toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

[Stuu]

Only when you blindly deny the Creator.

As I wrote, it is my experience that christians will say that it is absurd to claim Jesus walked again after he was executed. Do you think that is unreasonable?

Indeed, many, many people witnessed Him alive after His resurrection.

That may be true but there are no eyewitness accounts of it. In fact there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in existence at all, as far as can be known.

The vast majority of mutations are disastrous. The idea that a few "good mutations" here and there can create highly complex interdependent systems, like the human body, is scientifically absurd.... particularly against the vast number of destructive mutations.

The fact that there are disastrous mutations makes no difference to the fact that there are some beneficial ones. And now you know one of the ways that the disastrous ones are filtered out: many organisms are genetically non-viable from the moment of fertilisation, and are lost straight away. Five out of every six fertilised human eggs never make it to implantation, and many of them are genetically non-viable, some because of mutations. Then there are the genetic diseases and cancers that can be caused by spontaneous mutations. They are also in your disastrous category because although development might happen, a fatal condition can result. Then you have mutations that are damaging but not fatal, like our broken gene that means we can't make Vitamin C but have to get it from our diet: many animal species can make their own Vitamin C. And then there are neutral mutations, ones which cause differences in the base sequences that make proteins, but which make no difference to how the protein does its job. As I mentioned earlier, the smaller the change the more likely it is to be one of the rare helpful ones. You could get a big mutation that is a big help, but it's not very likely.

Not "helpful" in the sense that they can create highly complex interdependent systems, like the human body.

Yes, helpful in the sense that once you have a genome, you can have tiny spelling changes that make proteins slightly worse or better, and you have the mechanism that weeds out the bad ones and makes the good ones more frequent. That's what mutation, DNA replication and survival with reproduction can do. It takes timescales that are too difficult for us to really comprehend, which is why it seems to be absurd.

Even if it does "keep the good ones", that's not nearly enough to create highly complex interdependent systems, like the human body.

Well the point is that it did not start as a human body. It started as a thing something like a single-cell organism with a very simple genome. I agree it is astonishing to think that mutations and natural selection can change that into something as complex as a human brain, but if you look closely that is exactly the kind of thing that is going on all the time.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

No pedant would say that the auxiliary verb, 'can't', is synonymous with the adjective, 'unable'. Try it in a sentence:
• Stuu can't answer the questions 7djengo7 asked him.
• Stuu unable answer the questions 7djengo7 asked him.

That would be to make the mistake of thinking that the word synonymous is a synonym of the word synonym in all its senses.

What is taking you effort--effort that is amusingly futile--is your attempting to come up with transparent, lame cop-outs to try to save face for your inability to answer the questions I've asked you--like the cop-out you just handed me. I give you a bit of credit though, for, by saying, "why would it be helpful for me, or to you, to make the effort to answer your questions?", you are honestly admitting that you have not answered them.

Well thanks. So, why would it be helpful for me or for you if I give you answers? Can you answer that, or do you feel sufficiently motivated?

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

As I wrote, it is my experience that christians will say that it is absurd to claim Jesus walked again after he was executed. Do you think that is unreasonable?

No, Christians believe the Christ rose from the dead.

Your "experience" is meaningless.

That may be true but there are no eyewitness accounts of it. In fact there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in existence at all, as far as can be known.

Nonsense.

The fact that there are disastrous mutations makes no difference to the fact that there are some beneficial ones.

The extremely tiny "benefit" comes with other loses. Those extremely tiny "benefits" to NOT add up to the creation of highly complex interdependent systems, like the human body. Evolutionists live in a dream world, where fiction is pretended to be fact.

And now you know one of the ways that the disastrous ones are filtered out: many organisms are genetically non-viable from the moment of fertilisation, and are lost straight away. Five out of every six fertilised human eggs never make it to implantation, and many of them are genetically non-viable, some because of mutations. Then there are the genetic diseases and cancers that can be caused by spontaneous mutations. They are also in your disastrous category because although development might happen, a fatal condition can result. Then you have mutations that are damaging but not fatal, like our broken gene that means we can't make Vitamin C but have to get it from our diet: many animal species can make their own Vitamin C. And then there are neutral mutations, ones which cause differences in the base sequences that make proteins, but which make no difference to how the protein does its job. As I mentioned earlier, the smaller the change the more likely it is to be one of the rare helpful ones. You could get a big mutation that is a big help, but it's not very likely.

