Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,789 Year: 4,046/9,624 Month: 917/974 Week: 244/286 Day: 5/46 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The origin of everything
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5949
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 22 of 106 (893276)
04-02-2022 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by The Real God
04-01-2022 8:46 PM


I did it.
Oh great! Another IDiot! Their only answer is "God did it" (pronounced "goddidit!" in a single syllable). The only variation is that when God is an IDiot, then he says "I did it."
 
In the late 70's PBS aired the series, I, Claudius, in which Patrick Stewart played a curly-haired Sejanus (it took us a while to figure out where we had seen CAPT Picard before) and John Hurt played Caligula.
After recovering from his brain-fever illness, Caligula believed himself to be a literal living god, none other than Jupiter! His dialogue would be peppered with exclamations of "By Jove! ... which of course is to say, by myself." Not unlike Mel Brook's running joke of Hitler's response to "Heil Hitler!" being "Heil myself!"
Back in times BC (Before COVID) a popular OLLI lecture class was a retired judge presenting the history of the Roman emperors. In his slides he used a lot of graphics from "I, Claudius."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The Real God, posted 04-01-2022 8:46 PM The Real God has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-02-2023 3:48 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5949
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 23 of 106 (893277)
04-02-2022 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Phat
04-02-2022 2:04 AM


Re: A Few Questions
Welcome to EvC, "Real God." Lest we get out of line, I shall, if I may, refer to you as The All-Smitey. (Long i sound)
It would sound much more old-folksy as "Old Smitey."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 04-02-2022 2:04 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5949
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 29 of 106 (893287)
04-03-2022 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by jar
04-02-2022 6:19 PM


Re: Irony of the year
How many times have people here at EvC pointed out that unexplained stuff gets put in the "UNEXPLAINED" box.
AKA the to-do list!
Question: What's the difference between science and "goddidit"? Science has a to-do list.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 04-02-2022 6:19 PM jar has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5949
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 34 of 106 (893300)
04-03-2022 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tanypteryx
04-02-2022 4:11 PM


Re: Irony of the year
There's no need to be "careful" about leaving "god stuff" out of any explanation, since there has never been an explanation that needed "god stuff." Not once.
Why not try to evaluate the "god stuff" of an explanation for how anything in this physical universe works? For example:
  1. Perform the same experiment or procedure multiple times, half of them with and the other half without adding "god stuff."
  2. Compare the results of both batches for patterns looking for any evidence of statistically significant difference between their results:
    1. First, note that there will always be some variation in experimental results ("noise"), so we need to employ statistical analysis on multiple performances of that experiment to detect a meaningful difference ("signal"). Such a detection of "signal" would be a statistically significant difference.
      And for non-scientists and non-engineers here: a basic task in experiments and tests is to determine whether something you find is statistically significant, basically winnowing the kernels of "signal" from the mountains of chaff "noise".
    2. If there is a statistically significant difference then that would indicate that that "god stuff" had an effect.
    3. If there is no statistically significant difference then that would indicate that that "god stuff" had no effect.
  3. Conduct that experiment multiple times, preferably with multiple independent teams, for more data to feed your statistical analysis. Also branch out by applying this test to other experiments/procedures/tests.
  4. A variation would be to take an experiment that was constructed to include "god stuff" from the beginning, then remove that "god stuff" and see if that new lack of "god stuff" affects the results in any way.
In the end, I predict that you will find that including "god stuff" does nothing signficant: adding "god stuff" or omitting "god stuff" has no effect.
Mathematically, we are working with some function (f()) which does not include any "god stuff" and to which we can add some "god stuff" (g()):
y = f(x1,x2,x3, ... xn)
y1 = f(x1,x2,x3, ... xn) + g()
y1 == y
Therefore: g() == zero -- AKA NULL
Adding "god stuff" or leaving it out has no effect. Starting your car has no difference whether you say certain prayers or not, whether you are Protestant, "true Christian", Muslim, Catholic, Mormon, Hindu, Buddhist, pagan, atheist, whatever. In TOS Spock was once given the line: "A difference which makes no difference is no difference." Science and the Universe works the same and completely independent of our religious beliefs.
Though an interesting side-effect is that those who insist that "god stuff" must be added to science et al. are effectively demonstrating that "god stuff" is insignificant and basically zero, such that adding or deleting it has exactly the same effect: none whatsoever.
Thus they prove that God is meaningless. Apologist, meet petard; now hoist!
Edited by dwise1, : slight notational cleanup

Edited by dwise1, : Changed "removing 'god stuff'" to "omitting", since that's the actual issue: Do we add "God" to science et al. or continue to not include such extraneous and superfluous "factors"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-02-2022 4:11 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5949
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 43 of 106 (893331)
04-05-2022 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by The Real God
04-05-2022 1:09 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Poe-try.
POE try this. POE try that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by The Real God, posted 04-05-2022 1:09 AM The Real God has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5949
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 51 of 106 (893460)
04-14-2022 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by The Real God
04-14-2022 3:41 AM


Re: Why there no April 1 suspicions?
I reference the U.S. eastern time zone, and so should everybody else.
Silly ethnocentric, don't you know that NYC (and the eastern seaboard along with it) is not the center of the world?
 
