Evolution

[Sculptor]

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

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.

[Lacewing]

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.

[Belinda]

Creationists believe that God created humans, but not through evolution.

This is the key point.

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 understand that you need to believe only the literal meaning of the Christian narrative i.e a sequence of historical events that happened in man's past.

[Immanuel Can]

Creationists believe that God created humans, but not through evolution.

This is the key point.

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 understand that you need...

Not relevant. I could think I "need" to flap my arms and fly; that wouldn't make it happen.

What I "need" is not the question: what's true is.

[Belinda]

This is the key point.

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 understand that you need...

Not relevant. I could think I "need" to flap my arms and fly; that wouldn't make it happen.

What I "need" is not the question: what's true is.

Is truth a function of the subject's reasoning ? If so, why would anyone revere or seek for truth?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

[Belinda]

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. Absolute truth, like absolute goodness or absolute beauty, transcends experience. 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.

[Immanuel Can]

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. 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.

[Scott Mayers]

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.

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.

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.

You are expressing false thoughts on Darwin. "fitness" in evolution means "matches non-destructively" (in some given environment), not "has some universal IMPROVED quality" (adapted advantage).

The fossil records are destructable and the ancients likely had lots of such evidence that no longer exists because of it. (and is the likely foundation for the Noah's Ark story lost to history). As such, you cannot expect to demonstrate an absolute link in fossils. All that you CAN do is show supporting examples of inbetween species. But we today have an even better tool: genetics. If you doubt the logic of evolution, you should doubt all of genetics. Is this true of you?

As to examples of evolution of things that have no 'adaptive' advantage, the appendix is the rudimentary stomoch of a prior evolutionary stage that lacks function in us now.

You also err in assuming that any death should occur for evolving from mutations that lack any advantage. All that matters is that the being lives long enough to reproduce sucessfully at least once. If one dies after that due to some destructive mutation, then this does not matter to evolution even if it is potentially hazzardous normally.

One can become popular at some party for some joke they repeated arbitrarily (an environmental 'fitness' specifically for this event). The 'genetic' component here might be their tendency to repeat things they find emotionally arousing, as humor can do, for instance. This trivial genetic factor can be the potential justification for someone to be sexually interested in them and get them laid. They have a baby and whatever genetic tendency regarding simply their ability to live long enough to meet each other AND the 'fitness' of the joke to be relatively funny to the other person suffices.

The peacock's showy feathers, for instance, is actually a relative disadvantage had it not had an 'eyes' design feature that coincidentally makes other animals that might normally be able to catch them with ease run away. The normal predator might be confused thinking that there are many animals with eyes peaking through some hidden shrubs. Then, where the female peacocks may simply be attracted to it for any reason, they mate and pass on the accident of design of peacock plummage. The 'selection' here that exists is that the animals that normally might attempt to eat them misinterpret them as larger than they are. It is merely an illusion though. Thus, the disadvantage of the weight these birds have to handle is cancelled out by the coinciding 'match' of the appearance of being larger that its potential predator thought it was. This is 'fitness' even though there is no necessary 'strength' increase. Had the plummage been just plain sized or without those 'eyes', the bird might have been eaten long before it could have mated.

Note I asked above what others actually know of the theory's evolution, pun unintended? Do you know what the particular discoveries are that led Darwin to propose the theory?

[Belinda]

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.

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.

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.

You are expressing false thoughts on Darwin. "fitness" in evolution means "matches non-destructively" (in some given environment), not "has some universal IMPROVED quality" (adapted advantage).

The fossil records are destructable and the ancients likely had lots of such evidence that no longer exists because of it. (and is the likely foundation for the Noah's Ark story lost to history). As such, you cannot expect to demonstrate an absolute link in fossils. All that you CAN do is show supporting examples of inbetween species. But we today have an even better tool: genetics. If you doubt the logic of evolution, you should doubt all of genetics. Is this true of you?

As to examples of evolution of things that have no 'adaptive' advantage, the appendix is the rudimentary stomoch of a prior evolutionary stage that lacks function in us now.