:juggle:

Story telling is the primary pastime of evolutionists.

Yes, helpful in the sense that once you have a genome, you can have tiny spelling changes that make proteins slightly worse or better, and you have the mechanism that weeds out the bad ones and makes the good ones more frequent. That's what mutation, DNA replication and survival with reproduction can do. It takes timescales that are too difficult for us to really comprehend, which is why it seems to be absurd.

More wild-eyed story telling. Stick to scientific facts and there is a change you might have an intelligent discussion here.

Well the point is that it did not start as a human body. It started as a thing something like a single-cell organism with a very simple genome. I agree it is astonishing to think that mutations and natural selection can change that into something as complex as a human brain, but if you look closely that is exactly the kind of thing that is going on all the time.

Stuart

Nope, just more faith in silliness.

 

[Stuu]

We must make very careful distinctions between facts and theories. Theories must be falsifiable and facts must be unfalsifiable.

Well I mean to describe how scientists commonly use those words (and indeed I have heard too many examples of scientists using the word theory carelessly) but I think if you are going to go to that level of detail regarding falsifiability then the word fact is not going to remain specific enough or even useful, and that it would be better to use the terms used by Karl Popper whose philosophy this is (and who spent some time working in Christchurch at the University). At that point, if you wish to go for it and determine that universal statements are different in their falsifiability from singular existential statements and so on, then you are welcome to claim it. I maintain that it is reasonable to say something like "It is a fact that electricity involves the movement of electrons" based on the theory that electricity involves the movement of electrons.

Something is powering the lights over your head. You could claim it to be energy-free pixies, but that wouldn't be a theory.

You could observe pixies running away from your house at the same time that the lights go out, and use that as the evidence on which to base a theory of pixies maintaining the electric lighting. But Occam's Razor would fix that quickly because a better explanation of that evidence would be that the pixies turned off your mains switch. Notwithstanding the situation faced by some who live in Africa or zoos, when you hear the sound of hooves in the night, think first of horses not zebras.

It's OK to refer to theories as facts if both sides agree to do so. However, that should be done with great care...I consider facts and theories to be very different things. When you claim evolution to be a fact, that eliminates the possibility that you might be wrong and insulates you against better ideas.

So either evolution by mutation and natural selection is the best explanation we have for the diversity of species on Earth, or there is a better one, in which case Darwin's idea either needs correcting or throwing out. Since scientific theories are always provisional on the discovery of new evidence, the question for the last 160 years has been what better explanation is there for the whole body of evidence, including new discoveries. A good explanation limits the number of untestable assumptions and is as universal as possible in its application (Popper again). A problem with creationism is it makes many more assumptions than Darwin, and asks more questions than it answers, so it can't be said to be better in any proper scientific sense.

Then I went home and cried myself to sleep.

I think you will be far from alone in that. The Crusaders supporter in our household was particularly shocked at the injustice...but then it might lead to the promotion of the current Crusaders coach.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Your "experience" is meaningless.

Well it's up to you whether you want to enjoy any kind of solidarity with others who claim the same set of beliefs. I rather suspect that your attitude is more the one that they should adopt, although you will understand that it doesn't change how absurd these beliefs appear to non-christians.

Stuu says there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus...

Nonsense.

Well, it's called the discipline of history. There are no known eyewitness accounts of Jesus. If that doesn't matter to you, fair enough. I would suggest that is going to make evangelising harder, if you are interested in that activity. It is important to some people that what they believe can reasonably be said to be true, and unfortunately that does not apply to humans walking after execution and stories such as the reign of Herod and the Census of Quirinius. You are suggesting people adopt unreasonable beliefs.

The extremely tiny "benefit" comes with other loses. Those extremely tiny "benefits" to NOT add up to the creation of highly complex interdependent systems, like the human body.

I don't see why not. Natural selection is easily up to the task. It just needs an unimaginably long time, which is what it has had.

Story telling is the primary pastime of evolutionists.

It's not my story. I am retelling it on behalf of the countless scientists whose life's work it has been to get down to the finest details of what makes life tick.

More wild-eyed story telling. Stick to scientific facts and there is a change you might have an intelligent discussion here.

