Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[arian]

[Replying to arian]
What you refuse to accept is that faith is defined by the belief in something without definitive evidence. Your verse that you (and many others) use to support your version of "faith" does not actually back up your belief.

Definition ONE by evidence, .. which is what my faith is based on:
Hebrews 11:1 (The KJV Bible)
Faith:
Now faith is the substance* of things hoped for, the evidence* of things not seen.

You use this sentence to mean that faith is based on evidence of things not seen and use it define faith. That is not what that sentence means. Deconstructing the two separate clauses based on the grammar and syntax of the English language, the proper meaning of the sentence should be understood as this:
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for. [Faith is] the evidence of things not seen."

This is supplanting faith (defined as a belief in something without definitive evidence) for concrete evidence, saying that it IS the evidence. In no way is it redefining the word, otherwise the purpose of using that word in the first place is lost.

Simply put, the thing in question is what "evidence" you claim to have your "evidence-based-faith" based upon. If your faith is the evidence for your belief, as that scripture you provided would suggest, then your belief would be faith based on the evidence of your faith. Which is highly circular.

Yes you are correct, that would be circular if it meant as you say, and I showed that that is exactly what faith in religion is, faith based on faith, which is NOT the Bibles definition, nor does it in any way define my faith.

Hello nayrbsnilloc, thanks for your contribution, .. so let's examine this verse again.

Faith:
Now faith is the substance* of things hoped for, the evidence* of things not seen.

My 'faith' is not in some unexplained, or contradicting hope, nor in things I haven't seen but yet blindly accept it in faith, .. that would be that other faith, the religious, unsupported indoctrinated faith that Jim Jones and other religious cult leaders teach. The Bibles definition of 'faith' already contains substance and evidence, otherwise it is not the faith that our God requires of us.

Faith IS the substance, ..
of what?
of things hoped for.

If I tell you to stand front of an oncoming train, and not to worry because I promise you that you won't get hurt, .. and you do it in hopes that what I say is true, you'd be a fool, .. right? Yet billions of people do it all the time, put their faith in religious doctrines and theories.

It is different in being forced to do it, but to do it because you believe me, and then hope the train don't kill you is 'faith without substance nor evidence'.

But if my faith IS the substance of the things I hope for, and my faith IS the evidence of things I cannot yet see, .. then when I do see it, I will rejoice and not be surprised by something totally unexpected, .. as those poor souls that put their trust in Jim Jones of Jonestown, or those people who believe in pre-tribulation rapture, in the trinity-doctrine, evolution etc. so on and so forth.

Here is another somewhat different, but good example on faith. You know the Bible says that we are saved by faith and not by our works correct?

James 2:18 But someone will say, You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

You see, .. 'faith without works is dead', just as 'faith without substance or evidence' is dead.

[nayrbsnilloc]

Here is another somewhat different, but good example on faith. You know the Bible says that we are saved by faith and not by our works correct?

James 2:18 But someone will say, You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

You see, .. 'faith without works is dead', just as 'faith without substance or evidence' is dead.

First things first, I would like to point out that these statements appear contradictory the way you presented them.
The first statement you make advocates faith (the belief) over works. In the second and third ones, you state that works are just as important, if not more. The problem with this is that you are using two similar but different definitions for faith simultaneously.
You use faith to mean "belief without evidence" in the first sentence, and then in the subsequent ones you use faith to mean "a body of beliefs" or "the following of a body of beliefs" similar to how someone would point at someone and say "he is a member of the Christian faith."

This is the main problem you are encountering when arguing with people. These are not interchangeable definitions.

Yes you are correct, that would be circular if it meant as you say, and I showed that that is exactly what faith in religion is, faith based on faith, which is NOT the Bibles definition, nor does it in any way define my faith.

Hello nayrbsnilloc, thanks for your contribution, .. so let's examine this verse again.

Faith:
Now faith is the substance* of things hoped for, the evidence* of things not seen.

My 'faith' is not in some unexplained, or contradicting hope, nor in things I haven't seen but yet blindly accept it in faith, .. that would be that other faith, the religious, unsupported indoctrinated faith that Jim Jones and other religious cult leaders teach. The Bibles definition of 'faith' already contains substance and evidence, otherwise it is not the faith that our God requires of us.

