I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
Alate_One
Well-known member
Because humans arose gradually, there is no instantaneous point like that.
Because populations are driving cars . . . right . . .
You're really being dense on purpose throughout these threads. :nono:There's never a zero point of a population in evolution, save extinction. The populations split to form new species.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Oh I'm sure he considers research from Christian scientists. There are plenty of them. Francis Collins being just the most prominent atm.
Christian scientist does not equal Young Earth Creationist. I'm quite confident the vast majority of Christians that are scientists agree with me.
Do you listen to Katherine Hayhoe?
I think you just reject any person/organization that disagrees with your very narrow interpretation of scripture.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Because we've seen it happen over and over?
How did we get Palmer Amaranth that resists Glyphosate?
Why are the majority of elephants in certain African populations tuskless?
Another fallacy. That you've seen something happen does not mean it happens in every case.
Right Divider
Body part
Because they are all descended from a universal common ancestor? :rotfl:
Just so stories are all the rage with the "theory".
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
What you said, here, is not only not true, but it does not even rise to the level of being false; it is purely nonsensical. Have fun trying to explain what (if anything) you imagine it would be for a human to "arise gradually".
You're a dyed-in-the-wool irrationalist, to be able to say, in all seriousness, that there was never a time when there were less than "about 10,000" humans, and that there was never a time when there were no more than 2 humans, and that there was never a time when there were no humans at all.
Because populations are driving cars . . . right . . .
Because I said anything that sounds even remotely like I was saying that populations are driving cars . . . right . . .
It's creepy that you're so committed to your irrationality that you're actually willing to pretend to think that a car can have been driven at 88 mph without ever having been priorly driven at 2 mph, and without ever having been priorly driven at 1 mph, and without ever having been priorly sitting stationary in park. In reality (from which you're obviously quite aloof), every car that has been driven at 88 mph is a car that, priorly, has been driven at 1 mph, at 2 mph, and has sat still, not being driven at all. Just the same, before there were ever "about 10,000" humans, there was a time during which there were no more than 2 humans, a time during which there was no more than 1 human, and a time during which there was/were no human(s) at all. You want to demonstrate just how much of a cluck you can be by denying this basic, elementary principle, then be my guest; but why are you so obstinately committed to your dadaism?
It's funny that you're consistently forced, by your commitment to your irrationality, to stonewall against the simplest, most elementary questions, and you call the one asking you these questions "dense", because I'm asking you them. I take it that your PhD in stonewalling against these elementary questions stands for "Phenomenally Dense".
Here, again, you've just told me that there never was a time when there were less than "about 10,000" humans, and so, you've just told me that there never was a time when 0 humans existed. You're a dyed-in-the-wool irrationalist to be able to tell me, as you've just told me, that "about 10,000" humans have eternally existed.
This is merely more nonsense verbiage from you, for which you will never be able put in a coherent word in hopes of explaining it. Would you say that a population of 10,000 individual X's could split into, say, a population of 5,000 or 6,000 Y's, and a population of 4,000 or 5,000 Z's?
It is hilarious that you plume yourself about some worthless PhD, and you can't even begin to meaningfully touch on even the most elementary questions regarding what you got your PhD in. You should go back and complain to the cretins that mocked you by giving you a PhD in bilge when you mistakenly thought you were getting a PhD in biology.
Your heart is so desperately, wickedly hardened against the Bible, truth, and logic, that, frankly, there's not a thing I can do for you other than to pray to God that He will free you from your abysmal bondage in abject, prideful stupidity in your war against His word in Genesis.
Alate_One
Well-known member
How do you know when a child is all grown up? You might say, on their 18th birthday, but that's only because it's enshrined in law here and now. In the past, adult could be any age and many times people didn't know their birthdates. So how could we ever decide if someone was an "adult" or not if there's not a singular point?
The answer is obvious to anyone not hung up on semantics.
Obviously there was a time when there were no humans at all, because humanity didn't exist yet. But once there is a category, humans then you're going to have an effective population size of around 10,000.
But that category emerges gradually, just like adulthood does.
You said that a car going zero to 88 is just like a population of a living organism. Which is nonsense. Evolution and populations don't work that way.Because I said anything that sounds even remotely like I was saying that populations are driving cars . . . right . . .
It could. But that's not what the data says.
And no it's not nonsense verbiage. Let's think about the evolution of Dogs from wolves. (You do believe in that right?)
