Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[brunumb]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #271]

While all your posts appear to be challenges to evolution, they are far more effective as challenges to the Bible.

I feel that I have to claim Poe's Law on We_Are_Venom.

[The Barbarian]

Do you know what a synonym means? A synonym is two words that mean the same thing...and in this case, I am saying "kind" (Bible) means the same thing as "genus"...and I fail to see what the problem is here.

And in the next breath, you told me it covered an entire class of organisms. You use it for whatever you want at the time. So it really means nothing at all.

[The Barbarian]

"God orchestrated the worldwide Flood" (Genesis chp 6-9).

But it doesn't say that. You just made it up and added it to the Bible.

[benchwarmer]

Do you know what a synonym means? A synonym is two words that mean the same thing...and in this case, I am saying "kind" (Bible) means the same thing as "genus"...and I fail to see what the problem is here.

It doesn't matter which term you use to categorize them, as long as they are in the same category...thats all that matters.

Well, one problem seems to be that you don't know what 'genus' means either if you think one of those covers all 'bird kind'. There are over 2,000 genera (plural of genus) for birds. The following list shows approx 2300.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bird_genera

If that's what you want to go with, I hope you aren't a believer in the ark story (though I think you are based on previous comments). For just 'bird kind' alone we have at least 14,000 to 16,100 specimens. Depending how you want to interpret scripture, you may actually have 8 of each bird (1 pair of everything, plus 7 pairs of every bird kind). That makes an estimate of 16,000 to 18,400 birds on the ark!

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

Since you would need to be consistent, that means ALL "kinds" refer to a genus and there are roughly 300,000 genera at this time. The ark had some size to it, but that's gonna be cramped I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus

Totals for both "all names" and estimates for "accepted names" as held in the Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera (IRMNG) are broken down further in the publication by Rees et al., 2020 cited above. The accepted names estimates are as follows, broken down by kingdom:

Animalia: 239,093 accepted genus names (± 55,350)
Plantae: 28,724 accepted genus names (± 7,721)
Fungi: 10,468 accepted genus names (± 182)
Chromista: 11,114 accepted genus names (± 1,268)
Protozoa: 3,109 accepted genus names (± 1,206)
Bacteria: 3,433 accepted genus names (± 115)
Archaea: 140 accepted genus names (± 0)
Viruses: 851 accepted genus names (± 0)

With an approximate 1.5 million cubic feet in the ark (https://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was ... imals.html) and being generous and assuming only 2 of EVERYTHING (i.e. ignoring the 7 pairs of all clean animals and birds), that means an average of only 2.5 cubic feet per lifeform! That's enough for birds and anything their size, but clearly not enough for everything else. This doesn't even take into account walkways, food storage, or the human passengers.

I'm afraid you may have sunk the ark (literally) with your argument.

[We_Are_VENOM]

That's not in scripture. It's you addition to make it the way you want it to be.

Coming from guy who stated there was no sun, something he believes despite it not being in scripture that it wasn't.

SMH.

I do have extensive evidence for an Earth billions of years old. Would you like to learn about some of it?

Straw man. I said there is no evidence of a 100 million year evolutionary period...I didn't say nor imply that the Earth wasn't billions of years old.

You just made something up and inserted it into the Bible to make it more acceptable to you.

"Perhaps if you simply go back and read post #247, you will realize how wrong you are and maybe these obvious red herrings will stop."

You were misled about that. There is abundant evidence for billions of years of Earth.

"Straw man. I said there is no evidence of a 100 million year evolutionary period...I didn't say nor imply that the Earth wasn't billions of years old."

As you discovered, an ancient Earth is entirely consistent with the Bible, and there is abundant scientific evidence for it.

I discovered that it isn't.

Since as Jesus says, a spirit has no body, and that God is a spirit, we realize that the "image" is in our minds and living souls, not because God has a nose or fingernails or whatever. It's not our bodies that are in the image of God.