Faith IS the substance, ..
of what?
of things hoped for.

If I tell you to stand front of an oncoming train, and not to worry because I promise you that you won't get hurt, .. and you do it in hopes that what I say is true, you'd be a fool, .. right? Yet billions of people do it all the time, put their faith in religious doctrines and theories.

It is different in being forced to do it, but to do it because you believe me, and then hope the train don't kill you is 'faith without substance nor evidence'.

But if my faith IS the substance of the things I hope for, and my faith IS the evidence of things I cannot yet see, .. then when I do see it, I will rejoice and not be surprised by something totally unexpected, .. as those poor souls that put their trust in Jim Jones of Jonestown, or those people who believe in pre-tribulation rapture, in the trinity-doctrine, evolution etc. so on and so forth.

Your other statements here seem to back up this theory of mine.
To prevent future confusion, I would suggest saying "my set of beliefs" is based on evidence (but then please provide that evidence when questioned) rather than "my faith". Those two different definitions, although there is only a minor difference in the wording, has a major difference in meaning.

For example:
If someone says,"I have faith it will happen," that means that they believe it will and are hoping it will happen even though they are not entirely sure.
If someone says,"My faith demands I don't do this," that means that their set of beliefs suggest they shouldn't do that.

[Clownboat]

Let's break it down shall we?

Arian:
A) if we humans design and create
B) then everything that we didn't design and create
Therefore: Must have come by a Creator with very high intelligence who designed all this!
(This really is more of a sentence broken up by A, B and therefore, rather than two premises pointing to a conclusion)

A) Yes, humans can design and create. So what? Some things humans designed and created, and other things happen naturally, like snowflakes and weather systems. Your, "if humans design and create" is therefore a meaningless premise.

B) "then everything that we didn't design and create".... This is also a meaningless premise. It's almost like you are trying to suggest that things humans didn't design, like snowflakes, the weather, sand dunes etc.... must have come from something that you have yet to link to this premise.

You didn't break anything down, .. your A and B are the same.

Come on Arian, don't be like this. It's broken down right in from of your eyes, just above where you see the "A)" and the "B)".

Rather than respond to my break down of your premises, you choose to claim that I did not break them down. I am not use to such dishonesty from you, so I must assume you missed them.

Now are you saying that an airplane flying on autopilot is acting 'naturally'? That man created the plane and the plane just naturally delivers the passengers at their destination?

I never said what you claim I am saying. In fact, when I broke down your premise "A)" above (that you failed to see somehow), I acknowledged that humans create.

No my friend, .. the plane was meticulously designed, and so was it's autopilot capabilities, .. just as our weather patterns were that create the snowflakes.

Again, humans create. This is not and has never been in dispute. Please stop mentioning it unless you are going to show us that humans creating is significant to evolution. What good would it be for me to point out that humans created all sorts of religion when we are talking about evolution?

I acknowledge that we have weather on this planet. Please demonstrate to us that the weather patterns were created. This should be easy because I am not even asking you to provide us with the "who" created them, just that they were created like you claimed. If you can't, the honest thing to do would be to say, "I think that our weather patterns were created". You however are making a positive claim here, so I expect that you will back it up, or retract it.

But wait! Where are you going with all of this? That's right, all along you have been asserting your conclusion into your premises (even though they are faulty).

C) Your therefore fails. Your faulty premises don't point to an intelligent creator. We understand how snowflakes form. They are not designed, nor created. Thus, even though your premises are faulty, your conclusion can be shown to be in error.

Water droplets that go through cold atmosphere 'create' snowflakes, just as when you press on your gas pedal which increases gas/air intake creates engine torque. Both achieve their intended purpose they were created for.

We know that humans designed and built cars, this is not in dispute.
You trying to explain the natural "creation" of snowflakes does not help your argument.

You are literally showing us two processes that come about naturally in order to justify a supernatural creation. I do appreciate you debating on my behalf, but this will be very one sided if you continue to make claims and then provide evidence that my claims are true and yours are false. I am thankful though.

This does not mean there is not a god of some sort out there. This only shows that your current argument is not logical and should be discarded due to that fact.
Perhaps try:
Premise A
Premise B

Therefore...