The International Time Bureau (BIH, "Bureau International de l'Heure") establishes and maintains Universal Time (UT) from which we derive the international time standard, Coordinated Universal Time ("Temps Universel Coordonné", UTC (so that neither the French nor the Americans could get their way -- "Fine! Neither of you can be happy!") ).
Like its predecessor, Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), UTC is tied to the IERS Reference Meridian (IERS = "International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service" which retained its legacy abbreviation from its previous name, "International Earth Rotation Service"), which is associated with the traditional Prime Meridian (Greenwich) -- though differing by a 5.3 arcsecond offset due to local gravity. My work exposed me to all that; it seems that precise time keeping is never simple, especially as maintained by BIH, National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST), and US Naval Observatory (USNO) (AKA "The Time Lords"). My work with GPS-based time keeping brought me into contact with all that.
The time zone for UTC is Z (pronounced "Zulu") which has a UTC offset of zero (0). The US eastern time zone is R with offset of -5 and the US Pacific time zone is U with an offset of -8. When referencing UTC time, you give it as Zulu (eg, To convert from Z to U it's PST = Z - 8 and to convert from U to Z it's Z = PST + 8. Hence 0518U is 1300Z.
To my knowledge all US military message traffic keeps its timestamps in Zulu, thus eliminating ambiguity and the need for time zone conversions (an entire Navy course, NAVEDTRA 14252) in correlating reports.
The issue complicated by Daylight Savings Time (DST) in the US and Summer Time in Europe. When either is in effect (during a range of dates centering on the Northern Hemisphere's summer season), an hour is added to the local standard time (or two hours during "Double Summer Time"). Therefore, during DST the UTC offset for Pacific DS Time (PDT -- U+1) changes from -8 to -7 and for Eastern DS Time (EDT -- R+1) changes from -5 to -4. NOTE: DST never changes Zulu Time!
This year, DST went into effect on 13 Mar 2022 and Summer Time two weeks later on 27 Mar 2022. Therefore, both were in effect on 01 April 2022.
 
My own time stamp for Message 1 read "01-Apr-2022 5:46 PM", that being 1746 PDT (2022APR011746U -- I'm not sure how to indicate DST being in effect) which in reality was 0046Z of the next day (2022APR020046Z). You being stuck in the eastern time zone, your time stamp should read (assuming you use proper date format and not something weird like mm/dd/yy) "01-Apr-2022 8:46 PM", that being 2046 EDT of 01 Apr (2022APR012046R).
However, Tangle is in the UK, in Time Zone Z (UTC offset +0) but with Summer Time in effect which adds one hour to UTC giving him a local standard time of 0146. Thus the timestamp for your OP (Message 1) should read on Tangle's screen as 02-Apr-2022 1:46 AM (also note that dates in the UK are normal and not turned around).
Therefore, your OP was posted on 02 April for our members in the UK. QED
 
Simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by The Real God, posted 04-14-2022 3:41 AM The Real God has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5949
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 57 of 106 (893661)
04-18-2022 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by The Real God
04-17-2022 10:36 PM


On the subject of bad moves:
quote:
Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun.
Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.
This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.
And so the problem remained; lots of the people were mean, and most of them were miserable, even the ones with digital watches.
Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.
And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, one girl sitting on her own in a small cafe in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.
Sadly, however, before she could get to a phone to tell anyone about it, a terribly stupid catastrophe occurred, and the idea was lost forever.
This is not her story.
 
"I never could get the hang of Thursdays." -- Dent, Arthur Dent

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by The Real God, posted 04-17-2022 10:36 PM The Real God has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5949
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 61 of 106 (893701)
04-18-2022 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by The Real God
04-18-2022 2:49 AM


without any comprehension
Trump = Vogon???
When it comes to bureaucracy, not even close. Trump is as completely and utterly incompetent as anyone could possibly be. Trump would dismiss the Deep State without a thought, without any hint of the ability to comprehend it, whereas the Vogons are the Deep State.
But when it comes to poetry ... . Trump's poetry could very well be far worse than Vogon poetry, so he might be able give the Vogons a run for their money there. Not that either Vogons or Trump would ever do any kind of running.
I might be willing to pay to be present for the moment when, while Trump is reading his latest poem out loud, his own major intestine, in a desperate attempt to save life and civilization, leaps straight up through his neck and throttles his brain.
Edited by dwise1, : "without any hint of the ability to comprehend it"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by The Real God, posted 04-18-2022 2:49 AM The Real God has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5949
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 77 of 106 (898670)
09-27-2022 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Phat
09-27-2022 3:58 PM