You weren't happy with the Bible as it is, so you changed it.

Gen 1:27

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Nope, nothing about a primate anywhere in there. I wonder where such an idea came from.

You were led to believe that our "image" was like God, in a physical sense. As you see, now, that's false.

No, I wasn't led to believe that.

You weren't happy with the Bible as it is, so you changed it.

"Perhaps if you simply go back and read post #247, you will realize how wrong you are and maybe these obvious red herrings will stop."

I see your denial, but your other words are more convincing.

See above. "Done" was your additon. Yes. You added it to make it more acceptable to you.

"Perhaps if you simply go back and read post #247, you will realize how wrong you are and maybe these obvious red herrings will stop."

It's compatible with electricity, too, despite the Bible not saying it.

True, but we are talking about evolution right now, something of which the Bible isn't compatible with.

But God doesn't use it in any of the ways you use it. First you said it was limited to genus.

I sure did. And meant it, too.

Then you said it included an entire class of organisms. You use it for whatever you want it to be at the time. Wow.

According to the Bible, some mammals (bats) are birds. If you have beef with that, take it up with the Bible. Don't kill the messenger.

And yet birds, comprising an entire class, you've tried to squeeze into one "kind", while two members of an order, you've tried to separate into two "kinds." It's just a word you use for "whatever I want it to be at the time." Too vague, as it pertains to a concept plagued with creationist-babble.

The Bible apparently doesn't care about the bio-babble terminologies, I guess.

Primates are a "kind" of animal. So are vertebrates. Now you've tossed all animals with backbones into a kind.

Everything belongs to one category or another.

So you just tossed that up, not believing it to be right?

No, I tossed it up to support the idea of not all Bible translations agree with YOURS...which says nothing about which translation is right or wrong.

Since evolution is observable every day, that's wrong. Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is. What do you think it is?

So, reptiles are being observed to produce birds? Every day? Where? May I see it?

I think your major dissatisfaction is that God has the last word.

You can certainly have the last word here. I've come to the territory of "evolutions" as a Christian theist who doesn't buy the theory...and I've made my presence known/felt.

Now, I must move on...I have bigger fish to fry. But before I go, please always remember one key point..

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats...and birds produce....BIRD

[The Barbarian]

That's not in scripture. It's your addition to make it the way you want it to be.

Coming from guy who stated there was no sun,

I showed you that Genesis says there was sun only after the third day. This, as you now realize is why the text itself says it isn't a literal history. As even early Christians realized, it is absurd to assume actual mornings and evenings in the absence of a sun.

I do have extensive evidence for an Earth billions of years old. Would you like to learn about some of it?

Straw man. I said there is no evidence of a 100 million year evolutionary period...I didn't say nor imply that the Earth wasn't billions of years old.

There is extensive evidence for evolving organisms over a billion years. Would you like to learn about some of it?

You just made something up and inserted it into the Bible to make it more acceptable to you.

(denial)

Sorry, you've repeatedly done this, and admitted it, claiming you thought your additions were "implications."

As you discovered, an ancient Earth is entirely consistent with the Bible, and there is abundant scientific evidence for it.

(denial)

Sorry, geology, physics, fossil record, and many other things show that it is.

Since as Jesus says, a spirit has no body, and that God is a spirit, we realize that the "image" is in our minds and living souls, not because God has a nose or fingernails or whatever. It's not our bodies that are in the image of God.

You weren't happy with the Bible as it is, so you changed it. Gen 1:27 refers to our minds and living souls. As you now realize, God has no body.

You were led to believe that our "image" was like God, in a physical sense. As you see, now, that's false.

(denial)

You weren't happy with the Bible as it is, so you changed it. [/quote]

(denial)

I see your denials, but your other words are more convincing.

(says, but the Bible doesn't say evolution is compatible with the Bible)

It's compatible with electricity, too, despite the Bible not saying it.