I will need your guidance then. All I have given you is facts based in science. Which facts would you like me to stick to, and which facts would you prefer I ignore?

You have accused me of denial of your god. And you in turn have denied the substance and logic of the science I have presented to you. My problem is that I cannot disprove the existence of your god because disproving existence is not actually possible. You say there is a god, and I can say that I can't see, hear, touch or feel that god, and there is no other really good reason you have given me to believe it, but all I really have is denial.

On the other hand, you have much more than denial available to you in your opposition to evolution by natural selection. Evolution is put up to be shot down, and the rules are simple. Unfortunately you have done no shooting, all you have done is deny, and that alone won't change the mind of anyone who knows what evolution is.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

I maintain that it is reasonable to say something like "It is a fact that electricity involves the movement of electrons" based on the theory that electricity involves the movement of electrons.

It is reasonable in a conversation where both sides agree to treat that theory as a fact. It is not reasonable to assert evolution as a fact in a conversation where the other side is challenging the theory. It is also not reasonable to grant equal status to the theory of evolution and the fact of electricity.

A problem with creationism is it makes many more assumptions than Darwin, and asks more questions than it answers, so it can't be said to be better in any proper scientific sense.

From a scientific perspective, it's not a competition. We work to falsify evolution. If creationists want to propose a scientific theory, we work to falsify that.

The assumption of a Creator — presumably one of the "many more" you refer to — is a philosophical discussion.

I think you will be far from alone in that. The Crusaders supporter in our household was particularly shocked at the injustice...but then it might lead to the promotion of the current Crusaders coach.

Injustice? The Poms played out of their skins and never let us in the game. If anything, they should have won by a lot more to nothing.

I like Scott, but I think Foster will get it.

 

[Right Divider]

Well it's up to you whether you want to enjoy any kind of solidarity with others who claim the same set of beliefs. I rather suspect that your attitude is more the one that they should adopt, although you will understand that it doesn't change how absurd these beliefs appear to non-christians.

Once again, I don't care that this bothers you. Christian doctrine is clear on this topic.

Stuu says there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus...

Well, it's called the discipline of history. There are no known eyewitness accounts of Jesus. If that doesn't matter to you, fair enough. I would suggest that is going to make evangelising harder, if you are interested in that activity. It is important to some people that what they believe can reasonably be said to be true, and unfortunately that does not apply to humans walking after execution and stories such as the reign of Herod and the Census of Quirinius. You are suggesting people adopt unreasonable beliefs.

Once again, you are simply wrong. There is a book full of eyewitnesses, it's called the Bible.

I don't see why not. Natural selection is easily up to the task. It just needs an unimaginably long time, which is what it has had.

Nonsense on both counts. Tiny mistakes to not have the power to create highly complex interdependent systems, like the human body.

It's not my story. I am retelling it on behalf of the countless scientists whose life's work it has been to get down to the finest details of what makes life tick.

Appeals to authority are a fallacious argument.

I will need your guidance then. All I have given you is facts based in science. Which facts would you like me to stick to, and which facts would you prefer I ignore?

No, you have not given facts. It is NOT a "fact" that mutations have vast creative power.

You have accused me of denial of your god. And you in turn have denied the substance and logic of the science I have presented to you. My problem is that I cannot disprove the existence of your god because disproving existence is not actually possible. You say there is a god, and I can say that I can't see, hear, touch or feel that god, and there is no other really good reason you have given me to believe it, but all I really have is denial.

On the other hand, you have much more than denial available to you in your opposition to evolution by natural selection. Evolution is put up to be shot down, and the rules are simple. Unfortunately you have done no shooting, all you have done is deny, and that alone won't change the mind of anyone who knows what evolution is.

Stuart

You are blind. You believe lies and science falsely so-called.

 

[7djengo7]

That would be to make the mistake of thinking that the word synonymous is a synonym of the word synonym in all its senses.

Who said that the adjective, 'synonymous', is a synonym of the noun, 'synonym'(in any sense, whatsoever)?? I certainly neither said, nor thought, such a thing. You've demonstrated that you imagine that the auxiliary verb, 'can't', is (to quote you) "synonymous with" the adjective, 'unable'.