Like:
A) Humans are complex
B) Evolution explains how humans became complex.
Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we exist.

You mean like this?

A) Airplanes are complex,
B) Evolution explains why Airplanes and cars are complex something like this:

No... not at all. I'm truly confused as to why you are having such a hard time with this.

If airplanes were self replicating with variations, you would be on to something. What you are doing is pointing to a toaster and then complaining it does not act like a refrigerator.

"Once upon a time, a long, long time ago there appeared nuts and bolts in some primordial soup. Over millions of years of evolution the bolt screwed the nut, and through natural selection all these different cars and airplanes evolved. As the tectonic plates separated and continents evolved, these cars and planes each adapted to their now new and different environments as we can see, Italian cars are somewhat different from US and Japanese cars."

Please show me an example of a self replicating car or admit that your analogy is apples to oranges.

Now of course the only way anyone can believe that a nut could evolve from rock and screw itself onto a bolt is by and through religious indoctrination.

You say "of course" like you have support for this asinine statement, yet you are completely alone in your misunderstanding.

Can you link us to anyone that thinks a nut could evolve from rock and screw itself onto a bolt, or will you admit that you are arguing a straw man? Let's check for your honesty.

[Star]

The only problem is that there is no observable scientific evidence for any of this. Dogs still remain dogs, horses still remain horses and man still remains man from all the scientific evidence we have so far.

And reptiles remain reptiles?

[arian]

Here is another somewhat different, but good example on faith. You know the Bible says that we are saved by faith and not by our works correct?

James 2:18 But someone will say, You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

You see, .. 'faith without works is dead', just as 'faith without substance or evidence' is dead.

First things first, I would like to point out that these statements appear contradictory the way you presented them.
The first statement you make advocates faith (the belief) over works.

No my friend, here is yet another example:
When a drugged up black guy who is watching torture films calls me down to his apartment, then asks me to close the door behind me, pulls out a gun and points it in my face, .. and I believed he will not shoot me, .. even though he said he will blow my head off, that is faith proven by works.

Now how did I not believe he would shoot me? Was it out of sheer ignorance, some blind faith, or because I never seen anyone get shot, or killed before? Of course not, I grew up as a white boy in the most racially heated times in East Detroit. At sixteen I worked plastic covers going to four different houses a day, in areas where even my black trainees would not dare to go to with me. I've seen it all, and I know what cruelty people can cause others (black or white) especially when growing up in hopelessness, joblessness, on food-stamps and drugs, .. like it was in the late sixties and seventies in Detroit.

My 'faith' was not based on some religion like Christianity, but in KNOWING from a life-long history of evidence with substance, that God (for some reason) is and has always protected me (faith). Then I asked him to give me the gun (works) to see if it was really loaded or not?

I can see why you cannot understand this, because even Christians are well armed to protect their homes, and go to fight in wars, .. Not commended by God, but for their Kings and Presidents. Christian killing Christian, Big-bang Evolutionists killing BB Evolutionist, atheists killing atheists, .. etc. all in the name of their beliefs, their religion.

In the second and third ones, you state that works are just as important, if not more. The problem with this is that you are using two similar but different definitions for faith simultaneously.

To trust in Jim Jones, our Presidents, Dictators, David Koresh, Kings, the Pope because you believe what they say is as if God said it Himself, is faith without substance, .. actually it is ignoring 2,000 years of evidence on the contrary. I am not using works separate of faith, I know Whom and what (principles) I believe in. My works is the evidence of that (even though poor at times) faith.

You use faith to mean "belief without evidence" in the first sentence,

Please show me where I do that?

and then in the subsequent ones you use faith to mean "a body of beliefs" or "the following of a body of beliefs" similar to how someone would point at someone and say "he is a member of the Christian faith."

No, look : Members of Evolutionary-science, Christian etc, .. are all religions that create their own Creators, and their own set of rules/laws (body of beliefs). One misuses and misinterprets the Bible, and the other, .. science. Once these rules are created, they follow them religiously. If something, or someone points out some contradictions within their religious beliefs, they either excommunicate that person, kill them or make some adjustments that still fit within their religion.

This is the main problem you are encountering when arguing with people. These are not interchangeable definitions.

I am not encountering any problems, your lack of understanding the real Biblical definition of 'faith' is forcing you to encounter all these problems.

