|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 15, 2020 20:35:00 GMT
I've only cited it at least fifteen times on this board, but here it is again, Genesis 30:31 to 31:13, the story of Jacob tending Laban's flocks. Perhaps you missed what I said about this before above: it might be said to feature an odd version of genetics, or selective breeding,** yes or what is supposed to be such, in the verses about striped bark allegedly causing a change in the colour of cattle (Gen 30:37). But that story bears no resemblance to what we understand through evolutionary theory. There is no survival of the fittest, natural selection. No incremental change upon change, no new species. And, oddly enough, after a search for 'evolution in the bible' even from those desperate to see scientific proofs demonstrated in scripture, I cannot find a list anywhere taking these events as an example, which I guess makes you the only authority. Do you have anything else? ** In fact even the Christian site Enduring Word admits in its exegesis to this that " We don’t know exactly how this method worked. It is possible Jacob knew more about animal husbandry than we do today" which is weak and certainly makes no claim for evolution. enduringword.com/bible-commentary/genesis-30/ If you are capable of understanding that people successfully bred plants and animals for millennia without "survival of the fittest, natural selection. No [?] incremental change upon change ... ," then you should also understand why I do not believe Darwin contributed anything to science. I'm glad that's settled. I have already noted that the internet is replete with idiotic websites, and explained why. It is because people like you cannot read, and yet you believe you can. No-True-Scotsaman and Ad Hominem. You may now go find something at which you have any skill.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 15, 2020 21:19:46 GMT
Petty insults don't count as an argument, notice how you didn't actually address the source I cited. Evasion noted. Arguments for evolution don't count as arguments for abiogenesis. You said so yourself. Evolution is not abiogenesis. Remember now? Yeah, they're not, I never claimed they were. That doesn't mean you get just arbitrarily insert your "God done did it" hypothesis if that's what youre alluding to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 15, 2020 21:29:50 GMT
Arguments for evolution don't count as arguments for abiogenesis. You said so yourself. Evolution is not abiogenesis. Remember now? Yeah, they're not, I never claimed they were. That doesn't mean you get just arbitrarily insert your "God done did it" hypothesis if that's what youre alluding to. Who told you that you're in charge of anything?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 15, 2020 21:54:30 GMT
Perhaps you missed what I said about this before above: it might be said to feature an odd version of genetics, or selective breeding,** yes or what is supposed to be such, in the verses about striped bark allegedly causing a change in the colour of cattle (Gen 30:37). But that story bears no resemblance to what we understand through evolutionary theory. There is no survival of the fittest, natural selection. No incremental change upon change, no new species. And, oddly enough, after a search for 'evolution in the bible' even from those desperate to see scientific proofs demonstrated in scripture, I cannot find a list anywhere taking these events as an example, which I guess makes you the only authority. Do you have anything else? ** In fact even the Christian site Enduring Word admits in its exegesis to this that " We don’t know exactly how this method worked. It is possible Jacob knew more about animal husbandry than we do today" which is weak and certainly makes no claim for evolution. enduringword.com/bible-commentary/genesis-30/ If you are capable of understanding that people successfully bred plants and animals for millennia without "survival of the fittest, natural selection. No [?] incremental change upon change ... ," then you should also understand why I do not believe Darwin contributed anything to science. I'm glad that's settled. One still awaits for that mention of evolution in the Bible which you claimed. So I ask again: is this all you have from scripture? As for your distracting claim, as with the Bible passage it does not describe evolution, which is a wholly untended, natural, process but just domestication or husbandry. Domestication is the result of a separation of a species from its natural ecological context, its integration into the human household and modification under anthropogenic-driven pressures. In other words, as you admit, it is a process done without natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, ie those very processes which help principally to define evolution! (It may be noted too that your colleagues among Christian creationists do not deny husbandry and breeding, whereas often they do not accept the existence of evolution - so it appears, once again, that you are the only authority lol) To be more technical about it: I hope that helps. Non sequitur noted.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 15, 2020 22:15:09 GMT
Yeah, they're not, I never claimed they were. That doesn't mean you get just arbitrarily insert your "God done did it" hypothesis if that's what youre alluding to. Who told you that you're in charge of anything? If a detective is investigating a death and has no clues at to what caused it, is it reasonable for him to blame the death on a demon? Yes or no? Actually answer without some goofy pivot or petty insult.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 15, 2020 22:21:27 GMT
Who told you that you're in charge of anything? If a detective is investigating a death and has no clues at to what caused it, is it reasonable for him to blame the death on a demon? Yes or no? Actually answer without some goofy pivot or petty insult. False equivalence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 15, 2020 22:32:34 GMT
