|
|
Post by rizdek on Aug 23, 2018 10:35:13 GMT
It is the government and its grunts who keep insisting science has disproved anything in the Bible. You perhaps noticed a tendency on this board for some to believe that the world's problems are the fault of religion and doing away with religion will solve most problems. That is not true and not something taken seriously. Science is incapable of solving issues in society because they do not arise because anyone needs to know how to do anything. Issues in society arise because people cannot agree what to do or why. Science is useless with such issues. Which government is insisting science has disproved the Bible? The US govt? Do you mean there might be some or a handful of folks associated with the US govt that might've said that? Perhaps there are, but I think it's an exaggeration to say that means "the government" by any reasonable definition, keeps insisting thus and so. Do you have specific examples? You may have some examples in mind and can show them...I ask out of curiosity because even though I don't believe a lot of what the Bible says regarding creation, etc. I am not aware of a govt agency insisting science has disproved anything in the Bible. Perhaps you are referring to state run colleges/universities?
Some world problems are the fault of religion. You can't deny that, can you? But "doing away" with religion probably wouldn't resolve anything or wouldn't resolve much. Given the dependency of so many on the their belief that there is a God looking on to keep them from becoming moral depraved, it's not something I would encourage. But maybe giving up some religions might solve some problems, don't you think?
Certainly science is not useless for issues of society. Science can provide insight into mental illness which could help with solving some crime problems and education. Medical research can help solve medical problems to reduce the cost of healthcare and/or improve living conditions. Technology for more efficient food production to reduce hunger. Science can help in a host of issues that plague society. But, I do agree science can't solve all...or even many problems relating to, say, morality. But even there, I believe better understanding the human genetic makeup and how we arrived where we are can be useful to understand underlying intuitions and natural tendencies and that can lead to better ways to address dangerous and illegal behavior.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2018 10:35:21 GMT
Just to add... Selective breeding for characteristics within a species by humans is not evolution... We have a wide variety of domestic dog breeds, but they are still all dogs. Left to breed of their own accord without human selected breeding for individual characteristics, they would return to type. And, selective breeding by placing stripy sticks near water... Yeah, that'll work😒 You underestimate the human capacity to interfere. I remain supremely confident that no amount of shagging near stripey sticks will give you stripey offspring. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Aug 23, 2018 10:36:17 GMT
Are you sure about this? If I believe man evolved from "pre homo sapien" forms, doesn't that mean there had to be a first homo sapien? If so, what's wrong with assigning him a name (Adam)? Why should that make me a creationist?
Actually, I think not. The way species, a human-devised delineation, are assigned, there isn't ever going to be just one of a kind. Gene pools evolve and become new species, usually quite gradually. Entire populations slowly transition in phenotype and genotype until taxanomists finally decide that the gene pool, usually represented by a few specimens, has finally changed enough that all the individuals in that gene pool are now a different species. So, technically, there wouldn't be a "first" human. At best there would be a first human gene pool but it would likely be represented by hundreds of thousands of interbreeding individuals. Now, this is NOT to say that they won't, often times, find a set of fossilized bones of one individual and based on an examination, decide it represents a different species than other similar specimens, but that doesn't mean that there was just "one" individual representing that gene pool. Maybe someone could decide that a given fossil could be named "Adam" but that doesn't mean there was just one of that species at that time. At least that's how I understand it happens. Alright. But doesn't that mean there CAN be a first homo sapien, but he would be impossible to pinpoint because taxonomists need a sufficient number of samples in a gene pool before they are able to recognize that a new species has emerged?