Whatever word is synonymous is a synonym. Whatever word is a synonym is synonymous. Invariably, for a word to be synonymous is for it to be a synonym, and for a word to be a synonym is for it to be synonymous. The adjective, 'synonymous', is not a synonym of the noun, 'synonym'. Try it:

• The adjective, 'synonymous', is not a synonym of the noun, 'synonym'.
• The adjective, 'synonymous', is not a synonymous of the noun, 'synonym'.

Well thanks.

You're welcome.

So, why would it be helpful for me or for you if I give you answers?

For me, at least, were you to try to answer my questions--in a sense, it would be no less, nor any more, helpful than it'll be for you to continue to stonewall against them. For, either way, you've cornered yourself: one way, you walk away knowing you've stonewalled (and trying, in futility, to justify that course of action to yourself, if not to others, also); the other way, you try to answer the questions I asked you, and you soon begin wishing you'd have stonewalled against them, instead. Either way, your failure is manifest, and you walk away feeling the sting of truth and logic.

In another sense, I suppose it could be a wee bit more helpful for me, were you to try to answer the questions I asked you than it would, were you to continue stonewalling against them. You would necessarily be cornering yourself even more piteously (being, of course, facilitated in your endeavor, by me), were you to try to answer my questions--by more fully fleshing out, in further detail, the irrationality of your mindset. It's always interesting, to me, to see what tricks opponents imagine they have up their sleeves--quite a bit more interesting than to see my questions continually stonewalled against. And, the benefit to me, therein, is the further opportunity I get to further hone my mind.

What's in it for you? In any case, you'll walk away feeling the sting of the truth against you, and the realization that you will, necessarily, continue to crumble, so long as you war against truth and logic. You'll discover just how much of a cookie-cutter poser you are in regards to that very word that you (not I) brought up: "epistemology".

Now, why would it be helpful for you if you continue to stonewall against the questions I asked you?

 

[7djengo7]

As I wrote, it is my experience that christians will say that it is absurd to claim Jesus walked again after he was executed. Do you think that is unreasonable?

What is absurd and unreasonable is your calling of non-Christians, "christians". No Christian will say that it is absurd to claim the truth that Jesus Christ walked again after He was executed, and rose from the dead. Only venomous, irrational anti-Christs such as yourself will say such a thing. Remember, you're the irrationalist who says:

There never was a time when there was only 1 human, or only 2.

That is you saying that, from all eternity, with no beginning, there has been a number of humans greater than 2. You're telling us that there have been humans--and more than 2 of 'em, at that--since before there was Earth.

There never was a time when there was only 1 human, or only 2.

That may be true but there are no eyewitness accounts of it.

On the contrary, it cannot be true that there was never a time when there was only 1 human, or only 2, since it is false that there was never a time when there was only 1 human, or only 2. What is false is not, and cannot be, true; but, I realize that there is a fundamental communication barrier between you and I, because you're irrational enough to believe that what is false is, or can be, true.

In fact there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in existence at all, as far as can be known.

Says the poser who refuses even to try to say why he thinks he knows something:

evidence that contradicts what I thought I knew.

In the first place, why would you have thought you knew something? When you think you know X, why do you think you know X?

Questions against which (as you admit) you have been stonewalling against thus far.

 

[Stuu]

Once again, I don't care that this bothers you. Christian doctrine is clear on this topic.

Fair enough. You will appreciate that for some people, calling it the Truth isn't enough. They also demand that it is reasonable to say the events actually happened in history. Is christian doctrine good history?

Once again, you are simply wrong. There is a book full of eyewitnesses, it's called the Bible.

Yes, it's a book of stories about eyewitnesses. Not one of those stories is actually written by an eyewitness.

Nonsense on both counts. Tiny mistakes to not have the power to create highly complex interdependent systems, like the human body.

Whose judgement is the word 'mistake'? Some of them are changes that everyone would probably agree are mistakes in copying DNA, or changes that no one would choose to make. But some of the mutations are not mistakes because they are neutral, that is the code is different but it makes a protein that works identically well to the original. What about the 'mistake' of sickle cell anaemia? It's a change that causes a potentially fatal disease of the red blood cells, but confers protection against malaria. Malaria has been the cause of death for half of all humans who ever lived, so you can see the fantastic advantage of that mistake, even if it has a smaller chance of killing you through misshapen blood cells.

Appeals to authority are a fallacious argument.