If you are capable of understanding that people successfully bred plants and animals for millennia without "survival of the fittest, natural selection. No [?] incremental change upon change ... ," then you should also understand why I do not believe Darwin contributed anything to science. I'm glad that's settled. for that mention of evolution in the Bible which you claimed. So I ask again: is this all you have from scripture? As for your distracting claim, as with the Bible passage it does not describe evolution, which is a wholly untended, natural, process but just domestication or husbandry. Domestication is the result of a separation of a species from its natural ecological context, its integration into the human household and modification under anthropogenic-driven pressures. In other words, as you admit, it is a process done without natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, ie those very processes which help principally to define evolution! (It may be noted too that your colleagues among Christian creationists do not deny husbandry and breeding, whereas often they do not accept the existence of evolution - so it appears, once again, that you are the only authority lol) To be more technical about it: I hope that helps. Non sequitur noted. I'm not waiting for people who can't read the Bible to suddenly agree with me what it implies. Nor do I care what idiots think. Nothing about the conscious breeding of plants and animals even suggests those people were ignorant of "natural" selection. Your claim they were shows what a hopeless clown you are at science. Please find some other pass time. The only thing Darwin added to "science" was the false hope that one day science would observe "animalcules" assembling when lightning strikes mud. Here's a clue, that is not going to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 15, 2020 23:57:01 GMT
I'm not waiting for people who can't read the Bible to suddenly agree with me what it implies. Nor do I care what idiots think. That appears here to be everyone but you, other Christians and scientists alike. So then you are, by this measure, still the only authority. Who made you that, again? All you have is a few verses of scripture which concern selective breeding and husbandry which, as I have shown, is simply not equated with notions of evolution by anyone else. Neither is the idea that common descent and survival of the fittest was a working model or theory held by the Biblical writers when describing the natural world, rather the opposite, more like. (In Christianity in fact it was not until Augustine that we get closer with his, albeit not widely taken up, suggestion that 'that forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time"', at least compared it seems to angels. ) But I can see why you might have to exaggerate and conflate so, as it is becoming obvious that it is the best you have. One wonders, too why, if as you say, 'people successfully bred plants and animals for millennia without "survival of the fittest, natural selection"', key concepts that define evolution, why then they would, er, consider such things as basis for an explanation for anything? Only you can can explain this. As for why you feel the need to put natural in inverted commas, well, only you can explain as well. Non sequitur noted.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 16, 2020 1:40:01 GMT
If a detective is investigating a death and has no clues at to what caused it, is it reasonable for him to blame the death on a demon? Yes or no? Actually answer without some goofy pivot or petty insult. False equivalence? How so? You seem to think it's perfectly reasonable (and even probable) to attribute the origin of life to a supernatural cause, why can't we do it for any other unsolved mystery?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 16, 2020 10:30:12 GMT
How so? You seem to think it's perfectly reasonable (and even probable) to attribute the origin of life to a supernatural cause, why can't we do it for any other unsolved mystery? Although it is very difficult for a murderer to remove all the evidence connecting him to the murder, it can be done and has been done. There are unsolved murders. The assumption is that some human agent removed evidence, which is very possible. So that very much is a false equivalence whereas with the origin of life there was no living agent, none, zip, nada, in nature to create the life in the first place. It must be something not found in nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 16, 2020 10:48:49 GMT
I'm not waiting for people who can't read the Bible to suddenly agree with me what it implies. Nor do I care what idiots think. That appears here to be everyone but you, other Christians and scientists alike. So then you are, by this measure, still the only authority. Who made you that, again? All you have is a few verses of scripture which concern selective breeding and husbandry which, as I have shown, is simply not equated with notions of evolution by anyone else. Neither is the idea that common descent and survival of the fittest was a working model or theory held by the Biblical writers when describing the natural world, rather the opposite, more like. (In Christianity in fact it was not until Augustine that we get closer with his, albeit not widely taken up, suggestion that 'that forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time"', at least compared it seems to angels. ) But I can see why you might have to exaggerate and conflate so, as it is becoming obvious that it is the best you have. One wonders, too why, if as you say, 'people successfully bred plants and animals for millennia without "survival of the fittest, natural selection"', key concepts that define evolution, why then they would, er, consider such things as basis for an explanation for anything? Only you can can explain this. As for why you feel the need to put natural in inverted commas, well, only you can explain as well. Non sequitur noted. While it seems convincing to you that all the people who cannot read agree against the Bible and for their own agenda, it is not at all surprising nor convincing to people who can read. People in Bible times typically did not maintain instructions for making anything; the wheel, the composite bow, matzo ball soup, anything. That is because the vast network of information such as we have today did not exist. They just used good sense and what materials were available in their small milieu. Some points did get mentioned such as where to get the blue dye for some garments. There are however very few details. Nevertheless they made wheels, composite bows, matzo ball soup, and many other things showing that they did know how.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 16, 2020 11:59:04 GMT
