Evolution Vs. Creationism

[DLH]

You have “pointed out” nothing. You have made a claim. And I and others, in turn, have pointed out (not “claimed”) that you cannot legitimately conflate the four separate definitions of “god” in the Oxford dictionary and decide that they are all the same, as you did when you claimed (not pointed out) that North Korea’s dictator is a “literal” god as opposed to figurative; the two are NOT the same.

Wrong.

 

[pood]

Anyway, this thread is for discussing your nonsensical views on evolution, as opposed to your nonsensical views on god.

Don't care about evolution.

I gathered that. I reckon science just isn’t your thing.

I just thought the video was an interesting and accurate history of racism in evolution.

Sorry you can’t figure out that those who misappropriate scientific facts for ideological motivations generally are not scientists and usually have no idea what they are talking about, unless they are being deliberately deceptive for some nefarious motive.

Microevolution doesn't contradict the Bible. Macroevolution does.

The bible says nothing about either. Why would it? It’s a book of fairy tales written by ancient scribes who were just as intelligent as we are, but lacked our knowledge base.

Who cares? I certainly don't.

Oh, well.

I thought evolution as taught in the schools was pure nonsense long before I became a believer.

And you were wrong again, unsurprisingly. I notice you give no reason why you think it is nonsense — not that you know anything about it, anyway. Also, believer in what? There is the question you never give a direct answer to.

 

[pood]

You have “pointed out” nothing. You have made a claim. And I and others, in turn, have pointed out (not “claimed”) that you cannot legitimately conflate the four separate definitions of “god” in the Oxford dictionary and decide that they are all the same, as you did when you claimed (not pointed out) that North Korea’s dictator is a “literal” god as opposed to figurative; the two are NOT the same.

Wrong.

Right. So, enjoy your masturbatory word games.

 

[EricH]

I know, right? I linked him to a science article on all the practical benefits accrued from evolutionary theory, but I doubt he read it. So far he has not responded, at any rate.

I know how you feel. I asked you to explain why Trump couldn't be a god and you didn't respond.

I pointed out that in two different posts,nearly consecutive, you contradicted yourself. You said that “he’s just a guy, ya know?” and you said, “how can he not be god?” Now, I realize that in your bizarro world of conflating different nuances of Oxford dictionary definitions, you probably think he can be both just a guy and a “literal” god — remember, the leader of North Korea is a literal God, according to you. Most of us who are literate know better, and feel no need to provide an explanation to you on this matter.

And I have pointed out to you that anything and anyone can be a god. Examples of "just guys" being gods are Moses, the judges of Israel, Tammuz, as well as Clapton, Frodo and Jong-un. You seem to be suggesting that Trump and the others can't be a god and I'm asking you, with your literate superiority why that is. You can't answer because you aren't literate, you are wrong.

You know very well that the atheists on this forum are NOT talking about Clapton, Frodo or Jong-Un when they are talking about god. You simply want to be contrary and stir the pot, and I suspect this is because you have no evidence to support your alleged belief in Biblegod and you know it and cannot bring yourself to admit it. People who have facts and reason on their side argue their facts and reason. While those who don't simply argue. I place you in the latter group. A lot of noise and chaos but no substance.

 

[DLH]

You know very well that the atheists on this forum are NOT talking about Clapton, Frodo or Jong-Un when they are talking about god.

I know that they aren't talking about God when they talk about gods and I know that when they say there are no gods they are factually wrong. They don't understand the simple concept.

You simply want to be contrary and stir the pot, and I suspect this is because you have no evidence to support your alleged belief in Biblegod and you know it and cannot bring yourself to admit it.

Which Biblegod? Moses? the judges? Jesus? Satan? Molech? Baal? Tammuz? Ashtoreth? Dagon? Bellies? Jehovah? Evidence? The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid? Honestly, do you think you have more evidence against than I do for? You want to test me on that? You don't even have the merit to do that.

People who have facts and reason on their side argue their facts and reason. While those who don't simply argue. I place you in the latter group. A lot of noise and chaos but no substance.

Revelation In Space - Atheist Study Bible: Science and the Bible: Historicity

 

[DBT]

'God' and 'gods' are just words. Words without tangible references, nothing to examine, nothing to test, where like Rorschach blots, each believer creates their own mental image.

 

[DLH]

I gathered that. I reckon science just isn’t your thing.

Correct. Never has been. I have nothing against it, but very little interest in it.

Sorry you can’t figure out that those who misappropriate scientific facts for ideological motivations generally are not scientists and usually have no idea what they are talking about, unless they are being deliberately deceptive for some nefarious motive.

Absolutely. I've had enough discussions with "science" minded atheists to know that.

The bible says nothing about either. Why would it? It’s a book of fairy tales written by ancient scribes who were just as intelligent as we are, but lacked our knowledge base.

the Bible's description of creation, of Biblical kinds, describes what we observe in nature. We know when we plant grass seed it will grow grass if anything. Not evolve into money or asparagus. We know when a human has intercourse with a human it will produce a human if anything. You can say humans are classified as apes, but you can't say a human will produce a bonobo or chimpanzee. Or they will produce a human.