I quite agree. I am sure you understand that I was not claiming anything was true because of who said it, I was simply acknowledging those who did the work.

No, you have not given facts. It is NOT a "fact" that mutations have vast creative power.

That is true. It is natural selection working on the variation that arises from the mutations that has the blind creative power.

You are blind. You believe lies and science falsely so-called.

I disagree. I am obviously not blind in the sense you mean. I am open-eyed. Are you?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Who said that the adjective, 'synonymous', is a synonym of the noun, 'synonym'(in any sense, whatsoever)??

You equated unable and can't by giving two sentences, one that did not parse grammatically, then told me that they could not be substituted one for the other, which is synonymous with comparing them as synonyms. But as you will recall, I had claimed that the terms were synonymous, which they are, not that they were synonyms, which we agree they are not.

I certainly neither said, nor thought, such a thing. You've demonstrated that you imagine that the auxiliary verb, 'can't', is (to quote you) "synonymous with" the adjective, 'unable'.

Yes, and I have repeated it above, and it is indeed true. But I hasten to repeat, they are not synonyms, as you have demonstrated.

Whatever word is synonymous is a synonym.

That would be to make the mistake of thinking that the word synonymous is a synonym of the word synonym.

Whatever word is a synonym is synonymous. Invariably, for a word to be synonymous is for it to be a synonym, and for a word to be a synonym is for it to be synonymous. The adjective, 'synonymous', is not a synonym of the noun, 'synonym'. Try it:
• The adjective, 'synonymous', is not a synonym of the noun, 'synonym'.
• The adjective, 'synonymous', is not a synonymous of the noun, 'synonym'.

I couldn't have put it better myself. Hence, can't and unable are synonymous, but not synonyms. A stick can be sticky, but being sticky is only synonymous with being a stick; sticky and stick are not synonyms.
Stuu: So, why would it be helpful for me or for you if I give you answers?

For me, at least, were you to try to answer my questions--in a sense, it would be no less, nor any more, helpful than it'll be for you to continue to stonewall against them. For, either way, you've cornered yourself: one way, you walk away knowing you've stonewalled (and trying, in futility, to justify that course of action to yourself, if not to others, also); the other way, you try to answer the questions I asked you, and you soon begin wishing you'd have stonewalled against them, instead. Either way, your failure is manifest, and you walk away feeling the sting of truth and logic.

In another sense, I suppose it could be a wee bit more helpful for me, were you to try to answer the questions I asked you than it would, were you to continue stonewalling against them. You would necessarily be cornering yourself even more piteously (being, of course, facilitated in your endeavor, by me), were you to try to answer my questions--by more fully fleshing out, in further detail, the irrationality of your mindset. It's always interesting, to me, to see what tricks opponents imagine they have up their sleeves--quite a bit more interesting than to see my questions continually stonewalled against. And, the benefit to me, therein, is the further opportunity I get to further hone my mind.

What's in it for you? In any case, you'll walk away feeling the sting of the truth against you, and the realization that you will, necessarily, continue to crumble, so long as you war against truth and logic. You'll discover just how much of a cookie-cutter poser you are in regards to that very word that you (not I) brought up: "epistemology".

Now, why would it be helpful for you if you continue to stonewall against the questions I asked you?

Well, indeed a good question. Let's get the obvious out of the way first: it will take me very much less time not to address your enquiries than to address them, and I don't really have anything in particular to prove to myself about myself regarding my own relationship with epistemology.
Now, at this point I can at least say to myself that I have engaged with a question of yours, even if not an epistemological one, so the social difficulty of an apparently passive-aggressive response from me is atoned somewhat by the interaction.

On the other hand, of course, engagement may lead to a fruitful exchange notwithstanding its low apparent probability at this stage. Do those odds stack up? I'm not clear on the point in my own mind yet. You could say it's something I don't know. Or maybe it is something I don't know that I do know.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

What is absurd and unreasonable is your calling of non-Christians, "christians".

I am a fan of the title of the Philip Pullman book The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ and have somewhat allowed that to overpower my natural tendency to correct language forms. I realise of course that Christ is a proper noun in the same way that Romans is, and of course lions isn't.

No Christian will say that it is absurd to claim the truth that Jesus Christ walked again after He was executed, and rose from the dead. Only venomous, irrational anti-Christs such as yourself will say such a thing.