That appears here to be everyone but you, other Christians and scientists alike. So then you are, by this measure, still the only authority. Who made you that, again? All you have is a few verses of scripture which concern selective breeding and husbandry which, as I have shown, is simply not equated with notions of evolution by anyone else. Neither is the idea that common descent and survival of the fittest was a working model or theory held by the Biblical writers when describing the natural world, rather the opposite, more like. (In Christianity in fact it was not until Augustine that we get closer with his, albeit not widely taken up, suggestion that 'that forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time"', at least compared it seems to angels. ) But I can see why you might have to exaggerate and conflate so, as it is becoming obvious that it is the best you have. One wonders, too why, if as you say, 'people successfully bred plants and animals for millennia without "survival of the fittest, natural selection"', key concepts that define evolution, why then they would, er, consider such things as basis for an explanation for anything? Only you can can explain this. As for why you feel the need to put natural in inverted commas, well, only you can explain as well. Non sequitur noted. While it seems convincing to you that all the people who cannot read agree against the Bible and for their own agenda, it is not at all surprising nor convincing to people who can read. People in Bible times typically did not maintain instructions for making anything; the wheel, the composite bow, matzo ball soup, anything. That is because the vast network of information such as we have today did not exist. They just used good sense and what materials were available in their small milieu. Some points did get mentioned such as where to get the blue dye for some garments. There are however very few details. Nevertheless they made wheels, composite bows, matzo ball soup, and many other things showing that they did know how. Thank you for another non-sequitur. But if you ever do come across any Bible verse actually describing evolution more than husbandry, feel free to continue this thread to some effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 16, 2020 12:45:38 GMT
While it seems convincing to you that all the people who cannot read agree against the Bible and for their own agenda, it is not at all surprising nor convincing to people who can read. People in Bible times typically did not maintain instructions for making anything; the wheel, the composite bow, matzo ball soup, anything. That is because the vast network of information such as we have today did not exist. They just used good sense and what materials were available in their small milieu. Some points did get mentioned such as where to get the blue dye for some garments. There are however very few details. Nevertheless they made wheels, composite bows, matzo ball soup, and many other things showing that they did know how. Thank you for another non-sequitur. But if you ever do come across any Bible verse actually describing evolution more than husbandry, feel free to continue this thread to some effect. A common mistake people of your ilk make, and very obvious to anyone but people of your ilk, is that the ancient world does not readily compare to the modern world. In the ancient world for example very few people had access to paper whereas in the modern world every child has his own pile of notebooks. Obviously then very few people could keep many recipes on paper even if they could reach beyond their very limited milieu. The limited paper available in the ancient world was used mostly for such "significant" information as religion and government, not technology. Rome had quite many wastrels, though Please stop linking internet sites that do not support your crazy notions. We are now fully aware what a wasteland the internet is. We have enough sense to avoid depending on it. We have enough sense to give failing grades to students who depend on it. I think it's odd that IMDB tolerates your trashing of the internet, but as long as the kids learn that they cannot rule the world I suppose it's not so much harm done.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 16, 2020 12:57:24 GMT
How so? You seem to think it's perfectly reasonable (and even probable) to attribute the origin of life to a supernatural cause, why can't we do it for any other unsolved mystery? Although it is very difficult for a murderer to remove all the evidence connecting him to the murder, it can be done and has been done. There are unsolved murders. The assumption is that some human agent removed evidence, which is very possible. So that very much is a false equivalence whereas with the origin of life there was no living agent, none, zip, nada, in nature to create the life in the first place. It must be something not found in nature. "There are unsolved murders. The assumption is that some human agent removed evidence, which is very possible." So your argument is a murderer removing the evidence is very possible because it's been done before and therefore the more likely explanation? Then by your own reasoning, since naturalism has actually been demonstrated before(science has been studying it for centuries) wouldn't that be the more likely explanation for the origin of life than a supernatural one? " So that very much is a false equivalence whereas with the origin of life there was no living agent, none, zip, nada, in nature to create the life in the first place. It must be something not found in nature. " This is just a non sequitor, that would be like saying the founding fathers didn't wear kilts, therefore not wearing kilts is what created the US constitution. It's just a weird, arbitrary rule you just made up to suit your narrative.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 16, 2020 13:08:47 GMT