Re: Sez Who?
If not God, nor evolution, what process or method creates life? The universe is not alive, so "it" can't take credit.
Let's start with a simple analogy. What powers a gasoline or diesel car; what makes it go? If not Vishnu nor a nuclear reactor, then what? Obviously, petroleum products that we call gasoline (or petrol or Benzin) or diesel, depending on the design of the car's engine. The electrical power in the car is provided by a generator or alternator which converts the mechanical energy from the burning of the fuel and which recharges a storage battery which provides the electricity needed to start the engine and also electricity for when the engine is turned off. Nuclear reactors has nothing to do with it (though we could make a slightly different argument for electric vehicles).
IOW, you are engaging in the fallacy called the "False Dichotomy" (which we have seen you do often in other discussions). We can use a process of elimination of all possible alternatives to narrow our choices down to a very few or even one -- this is the famous Sherlock Holmes quote:
quote:
"You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?"
The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (1890)
Indeed, that is used in mathematical proofs as Proof by Contradiction in which you assume the opposite of what you are trying to prove and try to prove that (eg, to prove that the square root of 2 is irrational, try to prove that it is rational (ie, can be written as the ratio of two integers), so when that proves to be impossible (ie, leads to a conclusion which is false or self-contradictory) then that proves the opposite, that the square root of 2 is irrational).
However, for either proof by contradiction or a true dichotomy to be valid, all possible choices must be taken into account. A false dichotomy fails because it artificially (or deceptively) chooses only a few or even just two alternatives while ignoring all the other alternatives (including the actual true one(s)). That is what happens in the false dichotomy that gas/diesel cars get their power from either Vishnu or a nuclear reactor and nothing else, or restricting the creation of planets or life to either God or evolution (which only happens once life has come into existence).
So the "it" in your question, " ... what process or method creates life?", would be natural processes. Which, BTW, an actual creationist (though sadly not a fake creationist like a YEC) would identify as having been created by their God.
 
The fundamental problem that candle2, you, and all other YECs (let's use the term "creationists" to refer to them) that we have encountered have is that none of you know what evolution is nor how it works. As a result, everything that creationists say about "evolution" makes absolutely no sense and is blatantly and obviously false. That includes how they have created some kind of nonsense that has nothing to do with evolution and yet they mislabel it as being "evolution" as they blame everything they don't like on it. Their "evolution" (Dredge and I have arrived at referring to it as "evilution", which he volunteered as being what makes all creationists evil) is nothing but a boogeyman with which to scare themselves. That is why everything they say about their "evolution" is not even wrong, because it's not talking about evolution, not even remotely -- eg, as per my analogy they'd be admonishing us for being careless in disposing of our gasoline car's spent reactor fuel rods while we'd see them as complete idiots who refuse to even hear an actual explanation.
That is why I have been asking creationists for decades what they are talking about. More specifically, what they think evolution is and how it works. In all those decades, I cannot recall even a single creationist trying to answer those very basic questions. candle2 is a prime example of that, as is EWolf.
Now it's your turn to answer that question:
What do you think evolution is? How would you define it?
What do you think evolution does and how it works?
What do you think evolution teaches?
Why would you think that there's any conflict between evolution and God?

Until we can establish what you people are talking about, discussion will continue to be impossible. Creationists will continue to be evasive and promulgate lies and we will denounce them for their gross dishonesty.
 
And also, please note that since evolution happens because of life doing what life naturally does, evolution will happen because live exists so it does not matter how life came into existence, be it through natural or supernatural means.
Therefore, there is no inherent conflict between evolution and Divine Creation. Unless one insists on really stupid ideas about either evolution or Creation or both (though most of their stupid is inflicted on Creation).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Phat, posted 09-27-2022 3:58 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5949
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 79 of 106 (898672)
09-27-2022 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Phat
09-27-2022 4:00 PM


Re: Sez Who?
Are ALL atheists evolutionists, in your opinion? And just so we all can agree on terms, what is an evolutionist? And what is a creationist?
You are asking a creationist to define his terms. Do you really expect him to do that? Did the latest weather report in Hell forecast a frost?
In addition, I would like to know what he (or you too) thinks a atheist is. And given his/your definition, whom he (or you) would identify as being an atheist.
For example, if the definition is "does not believe in God" (in which "God" is defined as his/your particular sect's version of the Christian God), would he/you consider a Hindu to be an atheist? I have certainly seen a number of "true Christians" take that kind of position, such that all non-Christians (including many Christians who are not "the right kind") would be considered atheists.
But you are on the right track in asking for the definitions of terms so that both sides can know what the other is talking about. My formal logic professor taught us that the very first step in any debate or discussion is to agree on the meaning of the terms to be used in that debate/discussion.