Well I always spell Jesus with the capital J, not only because it is a proper noun, but as a sign of respect for a man about whom many immoral narratives have been told, to the point where I would expect he is spinning in his grave by now.

That is you saying that, from all eternity, with no beginning, there has been a number of humans greater than 2. You're telling us that there have been humans--and more than 2 of 'em, at that--since before there was Earth.

No.

Stuu:In fact there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in existence at all, as far as can be known.

Says the poser who refuses even to try to say why he thinks he knows something

Well, here's a little clue then: all you have to do is name a person whose citable writing makes the claim that he/she was an eyewitness of Jesus. Not a mere suggestion, but an explicit claim that the account is of a first-person encounter with Jesus. Thereby you would falsify my claim.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

Fair enough. You will appreciate that for some people, calling it the Truth isn't enough. They also demand that it is reasonable to say the events actually happened in history. Is christian doctrine good history?

No doctrine of any kind "is good history". That's mixing apple and walruses. Doctrine is doctrine; history is history.

Yes, it's a book of stories about eyewitnesses. Not one of those stories is actually written by an eyewitness.

Peter was an eyewitness.

Whose judgement is the word 'mistake'?

What else would you call "random errors"?

Some of them are changes that everyone would probably agree are mistakes in copying DNA, or changes that no one would choose to make. But some of the mutations are not mistakes because they are neutral, that is the code is different but it makes a protein that works identically well to the original. What about the 'mistake' of sickle cell anaemia? It's a change that causes a potentially fatal disease of the red blood cells, but confers protection against malaria. Malaria has been the cause of death for half of all humans who ever lived, so you can see the fantastic advantage of that mistake, even if it has a smaller chance of killing you through misshapen blood cells.

Indeed, I know that this is the poster child for "beneficial" mutations. But mutations, even one that appears to have a benefit, is overall damaging to the original design.

AND, it is NOT something that can be accumulated gracefully to create highly complex interdependent systems, like the human body.

I quite agree. I am sure you understand that I was not claiming anything was true because of who said it, I was simply acknowledging those who did the work.

Then you fully realize that this is not supporting evidence. Well at least that's good.

That is true. It is natural selection working on the variation that arises from the mutations that has the blind creative power.

Once again, your faith is amazing.

I disagree. I am obviously not blind in the sense you mean. I am open-eyed. Are you?

Stuart

I, like many others, once believed the lie of "evolution". I opened my eyes and am beyond that now.

 

[Stuu]

No doctrine of any kind "is good history". That's mixing apple and walruses. Doctrine is doctrine; history is history.

So is it a doctrine that Jesus was born of only one human parent, but not history?

Peter was an eyewitness.

That's what the stories say about him. Does the writing explicitly claim to be an eyewitness account of Jesus?

What else would you call "random errors"?

Mutations. There is nothing inherently wrong with any length of DNA code. It's just whether you decide that the code produces something you think is mistaken. I wouldn't say all mutations are mistakes, exactly. On the contrary, the mutations give variation in the population, which has proved essential for the continuation of species, in contrast with the problems suffered by species that reproduce mainly or completely asexually.

Indeed, I know that this is the poster child for "beneficial" mutations. But mutations, even one that appears to have a benefit, is overall damaging to the original design.

If species arise by evolution by mutation and natural selection, then I'm afraid you don't need the hypothesis of there being an 'original design'. Humans are not originally designed, we used to be a different species. So maybe Homo erectus was an original design. Well not according to the evidence.

I'm still intrigued by your idea about doctrine and history. Is it possible that you are talking about a doctrinal design, which is not history?

AND, it is NOT something that can be accumulated gracefully to create highly complex interdependent systems, like the human body.

Well you are right about it not being graceful. You could call natural selection elegant, and an elegant concept, but its reality is brutal when it is played out on living species.

Then you fully realize that this is not supporting evidence.

Yes. If you read back you will see it was never intended to be evidence.

I, like many others, once believed the lie of "evolution". I opened my eyes and am beyond that now.

Did you disprove evolution, or is this a doctrinal matter, where evolution could be history but is not doctrine? I am not mocking this, I am serious about knowing how you view the concept of doctrine.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

So is it a doctrine that Jesus was born of only one human parent, but not history?

That is a historical event. The doctrine is simply believing that historical event.