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Aug 23, 2018 10:43:28 GMT
Just to add... Selective breeding for characteristics within a species by humans is not evolution... We have a wide variety of domestic dog breeds, but they are still all dogs. Left to breed of their own accord without human selected breeding for individual characteristics, they would return to type. And, selective breeding by placing stripy sticks near water... Yeah, that'll work😒 I'm not sure that's true. Let's pretend that in some distant future world, humans die off and dogs...all or many of the dog breeds continue. The very tiny dogs, while theoretically now are able to breed with very large dogs from a genetic standpoint, would be unlikely to interbreed with them because of the sheer difference in size. Over the course of hundreds of thousands or millions of years, there is reason to conclude that eventually, they would become unable to interbreed because of genetic differences, as mutations accumulate and make their genetic material incompatible with the other "breed's" genetic material. It's no different than if a given gene pool become separated by some insurmountable barrier...an ocean, mountain range, river or desert. One species eventually evolves over the course of time into two different gene pools that are dissimilar enough to warrant calling them a different species and even if and when the two gene pools rejoin...the desert is no longer arid, the ocean dries up or disappears due to plate tectonics, etc. they are unable to interbreed. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 23, 2018 10:47:17 GMT
It is the government and its grunts who keep insisting science has disproved anything in the Bible. You perhaps noticed a tendency on this board for some to believe that the world's problems are the fault of religion and doing away with religion will solve most problems. That is not true and not something taken seriously. Science is incapable of solving issues in society because they do not arise because anyone needs to know how to do anything. Issues in society arise because people cannot agree what to do or why. Science is useless with such issues. Which government is insisting science has disproved the Bible? The US govt? Do you mean there might be some or a handful of folks associated with the US govt that might've said that? Perhaps there are, but I think it's an exaggeration to say that means "the government" by any reasonable definition, keeps insisting thus and so. Do you have specific examples? You may have some examples in mind and can show them...I ask out of curiosity because even though I don't believe a lot of what the Bible says regarding creation, etc. I am not aware of a govt agency insisting science has disproved anything in the Bible. Perhaps you are referring to state run colleges/universities?
Some world problems are the fault of religion. You can't deny that, can you? But "doing away" with religion probably wouldn't resolve anything or wouldn't resolve much. Given the dependency of so many on the their belief that there is a God looking on to keep them from becoming moral depraved, it's not something I would encourage. But maybe giving up some religions might solve some problems, don't you think?
Certainly science is not useless for issues of society. Science can provide insight into mental illness which could help with solving some crime problems and education. Medical research can help solve medical problems to reduce the cost of healthcare and/or improve living conditions. Technology for more efficient food production to reduce hunger. Science can help in a host of issues that plague society. But, I do agree science can't solve all...or even many problems relating to, say, morality. But even there, I believe better understanding the human genetic makeup and how we arrived where we are can be useful to understand underlying intuitions and natural tendencies and that can lead to better ways to address dangerous and illegal behavior.
The government is responsible for the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which is still the "law of the land." The trial was a sham in that the "creationists" were frauds who had no understanding of the real issues. I've noticed "Christianity" has been politically problematic in history. You don't seriously think that's a religion do you? Science can show people who think science can solve problems in society that they are mistaken, it can't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2018 10:52:57 GMT
Actually, I think not. The way species, a human-devised delineation, are assigned, there isn't ever going to be just one of a kind. Gene pools evolve and become new species, usually quite gradually. Entire populations slowly transition in phenotype and genotype until taxanomists finally decide that the gene pool, usually represented by a few specimens, has finally changed enough that all the individuals in that gene pool are now a different species. So, technically, there wouldn't be a "first" human. At best there would be a first human gene pool but it would likely be represented by hundreds of thousands of interbreeding individuals. Now, this is NOT to say that they won't, often times, find a set of fossilized bones of one individual and based on an examination, decide it represents a different species than other similar specimens, but that doesn't mean that there was just "one" individual representing that gene pool. Maybe someone could decide that a given fossil could be named "Adam" but that doesn't mean there was just one of that species at that time. At least that's how I understand it happens. Alright. But doesn't that mean there CAN be a first homo sapien, but he would be impossible to pinpoint because taxonomists need a sufficient number of samples in a gene pool before they are able to recognize that a new species has emerged?