How did dogs first diverge from wolves? Were humans breeding wolves and suddenly two wolves popped up and people said, wow these are the first two dogs! No. Nobody knew what a dog was, nor was it set in any kind of category until there were enough of them with the same characteristics to say, this is something different.
That's not even how modern breeds are made when breeding is tightly controlled. You can't even define something as a breed until you have a decent sized (very small in this case) population of dogs that all conform to a set of standards.
Nothing in this conversation has had much of anything to do with the Bible. You are simply unwilling to have an actual conversation over a scientific topic. You spend your time arguing semantics rather than the actual meat of the argument. No wonder everyone else ignores you.
No, they don't.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Try meaning something by your word, "child", and try meaning something by your phrase, "all grown up", and then try asking me an actual question using them.
By "all grown up", I hope you don't mean "an adult", for then you'd be saying, "How do you know when a child is an adult?" which, on the face of it (at least) seems like a pretty stupid thing to say. Would you disagree? I mean, are not "child who is an adult" and "adult who is a child" oxymoronic phrases? Would you, personally, be willing to say, "That child is an adult"?
Oh, were you asking me, "When does a child turn 18 years of age?" If so, then, indeed, I would answer by saying, "On his/her 18th birthday"; wouldn't you? If not, then what (if anything) were you asking me?
What is "enshrined in law here and now"? That a person turns 18 on his/her 18th birthday?
In the past, could 18 years of age "be any age"? Could 18 years of age be 19 years of age? Could it be 30 years of age? 100?
So? At least they would not be given to making fools of themselves by wasting their time with horoscopes, I would imagine.
By meaning something by the word, "adult". No?
Do you even mean something by your phrase, "singular point"?
The answer to what? If you want an answer, shouldn't you ask a question? When you say, "How do you know when a child is all grown up?" while failing to mean something by your phrases, "child" and "all grown up", you've not asked a question. If, so far as I can tell, something said is meaningless, I'm not about to pretend as though I think I've been asked a question. What is meaningless is no question; every question is meaningful. If you mean nothing by "child" and "all grown up", then you mean nothing by "How do you know when a child is all grown up?" and you've not asked a question, therein. What motivates you to say that I'm "hung up on semantics" (as though you're silly enough to imagine that that is, somehow, a pejorative thing to say about me) is the fact that I have a knack for coaxing you into demonstrating that, in fact, oh so much of the stuff you write as a PhD Darwin cheerleader is merely pompous nonsense. If you could, also, get "hung up on semantics", like I am, you'd quite swiftly abandon your role as a Darwin cheerleader, because, face it: why do you like to go about proclaiming that you have a PhD in sheer nonsense??
So, there was a time when the human population was "about 10,000" humans less than "about 10,000" humans: namely, about 0 humans.
What (if anything) would you say is the difference between humans and humanity? Which existed first: a human or humanity?
Ah, I see you feel it's time to try to distract me from your previous failures to defend your previous nonsense by, once again, trying to muddy your waters through the further inflation of your meaningless jargon. See, now you've got yet another meaningless phrase you can't account for: "category, humans".
Why say "effective population size", rather than "population size"? And, why say "population size", rather than "population"? What made you choose to say "effective population size of around 10,000", thereby choosing to not say "population of around 10,000"? What (if anything) is the difference between "an effective population size of around 10,000" and "a population of around 10,000"?
Here, you're trying out your more recently introduced word game. So, in addition to "species evolve"--a phrase you, and your colleagues have consistently demonstrated to be utterly meaningless, now you have "categories emerge". You can't get your phrase, "species evolve", to mean anything, and, just the same, you're never going to get your new phrase, "categories emerge", to mean anything, either.
If by "just like", you mean that I said that a car going from 0 to 88 is exactly alike, in all ways, a population, then you're either not adequately attentive in your reading, or you're lying. A car going from 0 to 88 mph is just like the population of humans going from 0 persons to 10,000 in this regard: the car must, while gaining speed, at some point be going at 1 mph, and then, at 2 mph, and so on, up to 88 mph, while the human population, beginning at 0, while gaining individuals, must, at some point consist of no more than 1 individual, and then, at a later point, consist of no more than 2 individuals, and so on, up to a population of 10,000. You deny this basic truth by saying that a human population can either be 0 humans, or "about 10,000" humans, but never only 1 human, and never only 2 humans, and never only some positive number less than "about 10,000" humans. You're just that devoted to irrationality.