And you were wrong again, unsurprisingly.

How could I be wrong about my own subjective opinion?

I notice you give no reason why you think it is nonsense — not that you know anything about it, anyway.

When I was young, I thought religion and evolution, from what I perceived of each, were nonsense. I saw religion as reflected only in religious people, almost exclusively Christian, and evolution a great deal more since I was taught it in school. I told them what they wanted to hear but thought it was nonsense.

Also, believer in what? There is the question you never give a direct answer to.

I believe in the Bible as the fallible translation of the infallible word of Jehovah God. I have studied it carefully for 30+ years. That's what I mean by Bible data. I evaluate data on whatever subject at hand at my leisure that I take interest in. My belief in the Bible doesn't imply belief in teachings often attributed to it through tradition or religious corruption and neglect. The immortal soul, hell, trinity, cross, Easter, Christmas, for example. Those aren't Bible teachings.

 

[pood]

The bible says nothing about either. Why would it? It’s a book of fairy tales written by ancient scribes who were just as intelligent as we are, but lacked our knowledge base.

the Bible's description of creation, of Biblical kinds, describes what we observe in nature. We know when we plant grass seed it will grow grass if anything. Not evolve into money or asparagus.

I assume you mean “monkey,” not “money.” Anyhow, the theory of evolution does not predict that grass will or even could evolve into a monkey or asparagus. It predicts precisely the opposite.

We know when a human has intercourse with a human it will produce a human if anything.

The theory of evolution predicts the exact same thing.

You can say humans are classified as apes, but you can't say a human will produce a bonobo or chimpanzee. Or they will produce a human.

The theory of evolution predicts that no human mating will ever produce a bonobo or chimpanzee as an offspring, and that no bonobo or chimp mating will produce a human. You obviously don’t know anything about common descent, or what evolutionary theory actually does predict.

And you were wrong again, unsurprisingly.

How could I be wrong about my own subjective opinion?

More word games. You’re not wrong about your opinion, and I didn’t say that, and you know it. You said in your opinion evolution is nonsense, and it is your opinion that is nonsense.

I notice you give no reason why you think it is nonsense — not that you know anything about it, anyway.

When I was young, I thought religion and evolution, from what I perceived of each, were nonsense. I saw religion as reflected only in religious people, almost exclusively Christian, and evolution a great deal more since I was taught it in school. I told them what they wanted to hear but thought it was nonsense.

But give no reason why. In any case, you obviously didn’t understand what they were telling you. You have to be wholly ignorant of evolutionary theory to think it says that a human could give birth to a chimp. Moreover, evolution does not operate on individuals anyway. It operates of populations. That is why there was no Adam and Eve, no first man and woman, but only a first population of modern humans.

Also, believer in what? There is the question you never give a direct answer to.

I believe in the Bible as the fallible translation of the infallible word of Jehovah God.

Great. So you’re a Jehovah’s Witness as I said sometime back. You win a cookie for finally fessing up.

 

[steve_bank]

DLH siad

You can say humans are classified as apes, but you can't say a human will produce a bonobo or chimpanzee. Or they will produce a human.

Who says humans can produce apes DLH?

Genetics and archeology traces us and other critters back to common ancestress.

Yes, humans are considered apes, specifically great apes, as we belong to the primate group known as hominoids, which includes all apes, including humans, bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons

What is hominids in simple words?

The most commonly used recent definitions are: Hominid – the group consisting of all modern and extinct Great Apes (that is, modern humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans plus all their immediate ancestors).

Are we having fun yet DLH?

Without some form of evolution biblical creationism has a problem with time lines.

You have to explain in the biblical derived the scale how all the human generic diversity developed along with all the civilizations in such a short time.

BTW, I doubt the writer of Genesis had in mind bolnde haired, blue eyed, whites for Adam and Eve....

 

[DBT]

I gathered that. I reckon science just isn’t your thing.

Correct. Never has been. I have nothing against it, but very little interest in it.

Sorry you can’t figure out that those who misappropriate scientific facts for ideological motivations generally are not scientists and usually have no idea what they are talking about, unless they are being deliberately deceptive for some nefarious motive.

Absolutely. I've had enough discussions with "science" minded atheists to know that.

The bible says nothing about either. Why would it? It’s a book of fairy tales written by ancient scribes who were just as intelligent as we are, but lacked our knowledge base.

the Bible's description of creation, of Biblical kinds, describes what we observe in nature. We know when we plant grass seed it will grow grass if anything. Not evolve into money or asparagus. We know when a human has intercourse with a human it will produce a human if anything. You can say humans are classified as apes, but you can't say a human will produce a bonobo or chimpanzee. Or they will produce a human.

And you were wrong again, unsurprisingly.