That's what the stories say about him. Does the writing explicitly claim to be an eyewitness account of Jesus?

Does it need to? And, if yes, why does it need to?

John was also an eyewitness and he definitely says so.

1Jn 1:1-4 KJV That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (2) (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us) (3) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. (4) And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.​

Mutations. There is nothing inherently wrong with any length of DNA code. It's just whether you decide that the code produces something you think is mistaken. I wouldn't say all mutations are mistakes, exactly. On the contrary, the mutations give variation in the population, which has proved essential for the continuation of species, in contrast with the problems suffered by species that reproduce mainly or completely asexually.

The length of DNA is not the question, but the informational content contained within. Corrupting that information is not advantageous and does not lead to highly complex interdependent systems, like the human body.

If species arise by evolution by mutation and natural selection, then I'm afraid you don't need the hypothesis of there being an 'original design'.

That species can arise is not the question. The theory of evolution claims that all life on earth (and many that are extinct) all descended from a single universal common ancestor. Science shows time and again that that did not happen.

Many originally designed kinds that all life has descended from is what the evidence indicates.

Humans are not originally designed, we used to be a different species. So maybe Homo erectus was an original design. Well not according to the evidence.

Only according to your highly biased interpretation of the evidence.

I'm still intrigued by your idea about doctrine and history. Is it possible that you are talking about a doctrinal design, which is not history?

:juggle:

Well you are right about it not being graceful. You could call natural selection elegant, and an elegant concept, but its reality is brutal when it is played out on living species.

It only "plays out" in the minds of evolutionists. Reality shows otherwise.

Did you disprove evolution, or is this a doctrinal matter, where evolution could be history but is not doctrine? I am not mocking this, I am serious about knowing how you view the concept of doctrine.

I don't understand the question. It probably belongs in another thread anyway.

 

[7djengo7]

Stuu's confusion over synonyms and synonymousness

Stuu's confusion over synonyms and synonymousness

You equated unable and can't

I equated the adjective, 'unable', with the verb, 'can't'?? What (if anything) do you mean when you say that two words have been "equated", one with the other? What (if anything) would you say it is for one word to be "equal with" another word? Are you talking in terms of gematria, here?

You've just demonstrated that you think that to contrast two words against each other is to, somehow, equate them, one with the other--whatever it is you imagine such equation involves. See, what I did was to contrast the two words, 'unable' and 'can't'. Why are you incapable of something as elementary as identifying the contrasting of two words against each other? No thought of equating one thing with another, nor of the word 'equating', entered my mind while I was contrasting the words, 'can't' and 'unable'.

by giving two sentences, one that did not parse grammatically, then told me that they could not be substituted one for the other,

And, the fact that the two words cannot grammatically be substituted one for the other prohibits the two words from being synonymous, one with the other.

which is synonymous with comparing them as synonyms.

Fill in the blank to indicate to what word or phrase you were referring by your pronoun, "which":

The word/phrase, "____________________", is synonymous with the phrase, "comparing them as synonyms".

But as you will recall, I had claimed that the terms were synonymous,

I do, indeed, recall that particular, elementary error of yours.

which they are,

False. Else, they'd be synonyms of one another.

not that they were synonyms,

The fact that they are not synonyms of one another is the fact that they are not synonymous with one another. Here are two mutually-synonymous synonyms--two substantive phrases synonymous one with the other:

• "the fact that they are not synonyms of one another"
• "the fact that they are not synonymous with one another"

which we agree they are not.

Congratulations on getting that one thing right, thus agreeing with me on it.

Yes, and I have repeated it above, and it is indeed true.

Unfortunately for you, being an ace (as you are) at repeatedly affirming a falsehood is not the same thing as thinking analytically (which you refuse to try to do).

But I hasten to repeat, they are not synonyms, as you have demonstrated.

It's astonishing that you can, in all seriousness, claim that something can be synonymous without being a synonym. Why are you so addicted to championing falsehood?

That would be to make the mistake of thinking that the word synonymous is a synonym of the word synonym.

It's ironic that you've gotten so deeply submerged--in your blundering regarding the most elementary things--by way of your being so shallow.