Just to add... Evolution is sometimes relatively slow, with small changes over long periods (phyletic gradualism), and sometimes relatively rapid, with sudden dramatic changes (punctuated equilibrium). Phyletic gradualism is generally driven by species adapting to slow moving environmental shifts, or species moving to new ecological niches. Punctuated equilibrium is caused by a genetic mutation that crops up, where the mutation gives a significant advantage over the extant population. So, evolution can be either a slow gradual process, or a sudden explosive change. Either way, pinpointing species boundaries is extremely difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 23, 2018 10:56:26 GMT
Actually, I think not. The way species, a human-devised delineation, are assigned, there isn't ever going to be just one of a kind. Gene pools evolve and become new species, usually quite gradually. Entire populations slowly transition in phenotype and genotype until taxanomists finally decide that the gene pool, usually represented by a few specimens, has finally changed enough that all the individuals in that gene pool are now a different species. So, technically, there wouldn't be a "first" human. At best there would be a first human gene pool but it would likely be represented by hundreds of thousands of interbreeding individuals. Now, this is NOT to say that they won't, often times, find a set of fossilized bones of one individual and based on an examination, decide it represents a different species than other similar specimens, but that doesn't mean that there was just "one" individual representing that gene pool. Maybe someone could decide that a given fossil could be named "Adam" but that doesn't mean there was just one of that species at that time. At least that's how I understand it happens. Alright. But doesn't that mean there CAN be a first homo sapien, but he would be impossible to pinpoint because taxonomists need a sufficient number of samples in a gene pool before they are able to recognize that a new species has emerged?
Interestingly, modern genetics can indeed identify the 'Mitochondrial Eve' (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) which is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (to be distinguished from just the most common ancestor per se) of all currently living humans, i.e., the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend, in an unbroken line purely through their mothers, and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman. There is also the "Y-chromosomal Adam", the most recent male-line common ancestor of all living people. However, unlike Biblical Adam and Eve there is no suggestion that these two lived at the same time or that they founded the entire species. We are just the last descendants standing. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Aug 23, 2018 11:05:30 GMT
Actually, I think not. The way species, a human-devised delineation, are assigned, there isn't ever going to be just one of a kind. Gene pools evolve and become new species, usually quite gradually. Entire populations slowly transition in phenotype and genotype until taxanomists finally decide that the gene pool, usually represented by a few specimens, has finally changed enough that all the individuals in that gene pool are now a different species. So, technically, there wouldn't be a "first" human. At best there would be a first human gene pool but it would likely be represented by hundreds of thousands of interbreeding individuals. Now, this is NOT to say that they won't, often times, find a set of fossilized bones of one individual and based on an examination, decide it represents a different species than other similar specimens, but that doesn't mean that there was just "one" individual representing that gene pool. Maybe someone could decide that a given fossil could be named "Adam" but that doesn't mean there was just one of that species at that time. At least that's how I understand it happens. Alright. But doesn't that mean there CAN be a first homo sapien, but he would be impossible to pinpoint because taxonomists need a sufficient number of samples in a gene pool before they are able to recognize that a new species has emerged?
Well, I wouldn't think of it that way...I would think of it almost the opposite. That one or just a handful of specimens is enough to claim a new species...rightly or wrongly that is often done. But they would make no inference that there was just ONE individual of any given "new" species. But I won't press the issue.
But as I understand it, there could be reason to think the ancient Hebrews didn't always see the stories of creation as literal and actually might not have thought there was an individual Adam, but rather used a play on words because their word for soil is similar to the word adam and they named the "first" human(s) Adam because they believed humans came from the earth...which in an odd way, would be true if live arose through abiogenesis and humans evolved naturally. I know nothing of the Hebrew language...it's all hearsay on my part and I'm sure there are people who do know Hebrew and could explain it better or correct my interpretation. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 23, 2018 11:06:05 GMT
Alright. But doesn't that mean there CAN be a first homo sapien, but he would be impossible to pinpoint because taxonomists need a sufficient number of samples in a gene pool before they are able to recognize that a new species has emerged?