You also err in assuming that any death should occur for evolving from mutations that lack any advantage. All that matters is that the being lives long enough to reproduce sucessfully at least once. If one dies after that due to some destructive mutation, then this does not matter to evolution even if it is potentially hazzardous normally.

One can become popular at some party for some joke they repeated arbitrarily (an environmental 'fitness' specifically for this event). The 'genetic' component here might be their tendency to repeat things they find emotionally arousing, as humor can do, for instance. This trivial genetic factor can be the potential justification for someone to be sexually interested in them and get them laid. They have a baby and whatever genetic tendency regarding simply their ability to live long enough to meet each other AND the 'fitness' of the joke to be relatively funny to the other person suffices.

The peacock's showy feathers, for instance, is actually a relative disadvantage had it not had an 'eyes' design feature that coincidentally makes other animals that might normally be able to catch them with ease run away. The normal predator might be confused thinking that there are many animals with eyes peaking through some hidden shrubs. Then, where the female peacocks may simply be attracted to it for any reason, they mate and pass on the accident of design of peacock plummage. The 'selection' here that exists is that the animals that normally might attempt to eat them misinterpret them as larger than they are. It is merely an illusion though. Thus, the disadvantage of the weight these birds have to handle is cancelled out by the coinciding 'match' of the appearance of being larger that its potential predator thought it was. This is 'fitness' even though there is no necessary 'strength' increase. Had the plummage been just plain sized or without those 'eyes', the bird might have been eaten long before it could have mated.

Note I asked above what others actually know of the theory's evolution, pun unintended? Do you know what the particular discoveries are that led Darwin to propose the theory?

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.

[Age]

Creationists believe that God created humans, but not through evolution.

This is the key point.

The rest of the natural world is of no consequence in the equation. God may have chosen to use any process He wished.

To even begin to claim that this is true you would have to PROVE who and what 'God' IS, EXACTLY, and then PROVE that that 'Thing' is of male gendered.

And, based on what you have said so far in this forum you have fallen way short of doing either. In fact you have only contradicted "yourself" in any attempt that you have made. So, good luck.

But humans are a unique and deliberate creation of God, and the Fall is a literal event.

Is there ANY thing that is NOT a, supposed, "unique and deliberate creation of God"?

If yes, then what is that thing/s?

Also, if you do not name ANY thing, then that means humans are NOT more unique than ANY other thing.

Those are the elements that theologically matter.

'Matter' here is VERY relative.

[Age]

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.

The evolution theory is not very precise.

Why not?

What is not 'precise', to you, in the evolution theory?

You cannot deny the existence of divine intervention.

Absolutely ANY one CAN deny ANY thing.

But if 'divine intervention' was a fact, then NO one can refute that.

Do you have PROOF of 'divine intervention'?

If yes, then where or what is that PROOF?

But if you can NOT PROOF 'divine intervention', then what EXACTLY are you basing your claim here on, that; "You cannot deny the existence of divine intervention"?

Even human is able to intervene in evolution.

Are they?

What exactly does the word 'evolution' mean or refer to, to you?

And, how is the human being able to intervene in that process?

[Age]

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'.

If ANY one can NOT reconcile the three, then they OBVIOUSLY have a very DISTORTED, TWISTED, or Wrong concept of these things.

In fact if ANY can NOT YET reconcile EVERY thing into One, perfectly uniformed concept, then they MUST HAVE some Wrong concepts/interpretations, which NEED to be LOOKED AT and addressed. That is; if they really do want to be able to LOOK AT and SEE thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

[Age]

The evolution theory is not very precise. You cannot deny the existence of divine intervention. Even human is able to intervene in evolution.

If the divine is intervening, then the divine must be a bloody moron.

They are good and evil.

'What' are, supposedly and allegedly, "good and evil" here?

[Belinda]

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. 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.

Evolution of species by means of natural selection is not absolutely true when we look at it as one of a number of separable and differentiated ideas. We can also look at evolution by means of natural selection as a necessary attribute among uncountable necessary attributes of absolute truth. An omnisciently absolute being would know all ideas and all events without exception.