Yes you are correct, that would be circular if it meant as you say, and I showed that that is exactly what faith in religion is, faith based on faith, which is NOT the Bibles definition, nor does it in any way define my faith.

Hello nayrbsnilloc, thanks for your contribution, .. so let's examine this verse again.

Faith:
Now faith is the substance* of things hoped for, the evidence* of things not seen.

My 'faith' is not in some unexplained, or contradicting hope, nor in things I haven't seen but yet blindly accept it in faith, .. that would be that other faith, the religious, unsupported indoctrinated faith that Jim Jones and other religious cult leaders teach. The Bibles definition of 'faith' already contains substance and evidence, otherwise it is not the faith that our God requires of us.

Faith IS the substance, ..
of what?
of things hoped for.

If I tell you to stand front of an oncoming train, and not to worry because I promise you that you won't get hurt, .. and you do it in hopes that what I say is true, you'd be a fool, .. right? Yet billions of people do it all the time, put their faith in religious doctrines and theories.

It is different in being forced to do it, but to do it because you believe me, and then hope the train don't kill you is 'faith without substance nor evidence'.

But if my faith IS the substance of the things I hope for, and my faith IS the evidence of things I cannot yet see, .. then when I do see it, I will rejoice and not be surprised by something totally unexpected, .. as those poor souls that put their trust in Jim Jones of Jonestown, or those people who believe in pre-tribulation rapture, in the trinity-doctrine, evolution etc. so on and so forth.

Your other statements here seem to back up this theory of mine.
To prevent future confusion, I would suggest saying "my set of beliefs" is based on evidence (but then please provide that evidence when questioned) rather than "my faith". Those two different definitions, although there is only a minor difference in the wording, has a major difference in meaning.

I provide you with evidence, but like Clownboat for the past hundreds of debates, you are unable to understand it, or just want to argue because I challenge your faith in your religion. And we know to what extremes people can go to when their religion is questioned, .. right?

For example:
If someone says,"I have faith it will happen," that means that they believe it will and are hoping it will happen even though they are not entirely sure.
If someone says,"My faith demands I don't do this," that means that their set of beliefs suggest they shouldn't do that.

Depends how and where you got that 'set of beliefs'? If it was in and from religious indoctrination, .. then the best you can hope for is a coin toss-up, .. either heads or tails? You can 'hope' it's heads, but you'll never be SURE? It is 'poor faith', unsubstantiated faith demanded by your religion.

Read what I tell you and try to understand it. You don't have to accept it, and I don't expect you to accept it. There are very few who can accept it, and those are who have or are fighting to get away from religious indoctrination. It is tough because religion is like an Octopus, its tentacles are EVERYWHERE, each different yet all from the same idea. The head is the Ruler and god of this world, his tentacles are religions, .. tens of thousands of them. He is making himself known more and more lately, .. I'm sure you seen it in the last Olympics in England, .. the Octopus, .. right?

[arian]

[Replying to post 271 by Clownboat]

Clownboat, we been through this a thousand times before, corrected you, explained it all to you, and you continue to attack something that obviously you have no understanding of. You are way too deep in religious indoctrinations to be able to understand. Why I say this, .. because nothing changed from the time we met, till today. You haven't even made an effort to understand, your comments are the same. When I say the sky is blue, you tell me, 'stop saying that the sky is green'.

I say; "no it's blue, .. I said it's blue!"
You then come back and repeat, .. "no it's not green, stop saying it's green unless you can prove it. Otherwise retract what you said!"

It was fun a thousand posts ago, .. but your religious rambling gets tiring and boring, .. sorry my friend but it really is.

[arian]

The only problem is that there is no observable scientific evidence for any of this. Dogs still remain dogs, horses still remain horses and man still remains man from all the scientific evidence we have so far.

And reptiles remain reptiles?

Cool, .. they even made it look like it's running, lol. Can we get this at our local 'Rocks Store' hand carved in sand stone made in India, and the cheaper plastic prints for 99c at the 99c Store? Geico should include it in their commercials, "Look, it's a picture of my ancestor, .. fifteen minutes could save you $200 or more on car insurance!"