Interestingly, modern genetics can indeed identify the 'Mitochondrial Eve' (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) which is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (to be distinguished from just the most common ancestor per se) of all currently living humans, i.e., the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend, in an unbroken line purely through their mothers, and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman. There is also the "Y-chromosomal Adam", the most recent male-line common ancestor of all living people. However, unlike Biblical Adam and Eve there is no suggestion that these two lived at the same time or that they founded the entire species. We are just the last descendants standing. Just to say- 'Mitochondrial Eve' is an often misused term, especially by creationists. It doesn't mean that the supposed Eve was first creature in the species. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Aug 23, 2018 11:13:42 GMT
Which government is insisting science has disproved the Bible? The US govt? Do you mean there might be some or a handful of folks associated with the US govt that might've said that? Perhaps there are, but I think it's an exaggeration to say that means "the government" by any reasonable definition, keeps insisting thus and so. Do you have specific examples? You may have some examples in mind and can show them...I ask out of curiosity because even though I don't believe a lot of what the Bible says regarding creation, etc. I am not aware of a govt agency insisting science has disproved anything in the Bible. Perhaps you are referring to state run colleges/universities?
Some world problems are the fault of religion. You can't deny that, can you? But "doing away" with religion probably wouldn't resolve anything or wouldn't resolve much. Given the dependency of so many on the their belief that there is a God looking on to keep them from becoming moral depraved, it's not something I would encourage. But maybe giving up some religions might solve some problems, don't you think?
Certainly science is not useless for issues of society. Science can provide insight into mental illness which could help with solving some crime problems and education. Medical research can help solve medical problems to reduce the cost of healthcare and/or improve living conditions. Technology for more efficient food production to reduce hunger. Science can help in a host of issues that plague society. But, I do agree science can't solve all...or even many problems relating to, say, morality. But even there, I believe better understanding the human genetic makeup and how we arrived where we are can be useful to understand underlying intuitions and natural tendencies and that can lead to better ways to address dangerous and illegal behavior.
The government is responsible for the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which is still the "law of the land." The trial was a sham in that the "creationists" were frauds who had no understanding of the real issues. I've noticed "Christianity" has been politically problematic in history. You don't seriously think that's a religion do you? Science can show people who think science can solve problems in society that they are mistaken, it can't. I think you'll find many many people who would claim that evolution does not disprove the Bible...so they would contend the decision had nothing to do with disproving the Bible. I would agree with them. Evolution isn't a reason to reject the Bible or even parts of it.
I do seriously see Christianity as a religion. Not sure why I wouldn't.
Referring to science...can it or can it not show people that they are mistaken? Your last sentence seems to be saying both which seem contradictory. I'm not sure what you mean. Science can show people where they are mistaken in their assumptions that underlie various aspects of human behavior and technology that society depends on and the affects is success/failure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Aug 23, 2018 11:15:18 GMT
Alright. But doesn't that mean there CAN be a first homo sapien, but he would be impossible to pinpoint because taxonomists need a sufficient number of samples in a gene pool before they are able to recognize that a new species has emerged?
Interestingly, modern genetics can indeed identify the 'Mitochondrial Eve' (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) which is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (to be distinguished from just the most common ancestor per se) of all currently living humans, i.e., the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend, in an unbroken line purely through their mothers, and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman. There is also the "Y-chromosomal Adam", the most recent male-line common ancestor of all living people. However, unlike Biblical Adam and Eve there is no suggestion that these two lived at the same time or that they founded the entire species. We are just the last descendants standing. But as long as there is no evidence that these two DID NOT live at the same time there might be room to reconcile evolution with belief in the Biblical Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 23, 2018 11:19:55 GMT
The government is responsible for the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which is still the "law of the land." The trial was a sham in that the "creationists" were frauds who had no understanding of the real issues. I've noticed "Christianity" has been politically problematic in history. You don't seriously think that's a religion do you? Science can show people who think science can solve problems in society that they are mistaken, it can't. I think you'll find many many people who would claim that evolution does not disprove the Bible...so they would contend the decision had nothing to do with disproving the Bible. I would agree with them. Evolution isn't a reason to reject the Bible or even parts of it.
I do seriously see Christianity as a religion. Not sure why I wouldn't.
Referring to science...can it or can it not show people that they are mistaken? Your last sentence seems to be saying both which seem contradictory. I'm not sure what you mean. Science can show people where they are mistaken in their assumptions that underlie various aspects of human behavior and technology that society depends on and the affects is success/failure.