Nothing that works has ever been called "evolution"--or, at least, it has never been called "biological evolution".
So, whereas you say, "It could", you tell me that "the data" does not say, "It could". So, you say things that "the data" does not say. Why don't you just stick to saying only the things "the data" says, if whatever it is you call "the data" is so important to you?
Since, by your word "evolution", you do not mean anything, you certainly do not somehow, magically mean something by a phrase like "the evolution of Dogs from wolves" which contains your meaningless word, "evolution". If by, "You do believe in that right?", you mean, "You do believe that the phrase, 'the evolution of Dogs from wolves' exists", I answer: "Yes. I do believe that the phrase, 'the evolution of Dogs from wolves' exists. It's a nonsense phrase, of course, but it's definitely a phrase that exists, seeing as how you just wrote it, and I just wrote it." Other than that, I do not see that you've asked me a question in saying, "You do believe in that right?", just as I could not see that you'd have asked me a question were you to have said, "You do believe in the mogrivation of dogs from wolves, right?"
"Diverge"? Is "diverge" not just yet another word you have, willy-nilly, substituted for the word, "evolve", which latter you say meaninglessly? If so, then you mean no more by "diverge" than you mean by "evolution", which, of course, is absolutely nothing.
Can Hulk beat Superman? If so, at what? And when? And why would he want to? And, what about Harry Potter?
Are you saying that a thing is not what it is?
Oh, so now you, once again, try to muddy your waters even more darkly by inviting in yet another word that you mean nothing by and will never be able to answer for: "breed". What's the difference between a "breed", and a "category", and a "population", and a "species"? See, your problem is that you have to mean things by the words you say, in order to say a sentence, so that somebody can either agree with you by affirming the sentence, or disagree with you by denying the sentence; but you do not mean things by these words. So, you give me nothing to affirm, nor to deny.
"decent sized (very small in this case)": meaningless
Is a dog not a dog unless some unspecified number of other dogs are dogs, also? If all dogs have died of except for one, does the one living dog stop being a dog while it's alive?
Your constant denial of the Bible by saying that there was never a time when there was no more than 1 human on Earth, and that there was never a time when there were no more than 2 humans on Earth, has to do with the Bible.
By saying that I'm "unwilling to have an actual conversation over a scientific topic", all you mean is that I'm not willing to sit here passively and swallow vast quantities of the fairy tale nonsense you call "science" and pretend I think that you've got some really important truth to say. The stuff you've been handing me is so cookie-cutter, and you hand it to me in such cookie-cutter fashion, and that's a really dismal sign of the times for English-speaking civilization. I'm not about to just sit by and not try to help others, as best I can, to understand, as I am blessed to understand, just how much of a vacuous, anti-intellectual debacle Darwinism is.
I spend my time coaxing you, and other Darwin cheerleaders, into demonstrating the meaninglessness in the things you, in your role as Darwin cheerleaders, are saying. Y'all never fail me in this.
Arguments are meaningful. You have to mean things to have an argument. By getting you to demonstrate that you mean nothing by things you say, I've gotten you to demonstrate that you have no argument. Nota bene: I do not say that you have a very poor argument; rather, I say that you have no argument, period. That's what I've found out by being so "hung up on semantics": that Darwin cheerleaders have no argument.
Well, I thank you, at least, for not ignoring me. You're not really listening to me all too well, but, you're not altogether ignoring me.
You just describe it that way. When you say DNA isn't code, when it looks and acts like code, makes it something... else... that does unbelievable things.
We model DNA as code. What does "modeling the chemical basis" mean? Let's say we find a switch in DNA. It won't matter if the switch is chemical or electrical or mechanical, it's modeled the same way. To say otherwise is to claim that some switches are magic.
Example? Can we extrapolate that model to some kind of simple model of common descent that doesn't include a goal?
Lenski hasn't found anything that helps to show common descent. What he has found is two things. The first, and the majority of the cases of improvement in fitness, come from something breaking in the DNA. And since we can de-code what breaks, we know DNA in bacteria is code. A minority of cases is an improvement from existing code that is accessed by few mutations.
Evo devo will not save you. The reason Evo Devo exists is because it became apparent that mutations could not build the complex code required for life. They had to think of a way to get big changes from few mutations. But Evo Devo is just a subset of mutation plus natural selection and has to live with the same consequences.
