance, when the dinosaurs dies out due to the cataclysmic asteroid/comet, they could not breathe the smoke filled air nor handle the cold because their lungs were 'fit' for a hot climate and lots more oxygen than after the event. Then, the small mammals, who had a two-cycle heart (versus the dinosaur's cold single pump) and separate cycle with lungs that can handle smoke and the cold, 'fit' in that NEW environment. We as mammals were relatively the 'inferior' beings unfit in the Dinosaur's prior world. And since the variation existed, those of us that could handle the new environental change were THERE to become the new 'superior' set of species. Thus, what may seem like a genetic defect is only a RELATIVE mis-'fit' in the given environment. If we cleansed out all things that seem 'inferior', this risks our very existence. Covid-19 is just such an example of the environmental change. We happen to have the actual power to forcefully adapt without dying off by the use of vaccines, which act as a novel 'environmental factor' for us as well.

Secondly, interbreeding does not show any evolution. That we can breed spaniels and daschunds and get a wiener-spaniel only shows that there is variety WITHIN a "species." It does not show evolution. Showing evolution would require you to demonstrate a dog turning into a squirrel, or a cat into a fish.

Such a thing is still not demonstrable. You've been too easily impressed.

You are 'demonstrating' that you are igorant here.

Evolution all domestic dogs came from ONE class of species: the wolf, ...the same kinds that still exist in the wild. We successfully bred them to ALL the varieties of domestic dogs that exist. The term 'species' is an arbitrary class referencing a DISTINCT divide. What occurs when species divides is that the inbetween species are eventually run to extinction and creates the clearer distinction through time. [This is similar to the polarizing effect of politics that is dividing us all today, as one such example. Those of us in between are forced to join the ranks of one of the hateful extremes or lose power of representation. I cannot even vote in my system because I don't accept any of the extremes here.]

Even humans have variation that can lead to distinct speciation. They are called 'races' for now because we politically want equality for all humans to choose their mates. But we cannot experiment on people to prove speciation as we can with animals.

You cannot presume that any of our pet dogs can still breed with wolves let alone with all other variations of dog. The 'dog' classification is itself just an arbitary label of the parent species, because technically, if any animal cannot breed with another it is the very definition of "species" which defines them as distinct. 'Classes' like our "Domestic Dog", a subclass of the proper class, "Dog", has subsets of new species but we give them more specific names (arbitrarily). A "Shitzu", for instance can still breed with a "Poodle" but not with a "Pit Bull". Each of these are new classes are technically distinct species. Where inbetween species could be eliminated, the wider the division, the more distinct they become.

Your argument is thus invalid.

This process is ALL that Darwin was demonstrating and is the first foundational logic that leads to modern genetics.

It's not, actually. Darwin knew nothing of genetics...that was one of his major faults. And genetics is a science that is derivable from observation...your DNA can be isolated and inspected, even today, as you know. But showing that your DNA can turn feline or bovine...that is a thing that has never been done. And that's what something like Evolutionism would require.

"Foundation" means 'the significant root of' something. Thus, Genetics follows AT LEAST the Darwinian Selection process foundationally. I already mentioned to you long before that Darwin's theory did not include knowledge of the genes. But only a few years later, Mendel's experiments DID. And collectively, this mechanism answered the factor unknown by Darwin in his day and was added to Natural Selection to become the modern Evolutionary theory.

Airplanes evolved from Cars and both evolved from Gas-Engines which in turn evolved from Steam-Engines, which evolved from Pumps, which evolved from Windmills. So if I take your logic, Airplanes could not possibly have "evolved" because Airplanes and Windmills are very distinct.

the LOGIC of evolution

Evolutionism is not logic. It's argument-by-analogy-and-assumption. No more.

No, evolution is a logical deductive inference for many facts and from many different fields of science. It is provable now through Genetics, which is the subfield (itself an 'evolution' in wisdom) of Darwinian Natural Selection.

This is 'soft' evidence of the faults of humans.

No, actually. It's confirmed, historical evidence for the defrauding of the public by Evolutionists. And today's scientists agree with me on that, for they have totally abandoned the ape-to-man paradigm. They would now be embarrassed even to profess the old "Ascent of Man" story. They've now gone for "Common Ancestor" instead.

Don't you believe today's scientists about that? Are you still going to argue, against them, that ape-to-man theory is true?

Deception again. This is just plain false and I cannot believe that you would still insist on restating it.

I know your tactics. I studied what the Machivelian tactics of manipulation are. I'm not the one still wanting to sit in the playpen. But note what I said above. If you think that using these tactics are serving your God, I think you need to question who or what is whispering in your ears. Your deception will only backfire and put you at risk should God be real. I ate from the Tree of Wisdom. You only eat from the Tree of the Sophists who merely teach how to use tactics of practical rhetoric. If winning is what you want, then you can just have the rewarding smiley face stickers like kindergarten teachers give out freely for the asking:

[Don't worry there's still an endless supply left!]

I DO have an educated background

I will not wave mine in your face. But I do, too, of course. But I think you knew that.

I'm not looking to fight with you, Scott. But neither am I going to cave on the truth here. There's no reason I ought to. The "Ascent of Man" theory was a verified debacle. And you don't even have to believe me to know that's true. Just believe today's scientists.