Science cannot solve issues in society, there are however many things it can show like the boiling point of water, the acceleration due to gravity, and things science cannot solve. I have not contradicted myself. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 23, 2018 11:21:11 GMT
Interestingly, modern genetics can indeed identify the 'Mitochondrial Eve' (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) which is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (to be distinguished from just the most common ancestor per se) of all currently living humans, i.e., the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend, in an unbroken line purely through their mothers, and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman. There is also the "Y-chromosomal Adam", the most recent male-line common ancestor of all living people. However, unlike Biblical Adam and Eve there is no suggestion that these two lived at the same time or that they founded the entire species. We are just the last descendants standing. But as long as there is no evidence that these two DID NOT live at the same time there might be room to reconcile evolution with belief in the Biblical Adam. Well this would mean stretching the notion of what constitutes a biblical Adam and Eve to breaking point. Genetics is, after all, speaking of two individuals who did not know each other, did not live at the same time and are not even common ancestors in the wider sense. It is not suggested by science that she was the first modern woman, rather it indicates that only her descendants survive to the present day. There is always some other female that predated mitochondrial Eve, whose DNA didn't make it up to modernity. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Aug 23, 2018 11:22:08 GMT
Alright. But doesn't that mean there CAN be a first homo sapien, but he would be impossible to pinpoint because taxonomists need a sufficient number of samples in a gene pool before they are able to recognize that a new species has emerged?
Well, I wouldn't think of it that way...I would think of it almost the opposite. That one or just a handful of specimens is enough to claim a new species...rightly or wrongly that is often done. But they would make no inference that there was just ONE individual of any given "new" species. But I won't press the issue.
But as I understand it, there could be reason to think the ancient Hebrews didn't always see the stories of creation as literal and actually might not have thought there was an individual Adam, but rather used a play on words because their word for soil is similar to the word adam and they named the "first" human(s) Adam because they believed humans came from the earth...which in an odd way, would be true if live arose through abiogenesis and humans evolved naturally. I know nothing of the Hebrew language...it's all hearsay on my part and I'm sure there are people who do know Hebrew and could explain it better or correct my interpretation. Maybe the ancient Hebrews didn't agree on these things. And I'm not arguing for one view or another. My point is that when Aj June states that a believer of Adam as the first human always makes one a creationist, I'm saying, "Not necessarily". |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 23, 2018 11:29:50 GMT
Well, I wouldn't think of it that way...I would think of it almost the opposite. That one or just a handful of specimens is enough to claim a new species...rightly or wrongly that is often done. But they would make no inference that there was just ONE individual of any given "new" species. But I won't press the issue.
But as I understand it, there could be reason to think the ancient Hebrews didn't always see the stories of creation as literal and actually might not have thought there was an individual Adam, but rather used a play on words because their word for soil is similar to the word adam and they named the "first" human(s) Adam because they believed humans came from the earth...which in an odd way, would be true if live arose through abiogenesis and humans evolved naturally. I know nothing of the Hebrew language...it's all hearsay on my part and I'm sure there are people who do know Hebrew and could explain it better or correct my interpretation. Maybe the ancient Hebrews didn't agree on these things. And I'm not arguing for one view or another. My point is that when Aj June states that a believer of Adam as the first human always makes one a creationist, I'm saying, "Not necessarily".Can you smell what the Rock is cooking?  |
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Aug 23, 2018 12:32:09 GMT