How could I be wrong about my own subjective opinion?

I notice you give no reason why you think it is nonsense — not that you know anything about it, anyway.

When I was young, I thought religion and evolution, from what I perceived of each, were nonsense. I saw religion as reflected only in religious people, almost exclusively Christian, and evolution a great deal more since I was taught it in school. I told them what they wanted to hear but thought it was nonsense.

Also, believer in what? There is the question you never give a direct answer to.

I believe in the Bible as the fallible translation of the infallible word of Jehovah God. I have studied it carefully for 30+ years. That's what I mean by Bible data. I evaluate data on whatever subject at hand at my leisure that I take interest in. My belief in the Bible doesn't imply belief in teachings often attributed to it through tradition or religious corruption and neglect. The immortal soul, hell, trinity, cross, Easter, Christmas, for example. Those aren't Bible teachings.

Do you think that JW.org's translation of the bible is accurate?

 

[DLH]

DLH siad

You can say humans are classified as apes, but you can't say a human will produce a bonobo or chimpanzee. Or they will produce a human.

Who says humans can produce apes DLH?

Does current science not comport with the concept of humans as apes? If humans are apes then according to the Biblical kind there is no problem with evolution. Since the human is an ape. It's a matter of semantics and classification.

Genetics and archeology traces us and other critters back to common ancestress.

Specifically what common ancestor is that? Some vague unknown ancestor or a specific known ancestor?

 

[pood]

DLH siad

You can say humans are classified as apes, but you can't say a human will produce a bonobo or chimpanzee. Or they will produce a human.

Who says humans can produce apes DLH?

Does current science not comport with the concept of humans as apes?

Yes, it does, but that is not what you were talking about. Evolutionary theory predicts that humans CANNOT and NEVER WILL produce a bonobo, a chimp, or any other ape, as an OFFSPRING. You implied otherwise.

 

[DLH]

Do you think that JW.org's translation of the bible is accurate?

As accurate as any. I would personally say that it is more accurate, but I may be biased since it is probably my favorite. The problem is that modern-day skeptics overestimate the sociopolitical influence the Bible is meant to have while underestimating the influence it has had in that regard. It isn't, therefore, really as relevant as the skeptic who has a valid complaint against the tyranny of Christendom might expect.

ETA: By the way, it isn't entirely accurate to say the New World Translation is the JW.org translation. I understood what you meant but I wanted to make that clarification.

 

[DLH]

Yes, it does, but that is not what you were talking about.

You are going to tell me what I was talking about?

Evolutionary theory predicts that humans CANNOT and NEVER WILL produce a bonobo, a chimp, or any other ape, as an OFFSPRING. You implied otherwise.

I didn't imply anything, I said "You can say humans are classified as apes, but you can't say a human will produce a bonobo or chimpanzee. Or they will produce a human."

Is that not a "scientific" fact? Is that not in accordance with current evolutionary science? If not tell me exactly how it isn't.

 

[pood]

Yes, it does, but that is not what you were talking about.

You are going to tell me what I was talking about?

Evolutionary theory predicts that humans CANNOT and NEVER WILL produce a bonobo, a chimp, or any other ape, as an OFFSPRING. You implied otherwise.

I didn't imply anything, I said "You can say humans are classified as apes, but you can't say a human will produce a bonobo or chimpanzee. Or they will produce a human."

Is that not a "scientific" fact? Is that not in accordance with current evolutionary science? If not tell me exactly how it isn't.

Above you just said, “you can’t say a human … will produce a human.” That’s false.

 

[DLH]

Above you just said, “you can’t say a human … will produce a human.” That’s false.

Where did I say that? Quote me.

 

[pood]

the Bible's description of creation, of Biblical kinds, describes what we observe in nature. We know when we plant grass seed it will grow grass if anything. Not evolve into money or asparagus. We know when a human has intercourse with a human it will produce a human if anything. You can say humans are classified as apes, but you can't say a human will produce a bonobo or chimpanzee. Or they will produce a human.

Here is the issue: In the above graph, you are clearly implying that evolutionary theory maintains otherwise — that in some cases, according to your misreading of evolutionary theory, grass WILL evolve into a monkey or asparagus, or that sometimes human mating WILL produce a bonobo or a chimp. And this is false. Evolutionary theory does not say that.

 

[pood]

Above you just said, “you can’t say a human … will produce a human.” That’s false.

Where did I say that? Quote me.

Holy … wot?

You said it here.

 

[DLH]

Above you just said, “you can’t say a human … will produce a human.” That’s false.

Where did I say that? Quote me.

Holy … wot?

You said it here.

They are chimpanzees and bonobos.

 

[pood]

I didn't imply anything, I said "You can say humans are classified as apes, but you can't say a human will produce a bonobo or chimpanzee. Or they will produce a human."

There is the direct quote above.

Note bolded part.

IOW, NOBODY says a human will produce a bonobo or a chimp. Evolutionary theory DOES say humans will produce more humans.