www.ancientrecipes.org/cookbooks/ Thank you for another non-sequitur. But if you ever do come across any Bible verse actually describing evolution more than husbandry, feel free to continue this thread to some effect. A common mistake people of your ilk make, and very obvious to anyone but people of your ilk, is that the ancient world does not readily compare to the modern world. In the ancient world for example very few people had access to paper whereas in the modern world every child has his own pile of notebooks. Obviously then very few people could keep many recipes on paper even if they could reach beyond their very limited milieu. The limited paper available in the ancient world was used mostly for such "significant" information as religion and government, not technology. Rome had quite many wastrels, though Perhaps you misunderstood. I asked you to be so kind as to return to this thread when you had found Biblical verse which describes evolution rather than husbandry, since otherwise one fears you will be wasting time with non-sequiturs.. At the moment by positing such things as 'people successfully bred plants and animals for millennia without "survival of the fittest, natural selection"' in ways that 'do not readily compare to the modern world' and 'without networks of information' etc, in effect you appear to be arguing against the notion of ancient evolutionary theory and hence, yourself. I hope it turns out better for you next time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 17, 2020 1:36:21 GMT
Although it is very difficult for a murderer to remove all the evidence connecting him to the murder, it can be done and has been done. There are unsolved murders. The assumption is that some human agent removed evidence, which is very possible. So that very much is a false equivalence whereas with the origin of life there was no living agent, none, zip, nada, in nature to create the life in the first place. It must be something not found in nature. "There are unsolved murders. The assumption is that some human agent removed evidence, which is very possible." So your argument is a murderer removing the evidence is very possible because it's been done before and therefore the more likely explanation? Then by your own reasoning, since naturalism has actually been demonstrated before(science has been studying it for centuries) wouldn't that be the more likely explanation for the origin of life than a supernatural one? " So that very much is a false equivalence whereas with the origin of life there was no living agent, none, zip, nada, in nature to create the life in the first place. It must be something not found in nature. " This is just a non sequitor, that would be like saying the founding fathers didn't wear kilts, therefore not wearing kilts is what created the US constitution. It's just a weird, arbitrary rule you just made up to suit your narrative. You are mistaken. Science has not demonstrated "naturalism" assembling life from lifeless matter. That's because it is impossible for reasons obvious to almost anyone but children and adults with the minds of children.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 17, 2020 2:02:18 GMT
"There are unsolved murders. The assumption is that some human agent removed evidence, which is very possible." So your argument is a murderer removing the evidence is very possible because it's been done before and therefore the more likely explanation? Then by your own reasoning, since naturalism has actually been demonstrated before(science has been studying it for centuries) wouldn't that be the more likely explanation for the origin of life than a supernatural one? " So that very much is a false equivalence whereas with the origin of life there was no living agent, none, zip, nada, in nature to create the life in the first place. It must be something not found in nature. " This is just a non sequitor, that would be like saying the founding fathers didn't wear kilts, therefore not wearing kilts is what created the US constitution. It's just a weird, arbitrary rule you just made up to suit your narrative. You are mistaken. Science has not demonstrated "naturalism" assembling life from lifeless matter. That's because it is impossible for reasons obvious to almost anyone but children and adults with the minds of children. I'm talking about naturalism in general, everytime a so called "mystery of the universe" has been solved it's always been a naturalistic explanation, never a theistic one. If premise A (naturalism) has been demonstrated countless times, while premise B (supernaturalism) has never even been close to demonstrated, then premise A is the far more likely explanation for the origin of life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 17, 2020 7:20:04 GMT
You are mistaken. Science has not demonstrated "naturalism" assembling life from lifeless matter. That's because it is impossible for reasons obvious to almost anyone but children and adults with the minds of children. I'm talking about naturalism in general, everytime a so called "mystery of the universe" has been solved it's always been a naturalistic explanation, never a theistic one. If premise A (naturalism) has been demonstrated countless times, while premise B (supernaturalism) has never even been close to demonstrated, then premise A is the far more likely explanation for the origin of life. Apparently not "every" time. The flaw in that line is that the catalog of natural agencies and elements was not complete when "science" so obviously failed before. Nature had properties not yet understood. Now things are different, The catalog is complete. There are no new elements or forces to solve the problem. You also defeat your own purpose imagining there are any. Think, what was the point of explaining away any god? Answer, it was to make the world more predictable. Think, what good is it imagining "naturalism" can solve the problem? You make nature less predictable than a god is. You imagine unknown possibilities in nature that would make a unicorn blush. You might just as well call the solution a "god" as naturalism since it is less predictable than a god. Yet you think you did your "job" of making the world more predictable. There is something very seriously wrong with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 17, 2020 16:14:52 GMT