That’s basically another way of asking which members (regular posters here) are theists? There’s a follow up question I’d like to ask only theists, but I suspect the majority of answers would come from atheists, and theists would ignore the question altogether (because they can’t answer it). So I need to know how many theists are actually here, so I can predict how many will ignore the follow up question (because they can’t answer it). Well, the question was usually rendered this way on the original IMDB board: Do you accept that evolution occurred? Theist types would quickly answer, "Yes I do," but after a brief while it became apparent they were talking shit. I'll list some examples: 1. Captain Bryce: Yes I agree that evolution occurred but I won't say whether I agree with the idea of Common Descent. 2. Ada Lovelace: "Evolution has problems. That's beyond dispute." I asked her what was the nature of these problems and how she reconciled her belief in evolution with these problems. She talked shit for a couple weeks before she claimed that God directed evolution to make things as they are. 3. Guy from Canada of Goa descent who Ada called Sparrowhawk, or something: Evolution is primordial sheep, dogs, cats developing into different breeds of sheep, dogs and cats. 4. Girl who used an image of a young, female clown: I believe in Common Descent, though not a singular organism. All of the above are Creationist beliefs though the people involved all claimed to accept evolution. Here's how evolution works. All human beings are brothers, sisters and cousins to each other. At some point we all share a common ancestor. All apes, including humans are cousins to each other since at some point we all share a common ancestor. All vertebrates are cousins to each other since at some point we all share a common ancestor. All living organisms on this planet are cousins to each other since at some point we all share a common ancestor. By ancestor, I mean a single organism. The original organism developed into bacteria, fungi, plants and animals. The animals evolved into various phyla like Arthropods, Annelids, Chordates/Vertebrates, Echinoderms and others. The Vertebrates evolved into fish. Some fish evolved into amphibians which begat reptiles which begat mammals which ultimately begat humans. That's evolution. If you believe something else you don't believe in evolution. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 23, 2018 12:43:55 GMT
That’s basically another way of asking which members (regular posters here) are theists? There’s a follow up question I’d like to ask only theists, but I suspect the majority of answers would come from atheists, and theists would ignore the question altogether (because they can’t answer it). So I need to know how many theists are actually here, so I can predict how many will ignore the follow up question (because they can’t answer it). Well, the question was usually rendered this way on the original IMDB board: Do you accept that evolution occurred? Theist types would quickly answer, "Yes I do," but after a brief while it became apparent they were talking shit. I'll list some examples: 1. Captain Bryce: Yes I agree that evolution occurred but I won't say whether I agree with the idea of Common Descent. 2. Ada Lovelace: "Evolution has problems. That's beyond dispute." I asked her what was the nature of these problems and how she reconciled her belief in evolution with these problems. She talked shit for a couple weeks before she claimed that God directed evolution to make things as they are. 3. Guy from Canada of Goa descent who Ada called Sparrowhawk, or something: Evolution is primordial sheep, dogs, cats developing into different breeds of sheep, dogs and cats. 4. Girl who used an image of a young, female clown: I believe in Common Descent, though not a singular organism. All of the above are Creationist beliefs though the people involved all claimed to accept evolution. Here's how evolution works. All human beings are brothers, sisters and cousins to each other. At some point we all share a common ancestor. All apes, including humans are cousins to each other since at some point we all share a common ancestor. All vertebrates are cousins to each other since at some point we all share a common ancestor. All living organisms on this planet are cousins to each other since at some point we all share a common ancestor. By ancestor, I mean a single organism. The original organism developed into bacteria, fungi, plants and animals. The animals evolved into various phyla like Arthropods, Annelids, Chordates/Vertebrates, Echinoderms and others. The Vertebrates evolved into fish. Some fish evolved into amphibians which begat reptiles which begat mammals which ultimately begat humans. That's evolution. If you believe something else you don't believe in evolution. I largely agree with you Dividavi. The creationists use variety of ways to try to make you believe that they are Ok with evolution but in fact they are not. They believe in their own versions of evolution. It may not just be limited to creationists but even some people who believe they understand evolution actually do not because they are naive people who do not understand meanings of words such as Common descent or Mitochondrial Eve. I relate it to people's inability to understand the process of continuity that evolution is all about. I think people who are not good in maths and statistics may find it difficult to conceptualise basics of evolution.