True, but we are talking about evolution right now,

And so you see, lots of things that are true, aren't in the Bible. Since it's directly observed, there's no denying it's a fact. Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is. What do you think it is?

(more insistance that "kind" actually is a classification of organisms)

But God doesn't use it in any of the ways you use it. First you said it was limited to genus. Then you said it included an entire class of organisms. You use it for whatever you want it to be at the time.

I sure did. And meant it, too.

Wow.

And yet birds, comprising an entire class, you've tried to squeeze into one "kind", while two members of an order, you've tried to separate into two "kinds." It's just a word you use for "whatever I want it to be at the time." Too vague, as it pertains to a concept plagued with creationist-babble.

The Bible apparently doesn't care

God is Truth. I'm pretty sure He cares.

Primates are a "kind" of animal. So are vertebrates. Now you've tossed all animals with backbones into a kind.

Everything belongs to one category or another.

And your "kind" is so vague you can use it to mean anything you want. We got that.

Since evolution is observable every day, that's wrong. Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is. What do you think it is? [/quote]

(declines to answer)

Yep. People who think they hate science have no idea what it is.

[Clownboat]

1. Theistic evolution is possible and "may" be true, but I have no good reasons in science or in the Bible to believe that it is true, and I have what I believe to be good evidence to the contrary that it is true.

So, theistic evolution is rejected based on #1.

2. Natural evolution (without God) is naturally impossible and cannot be true, as I have good evidence against it and no good evidence for it.

3. Conclusion: Evolution is a false theory.

1. Theistic lightning is possible and 'may' be true, but I have no good reasons in science or in the Bible to believe that it is true, and I have what I believe to be good evidence to the contrary that it is true.

So theistic lightning is rejected based on #1

2. Natural lightning (without god) is naturally impossible and cannot be true, as I have good evidence against it and no good evidence for it.

3. Conclusion: Natural lightning is a false theory.

Your thinking is a few thousand years out of date. Good thing most humans have improved their reasoning don't you think? Could you imagine humans not understanding lightning because they still thought the gods were behind it!

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #278]

Could you imagine humans not understanding lightning because they still thought the gods were behind it!

Sometimes I think people would rather believe this way. It's the lazier way and would likely boost their belief (at the very least, not challenge it).
And if that's they way they want to live, I couldn't care less. But when they try to force that thinking on the rest of us and or complain about people challenging their 'ways', that's when I have an issue.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #278]

Could you imagine humans not understanding lightning because they still thought the gods were behind it!

Sometimes I think people would rather believe this way. It's the lazier way and would likely boost their belief (at the very least, not challenge it).
And if that's they way they want to live, I couldn't care less. But when they try to force that thinking on the rest of us and or complain about people challenging their 'ways', that's when I have an issue.

Well said!

Many (most?) religious people are able to keep their beliefs to themselves. No problem with that.
It's those that use their religion as a cudgel to persecute humanity unfairly that are a problem. It's the persecution that needs to be delt with IMO as no human should have to suffer due to the 'beliefs' of another.

Worship reptiles for all I care. Just don't demand others adopt your beliefs when they cannot be evidenced.

[brunumb]

It's those that use their religion as a cudgel to persecute humanity unfairly that are a problem. It's the persecution that needs to be delt with IMO as no human should have to suffer due to the 'beliefs' of another.

That problem appears to be getting worse:

"Christian nationalists who believe America was established as, and should remain a Christian country, have pushed a range of measures to thrust their version of religion into American life. In Louisiana, Arkansas and Florida, Republicans have introduced legislation which would variously hack away at
LGTBQ rights, reproductive rights, challenge the ability of couples to adopt children, and see religion forced into classrooms. Montana is passing a law which would allow people or businesses to discriminate, based on religion, against the LGBTQ community."

—Excerpted from The Guardian Australia, 5 April 21.

People don't matter any more, what they believe matters. It's hard to feel the Christian love that Jesus apparently taught.