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 271 by Clownboat]

Clownboat, we been through this a thousand times before, corrected you, explained it all to you, and you continue to attack something that obviously you have no understanding of. You are way too deep in religious indoctrinations to be able to understand. Why I say this, .. because nothing changed from the time we met, till today. You haven't even made an effort to understand, your comments are the same. When I say the sky is blue, you tell me, 'stop saying that the sky is green'.

I say; "no it's blue, .. I said it's blue!"
You then come back and repeat, .. "no it's not green, stop saying it's green unless you can prove it. Otherwise retract what you said!"

It was fun a thousand posts ago, .. but your religious rambling gets tiring and boring, .. sorry my friend but it really is.

Friend? Really... friend?
Is that how you treat your friends?

Please supply evidence that I follow a religion and then show that I am indoctrinated to it. When you cannot, please retract it. It is the friendly thing to do after all.

Once you have done that, I will decide if it is worth my time to attempt to get you to address the questions I posed to you in post 271. All those questions you falsely claimed have been hashed a thousand times in the past. This dodge of yours is just one of 3 falsehoods in your post, but to not beat you up to badly, I'm only asking you to evidence 2 of the 3 claims you made. Seems like I'm the friendly one here.

I will admit, it seems like you have been told a thousand times that comparing non self replicating things to actual self replicating things is a mistake, yet here you are once again making it. Rather than showing all the readers how you are right to use your analogy, you dodge and then falsely claim that you have corrected and explained this to me in the past.

It is true that I have always considered your posts to be a bit "out there", but never "dishonest" like I consider this one.

Please back up your claims. If you don't have the courage to do so, I suggest you just tell us you are bored from having done it so much in the past.

[Star]

The only problem is that there is no observable scientific evidence for any of this. Dogs still remain dogs, horses still remain horses and man still remains man from all the scientific evidence we have so far.

And reptiles remain reptiles?

Cool, .. they even made it look like it's running, lol. Can we get this at our local 'Rocks Store' hand carved in sand stone made in India, and the cheaper plastic prints for 99c at the 99c Store? Geico should include it in their commercials, "Look, it's a picture of my ancestor, .. fifteen minutes could save you $200 or more on car insurance!"

Wow, are you serious?

It's not running. It died in that position.

[McCulloch]

We could say the same thing about cars and planes evolving by saying what happened over billions of years going from today, going back through time. The only problem is that there is no observable scientific evidence for any of this. Dogs still remain dogs, horses still remain horses and man still remains man from all the scientific evidence we have so far.

...

If a monkey was always a monkey, and man did not evolve from a monkey, or a zebra, then in your evolutions primordial soup there had to be single-celled monkeys, zebra and men which evolved over billions of years to the advanced state they are now.

Do you accept that the primordial soup contained the DNA in single-celled bacteria of every individual living biological creature that we have now? Male-female Zebras, monkeys, lizards, giraffe's, men, women, birds, fish, .. etc?

If not, then you believe that monkeys turn into men over time, only it takes a copious amount of websites to brainwash people into believing this.

Yes, it is a biological fact that each organism's parent is the same species. I am human, my parents were human. No mater how many times creationists say otherwise, this is a principle in biology fundamental to the understanding of evolution. They ask, if every human's parents were also human, then how can evolution be true. Wouldn't there have to be some generation where a non-human primate gave rise to a human?

I can answer this question with an illustration. It is a linguistic fact that each speaker of a language learns his or her language from other speakers of that language. People who attempt to invent new languages are notoriously unsuccessful at getting them to catch on. I learned English from my parents. They learned English from their parents. And so on back until we get to some of my ancestors who learned English as a second language by the conquering English who pressured them into abandoning their native G idhlig. And whoever it was who taught them English learned English from other English speakers. And yet, before the fifth century, there were no English speakers anywhere in the world. Do you think that there was one generation of speakers who arbitrarily decided to use a brand new language? No, it did not happen that way. Languages evolve. With each generation, there are subtle changes in vocabulary and grammar, none so great that the language is fundamentally changed in even a few generations. But over several hundred years the language known as nglisc, virtually unintelligible to us, has become English. Yet at no time did the principle that everyone who learns a language learns it from another person who speaks the same language.

In the same way, non-human primates, over many succeeding generations, did eventually turn into humans.