That said I will be very surprised if Skyhawk0 believed in what you wrote in #3. You are totally right about the other 3 people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2018 12:49:18 GMT
That’s basically another way of asking which members (regular posters here) are theists? There’s a follow up question I’d like to ask only theists, but I suspect the majority of answers would come from atheists, and theists would ignore the question altogether (because they can’t answer it). So I need to know how many theists are actually here, so I can predict how many will ignore the follow up question (because they can’t answer it). Well, the question was usually rendered this way on the original IMDB board: Do you accept that evolution occurred? Theist types would quickly answer, "Yes I do," but after a brief while it became apparent they were talking shit. I'll list some examples: 1. Captain Bryce: Yes I agree that evolution occurred but I won't say whether I agree with the idea of Common Descent. 2. Ada Lovelace: "Evolution has problems. That's beyond dispute." I asked her what was the nature of these problems and how she reconciled her belief in evolution with these problems. She talked shit for a couple weeks before she claimed that God directed evolution to make things as they are. 3. Guy from Canada of Goa descent who Ada called Sparrowhawk, or something: Evolution is primordial sheep, dogs, cats developing into different breeds of sheep, dogs and cats. 4. Girl who used an image of a young, female clown: I believe in Common Descent, though not a singular organism. All of the above are Creationist beliefs though the people involved all claimed to accept evolution. Here's how evolution works. All human beings are brothers, sisters and cousins to each other. At some point we all share a common ancestor. All apes, including humans are cousins to each other since at some point we all share a common ancestor. All vertebrates are cousins to each other since at some point we all share a common ancestor. All living organisms on this planet are cousins to each other since at some point we all share a common ancestor. By ancestor, I mean a single organism. The original organism developed into bacteria, fungi, plants and animals. The animals evolved into various phyla like Arthropods, Annelids, Chordates/Vertebrates, Echinoderms and others. The Vertebrates evolved into fish. Some fish evolved into amphibians which begat reptiles which begat mammals which ultimately begat humans. That's evolution. If you believe something else you don't believe in evolution. I disagree with the statement "ultimately evolved in to humans". We are just another species, nothing special. Modern evolutionary biologists are now theorising that if anything, bacteria are the dominant lifeforms of earth, and the diversity of other life on earth, including humans evolves as hosts to allow bacteria to diversify, multiply, and populate new niches. We are all more bacteria than human. Mobile homes for them. Without bacteria, humans would rapidly be extinct. Without humans, bacteria would be fine. Bacteria keep you alive for their own purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 23, 2018 12:50:40 GMT
That’s basically another way of asking which members (regular posters here) are theists? There’s a follow up question I’d like to ask only theists, but I suspect the majority of answers would come from atheists, and theists would ignore the question altogether (because they can’t answer it). So I need to know how many theists are actually here, so I can predict how many will ignore the follow up question (because they can’t answer it). Well, the question was usually rendered this way on the original IMDB board: Do you accept that evolution occurred? Theist types would quickly answer, "Yes I do," but after a brief while it became apparent they were talking shit. I'll list some examples: 1. Captain Bryce: Yes I agree that evolution occurred but I won't say whether I agree with the idea of Common Descent. 2. Ada Lovelace: "Evolution has problems. That's beyond dispute." I asked her what was the nature of these problems and how she reconciled her belief in evolution with these problems. She talked shit for a couple weeks before she claimed that God directed evolution to make things as they are. 3. Guy from Canada of Goa descent who Ada called Sparrowhawk, or something: Evolution is primordial sheep, dogs, cats developing into different breeds of sheep, dogs and cats. 4. Girl who used an image of a young, female clown: I believe in Common Descent, though not a singular organism. All of the above are Creationist beliefs though the people involved all claimed to accept evolution. Here's how evolution works. All human beings are brothers, sisters and cousins to each other. At some point we all share a common ancestor. All apes, including humans are cousins to each other since at some point we all share a common ancestor. All vertebrates are cousins to each other since at some point we all share a common ancestor. All living organisms on this planet are cousins to each other since at some point we all share a common ancestor. By ancestor, I mean a single organism. The original organism developed into bacteria, fungi, plants and animals. The animals evolved into various phyla like Arthropods, Annelids, Chordates/Vertebrates, Echinoderms and others. The Vertebrates evolved into fish. Some fish evolved into amphibians which begat reptiles which begat mammals which ultimately begat humans. That's evolution. If you believe something else you don't believe in evolution. so evolution is the start of life rather than the development of it. There no logical reason to buy into that but that appears to be the only option. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 23, 2018 13:18:04 GMT
So....what did the lions eat for a year on Noah’s Ark? |
|