To say what I said--"Whatever word is synonymous is a synonym"--is not, in any way, shape, or form, to say that the adjective, 'synonymous', is a synonym of the noun, 'synonym'. Rather, it is to say that the substantival phrase, 'synonymous word' is a synonym of the noun, 'synonym'. And, without exception, every thing that is synonymous--every synonymous thing--is a word or phrase.

Whatever word is synonymous is a synonym. Whatever word is a synonym is synonymous. Invariably, for a word to be synonymous is for it to be a synonym, and for a word to be a synonym is for it to be synonymous. The adjective, 'synonymous', is not a synonym of the noun, 'synonym'. Try it:

• The adjective, 'synonymous', is not a synonym of the noun, 'synonym'.
• The adjective, 'synonymous', is not a synonymous of the noun, 'synonym'.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

So, then, when you say that the word, 'unable', is synonymous, you also acknowledge that it is a synonym? And, when you say that the word, 'can't', is synonymous, you also acknowledge that it is a synonym?

Hence, can't and unable are synonymous, but not synonyms.

Whatever is synonymous is a word or a phrase. No thing is synonymous that is neither a word nor a phrase. You are saying that a word or a phrase that is synonymous can, somehow, fail to be a synonym. I wonder, would you be willing to say that which is equally stupid to say, with what you just said: "Hence, _____ and _____ are synonyms, but not synonymous"????

A stick can be sticky, but being sticky is only synonymous with being a stick;

Are you saying that your phrase, "being sticky", is synonymous with your phrase, "being a stick"?

sticky and stick are not synonyms.

Are you saying that your adjective, "sticky", and your verb? noun?, "stick", are not synonyms?

———————————————————————————————————————

Another fun question for you, before I end this post:

Is the noun, 'synonym', synonymous with the noun, 'synonyms'?
Is the noun, 'synonym', a synonym of the noun, 'synonyms'?

 

[Yorzhik]

No. I will not. Evolution is not a "belief". Nor is it a belief in common ancestry. It is a scientific theory about how living beings change over many generations. The idea of common ancestry is a conclusion one can reach based on the theory, but it is not the theory itself.

Let's look at cats again. The theory of evolution explains how modern cat species evolved from an ancient early cat species. That explanation still holds whether all life developed from an original single cell or a thousand cells, and whether those early cells developed naturally or with the intervention of the god or gods of your choice. Evolution is about change.

Since it would be silly to discuss something we both agree on like "living things change from one generation to the next", how about this?: "common descent is the belief that every living thing we find today was originally a single common ancestor that reproduced and changed by means of mutation plus natural selection"

Would you prefer I use "common ancestry"?

 

[7djengo7]

So, why can humans not be the result of random mutations being 'chosen'?

By whom, exactly, are you saying random mutations are being chosen?

 

[7djengo7]

Evolution is not a "belief".

:thumb:​

Right on! One of the few things--perhaps the sole thing--you've been able to call correctly in this thread!

I agree with you that the nonsense you call "evolution" is not believed, known, asserted, denied, or doubted--by anybody. Not by me, nor by you, nor by Darwin, nor by Dawkins, nor by Ken Ham. The nonsense you call "evolution" is cognitively meaningless; it is neither true, nor false. It is non-propositional.

The word games in which you are conditioned to persist in as a Darwin cheerleader are centered upon various combinations of various English words into fake sentences, in which you are neither asserting, nor denying, any truth, nor any falsehood. I don't accuse you of having coined every last one of such combinations of words as you are wont to use, of course; rather, I take it that most of them you are (like most other Darwin cheerleaders) merely parroting them from the talking or writing of some professional Darwin cheerleader(s). Neither do I accuse you, as a Darwin cheerleader, of invariably speaking nonsense, while never saying anything meaningful. Indeed, you do, as a Darwin cheerleader, say meaningful things from time to time. False things, of course, but meaningful things. But, for the most part, the stuff which you, as a Darwin cheerleader, are conditioned to say, is pure jabberwocky.

Saying "Life evolves" is no less meaningless than saying "Life gyres and gimbles in the wabe".

 

[chair]

Since it would be silly to discuss something we both agree on like "living things change from one generation to the next", how about this?: "common descent is the belief that every living thing we find today was originally a single common ancestor that reproduced and changed by means of mutation plus natural selection"

Would you prefer I use "common ancestry"?

We can discuss that, bearing in mind that it is a consequence of the theory of evolution, and not the theory itself.