I'm talking about naturalism in general, everytime a so called "mystery of the universe" has been solved it's always been a naturalistic explanation, never a theistic one. If premise A (naturalism) has been demonstrated countless times, while premise B (supernaturalism) has never even been close to demonstrated, then premise A is the far more likely explanation for the origin of life. Apparently not "every" time. The flaw in that line is that the catalog of natural agencies and elements was not complete when "science" so obviously failed before. Nature had properties not yet understood. Now things are different, The catalog is complete. There are no new elements or forces to solve the problem. You also defeat your own purpose imagining there are any. Think, what was the point of explaining away any god? Answer, it was to make the world more predictable. Think, what good is it imagining "naturalism" can solve the problem? You make nature less predictable than a god is. You imagine unknown possibilities in nature that would make a unicorn blush. You might just as well call the solution a "god" as naturalism since it is less predictable than a god. Yet you think you did your "job" of making the world more predictable. There is something very seriously wrong with you. "Apparently not "every" time." Uh no, it is every time. Name one time when empirical evidence for a "supernatural" explanation has been demonstrated. And no, half assed ID arguments don't count as "empirical evidence". "There are no new elements or forces to solve the problem." This doesn't help your argument. By your reasoning scientists can't make new medical breakthroughs anymore because they know all the elements and natural forces and should just give up (we just recently made a COVID vaccine). Should they also give up on trying to cure cancer while they're at it too? Just because we know all the elements and natural forces doesn't mean we can't still make new scientific discoveries. The elements and forces can be combined if very complex ways we haven't stumbled upon yet (the earth was considerably different billions of years ago) And just because we don't understand something doesn't mean you get to just clumsily insert god, that's intellectual laziness. If it were up to people like you we would still be worshipping the sun instead of studying it and realizing it's just a giant ball of gas. "Think, what was the point of explaining away any god?" Because naturalism has actually been demonstrated to exist, while your "God hypothesis" hasn't even come close to proven, this has already been explained to you. You might as well be asking what is the point of explaining away outer space leprechauns. "Answer, it was to make the world more predictable. Think, what good is it imagining "naturalism" can solve the problem? You make nature less predictable than a god is. You imagine unknown possibilities in nature that would make a unicorn blush. You might just as well call the solution a "god" as naturalism since it is less predictable than a god. Yet you think you did your "job" of making the world more predictable. There is something very seriously wrong with you." And this is just meandering gibberish that doesn't really address what I actually said, so I'm not gonna bother with it. Lemme ask you a question, let's say you're trying to solve a mystery, and you have essentially two possible solutions, solution A which has been demonstrated countless times, and solution B which has never even been close to demonstrated, which is the more likely explanation? Try to answer without petty insults or weird, goofy tangents about nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 18, 2020 1:23:41 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [ full text here] < clips >
- ID arguments don't count as "empirical evidence".
- Should they also give up on trying to cure cancer while they're at it too?
- naturalism has actually been demonstrated to exist
- meandering gibberish that doesn't really address what I actually said
- Try to answer without petty insults
- Why not? Did you vote them out? There's no voting in science.
- I wouldn't go so far as to say that. I would note though that there haven't been any remarkable breakthroughs in 25 years.
- That's just your blinkered world view again.
- It addresses what you did not and cannot say.
- I have to use facts, and the facts don't paint a flattering picture of you. I'm sorry you will have to accept that.
You're making this more difficult than it has to be. It is really easy to understand.
- A very, very long time ago when the periodic chart of the elements was just a theory, and not yet filled in, and microscopes only had 150 magnification, and people believed in "animalcules" that appeared to be no more than a droplet of translucent jelly, it seemed to some otherwise reasonably intelligent people that the origin of life might be explained by ordinary lifeless nature.
- That was very exciting "science" and a "majority" opinion developed that it would happen any day soon.
- Science advanced, the periodic chart got filled in, microscopes showed the droplets of jelly were more complicated than automobiles, and the chance of life being assembled by ordinary lifeless nature was gone forever.
- Yet the "majority" opinion remained as before despite it being proved wrong. That's the problem, how to convince the majority it is wrong? You keep trying to use your "vote" here to deny the obvious reality. Science doesn't depend on votes, rather it depends on facts and logic. You imagine you have facts and logic but you don't. You just have an old, outdated majority vote. Anyone, even retarded people, can vote, and that is the problem.
The national debt was spiraling out of control long before the pandemic and it will continue long after unless the "majority" opinions change drastically in both parties. The people who can "vote" no matter how unqualified they are need to let go of science and religion and let qualified people handle those.
|
|