Then we'll have to let this sink in for you. I cannot make you change regardless of how much logic I throw at you.

Here's some more smiley faces for you:

[P.S. Whatever you do, stay away from all these Books on Evolution!. I hear there's a snake at Google trying to con you that there is some fruitful knowledge in them!]

[Scott Mayers]

Rejection of Evolutoin by Religious Groups

An ongoing, recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute (sometimes termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) exists regarding the origins of the Earth, of humanity, and of other life. In accordance with creationism, species were once widely believed to be fixed products of divine creation, but since the mid-19th century, evolution by natural selection has been established by the scientific community as an empirical scientific fact.

Any such debate is universally considered religious, not scientific, by professional scientific organizations worldwide: in the scientific community, evolution is accepted as fact[1] and efforts to sustain the traditional view are almost universally regarded as pseudoscience.[2][3][4][5]

[The numbers represent sources at the above link. ]

[Immanuel Can]

But why would or should any human being born on this Earth require proving that we ARE not co-evolved with all other living things here?

That's obvious. It's because there's a plausible alternative. Whenever that's the case, we need evidence on both sides in order to decide the case.

Can you tell me what this 'plausible alternative' is that you also keep denying as religious, please?

There are two alternatives: Evolutionism, and man as a unique creation of God. And whichever one is true is not a matter of "religion," meaning "whatever a person wants to believe," as if believing in God could make it so, or disbelieving could prevent it from being so. It's a matter of truth, of factuality, of reality.

And there's no messing with that. Everybody who tries, loses.

...it doesn't matter if the prior world before Darwin had believed in irrational religious beliefs

Actually, it does...unless you're prepared to think that all those people were simply fools. You would need to prove, not merely assert, that their beliefs were irrational before you were warranted in calling the entire previous world crazy.

So, with this reasoning, do you think that children are such 'fools' as to not know by default where they came from

Of course they don't know anything about that. Good heaven's man...nothing could be more obvious than that a child has no idea at all how he arrived wherever he arrived. That's why you have to explain birth to them, whenever they get old enough to grasp the concept. So yes, they need to be taught stuff.

Society has used PARTICULAR 'fundamentalist' dictations

You mean like Socialism or CRT? Or were you thinking of something else?

You know that your religion is NOT the only one either, right/

That's irrelevant.

There are an infinite number of possible answers a person could give to the question "how many grains of sand are on the seashore." But only one of them will ever turn out to be the truth. The proliferation of false answers tells us nothing about the relative possibility of a true one.

{I'm going to skip a bit here: I just couldn't figure out any logic in the argument. I literally couldn't tell what point you were trying to make.}

Not at all. I'm arguing from the facts that science now admits are true. The "Ascent of Man" scheme was a fraud. You don't need to be religious at all to know that's true. One only has to be an honest scientist or historian.

...just attempting to gaslight others...

Not at all. If you know the current state of Darwinian theory, you know I'm telling you the truth. The monkey-to-man thing is dead as a doornail. it has been for a long time.

Sorry if that comes as a surprise, but I do agree that Evolutionist publicists should have told you already. It's really their job, if they were honest.

Prior to genetic engineering, we did not actually have power to alter directly the way other animals evolve. Dogs, like our modern variety of pets for instance, came originally from the wild wolf.

Two problems here: one, and a big one, is that you are now arguing in favour of eugenics, which is Hitler's favourite understanding of Darwin.

NO, I am asserting that eugenics IS scientifically valid

Well, unless you're going to go on to say "scientifically valid" things are bad or untrue, then you are indeed promoting eugenics.

Secondly, interbreeding does not show any evolution. That we can breed spaniels and daschunds and get a wiener-spaniel only shows that there is variety WITHIN a "species." It does not show evolution. Showing evolution would require you to demonstrate a dog turning into a squirrel, or a cat into a fish.

Such a thing is still not demonstrable. You've been too easily impressed.

Evolution all domestic dogs came from ONE class of species: the wolf

That is not Evolutionism. "Wolf" is from the genus "canis" or "the canines," if you prefer...same as dogs. What you need is evidence of a wolf turning into an eagle, or an eagle into a fish.

Genetics follows AT LEAST the Darwinian Selection process.

No, Evolutionism was not founded on genetics, which didn't even exist in Darwin's day.

Airplanes evolved from Cars

No, actually...they didn't.

Darwinism has no view of mechanical or technological products. Thus, the use of the word "evolved" there is, at most, metaphorical, and loosely so. It has nothing to do with Darwin.

Evolutionism is not logic. It's argument-by-analogy-and-assumption. No more.

No, evolution is a logical deductive inference for many facts and from many different fields of science.

No, it's still just a theory.

Check out what Nagel says about what Evolutionary Progressivism is doing to limit science now. Nagel's an Atheist.

This is 'soft' evidence of the faults of humans.

No, actually. It's confirmed, historical evidence for the defrauding of the public by Evolutionists. And today's scientists agree with me on that, for they have totally abandoned the ape-to-man paradigm. They would now be embarrassed even to profess the old "Ascent of Man" story. They've now gone for "Common Ancestor" instead.

Don't you believe today's scientists about that? Are you still going to argue, against them, that ape-to-man theory is true?

Deception again.

No, it's true. But since you don't want to believe me, just check it out for yourself.