You didn't read. It makes very powerful predictions about relationships between groups. It's much more accurate about relatedness and shows common descent hierarchies are wrong.
When you say things like this a layman like me can only point at the emperor and declare he has no cloths. Dawkin's model is this:
1. Light sensitive patch exists
2. Magic happens
3. Eyes!
It's new and still quite black box, which is the only reason you can have hope in it. It's a classic move by common descentists where a lack of evidence is the best evidence. I gramt you can have hope in Evo Devo that it can somehow save common descent, but be rational and understand that our skepticism is founded on the good principle that we don't have to believe something you have little to no evidence for.
The changes required for bacteria-like organisms to become parts of cells takes a lot of mutations. Good luck with that.
Again, though, endosymbiosis is a theory based mostly on looks. If it wasn't based on looks, common descentists would at least want to know a rough answer to the question of how many mutations it would take to pull off a trick like that. But they *don't even ask the question*.
No, I don't reject evolution at all. I reject common descent. Why would you discuss evolution when no one disagrees with change?
The evidence for the flood is huge. A couple examples are the Grand Canyon and the vast sediment layers. And they are just a couple in a mountain of evidence for a catastrophic flood.
However, my point is that you seem to look at the flood in a cartoon way despite people showing you how the cartoon version you keep talking about is wrong.
Last edited:
The Bible books became their God.
Scripture is "narrow" and the institutional church has its own pride. Sincere believers (people with preexisting Faith in the living God) come then to "scripture" and search for justification for that faith in the collection of ancient writings. The claims of scripture which are inconsistent with the material facts of what we call scientific observation, must be "bent" to maintain a membership in the community of Bible worshipers.
The evolution of created life is a fact, the Israelites creation storie(s) is a story of origins myth. It was preacher speak, intended for instruction. They made no claims of divine inspiration. That came later. The Church uses the false doctrine of the inspiration of the scripture as the foundation for its authority. The Bible is a layer cake of real divine intervention followed by much human speculation and conjecture.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
That is absolutely hilarious coming from someone that worships the UB and rejects the Word of God.
I don't worship the UB, its not a God or a fetish as people make the Bible out to be. The UB plainly says "The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge." But you wouldn't know that because you've never read the 2,000 page book that you disagree with.
You suffer from a religious indoctrination that doesn't allow you to think for yourself. The priest class set up the system that makes otherwise sincere people feel guilty if they don't believe that God wrote what they themselves wrote.
Some in the priest class are sincere but all down through the ages there have been men in the church that KNEW that God didn't write the scripture books but they are moral cowards.
The men who conspired to kill Christ knew the truth about the fallibility of the scriptures.
You hold it in heigher esteem than you do the God of the Bible, the one true God.
In other words, you have made it an idol.
In other words, it was written by fallible man and contains fallible ideas from a fallible perspective.
Whereas the Bible was written by the infallible God, and contains infallible ideas from an infallible perspective.
And people wonder why "Let God be true and every man a liar" is in the Bible...
Men of the Bible who created a God in their own image. Jesus revealed the true God, he was different than the Jews dim view of God.
Because you say so?
Jesus IS the true God.
But of course, that contradicts your highly esteemed Urantia book, so that means it must be false, right?
Wrong.
"Let God be true and every man a liar."
God wrote the Bible. He did not write the Urantia book.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
So, you think the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a created being?
Was the God Whom Jesus revealed a created being?
Men of the Bible created, in their own image, the God Who created those men of the Bible in His own image? How does that work? Men created the God Who created the men who created the God Who created the men who created the God Who created....?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You've just told us that we (those of us who believe that God wrote the Bible) wrote the Bible. Please cite which passage(s) of the Bible you're saying I, personally, wrote, and tell me when I wrote it/them. I, for one, don't recall having been a collaborator in this literary hoax you are alleging. In fact, so far as I know, the Bible had already been written, and published, a few years before I was even born.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Okay I think we need to stick a fork in this particular conversation.
:rotfl: Oh you're trying to be serious? I see why we're not getting anywhere. It's not argumentation when you simply deny the other side's position exists, or could exist.
Are you saying that gene frequencies changing in a population due to natural selection (a simple definition of biological evolution) is not something that happens?
I think you're doing a very good job of demonstrating how vacuous your conversation/debating skills are. You're quite literally a one trick pony.
Well I think I'm going back to ignoring you since all you do is claim to not know the meaning of simple and easily defined words, rather than make any attempt to engage in the subject matter.