Edited by dwise1, : Clarified the first paragraph by adding "Do you really expect him to do that?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Phat, posted 09-27-2022 4:00 PM Phat has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5949
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 86 of 106 (898720)
09-28-2022 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by candle2
09-28-2022 12:09 PM


Re: Sez Who?
Whenever an evolutionist does not want to, nor cannot,
answer a specific question they reply "you just don't
understand what evolution is."
Do you mean like when you claimed that evolution was a dog giving birth to kittens? And you wanted us to prove that that happens? Which does not happen and cannot happen because that's not how it works! And you don't know that and cannot understand that, which directly demonstrates that you do not understand evolution!
What part of that do you refuse to understand?
Phat, I think the concept of evolution can be defined as
change over a period of time. But, the change must be
by natural processes.
The word first appeared around 1610 and basically means "turning out", hence how something develops over time. It was a couple centuries later that it came to be applied to biological evolution, which is what the word now means when it stands alone, just as the term "evolutionary process" only applies to biological evolution.
Yes, the word can be used to describe the development of other things and systems, but not what it stands alone. In all other usages, it is specified.
In order to explain to you how English works, by analogy:
  • When we say "towel", it's something made of cloth. But when we say "paper towel", then it's made of paper. We do not simply say towel to refer to a paper towel.
  • The same applies to napkins: "napkin" versus "paper napkin". Though that has been shifting as paper napkins have become more common and everyday than the traditional cloth ones. However, while we might simply say "napkin" for a paper napkin, we would specify a cloth napkin by saying "cloth napkin".
    This is also analogous to how we now drop "biological" for evolution because we that is what we are commonly referring to.
  • Tomato ketchup is labeled as such, because it is one special kind of ketchup (an entire family of condiments, the next most common having been made with mushrooms). Most people will simply say "ketchup" for tomato ketchup because that's the only kind they have ever seen.
  • A computer used to have to be specifically called an "electronic computer", because traditionally a computer was a person who performed calculations. But since that profession has become less common, we now drop the "electronic" modifier.
Even though what's common does evolve over time, the convention still holds that whenever we use a word differently to refer to something less common, we modify it with a label.
Therefore, we don't call stellar evolution simply "evolution", because it is not the same thing as biological evolution. Nor are the physical processes in stellar evolution even remotely similar to those of biological evolution. Trying to lump them together makes absolutely no sense.
The same applies to cosmic evolution, planetary evolution, the evolution of a river valley, the evolution of aviation, the evolution of military doctrine, the evolution of music, the evolution of Christianity, the evolution of God, etc. None of those have anything to do biological evolution, nor do any of them work through the same processes as the others.
And don't forget Navy evolutions, which do not need to be specified because we sailors know full well what the context is.
IOW, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING, SO STOP LUMPING THEM ALL TOGETHER!
The word "evolution" standing alone refers to biological evolution (eg, "Darwinian evolution"). All other usages of the word "evolution" will be specified by adding a modifier (eg, "stellar evolution"). Attempts to misconstrue all kinds of evolution as all being the same thing are nothing short of gross dishonesty.
My understanding of the evolutionary process is that
change must be by a natural process.
First, I must reiterate by stating yet again that there is no such thing as a single evolutionary process! Every single different kind of evolution has its own processes. Which should be obvious to everybody, yet we keep finding ourselves having to repeat the obvious.
Second, everything we observe comes from natural processes. So what else would be expect?
 
Question:
An actual creationist would believe that God created the universe, including all the natural processes by which the universe operates.
So if you find that something happens by natural processes, would you assume that disproved God?
Or would you realize that it wouldn't, since God had created those natural processes?
So would you be justified in getting upset to find change in any given system occurring by natural processes? Why or why not?
You seem to consider natural processes to be unclean. But didn't God say something to the effect of "Do not call unclean that which I have created clean."?
 
The question still stands, though we have hopefully finally started to make some progress:
When we say "evolution", we are referring specifically to biological evolution.
What are you referring to specifically when you say "evolution"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by candle2, posted 09-28-2022 12:09 PM candle2 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5949
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 91 of 106 (898790)
09-29-2022 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by ringo
09-29-2022 10:27 PM


Re: Sez Who?
The question is where the FIRST life came from. Did it come from chemical reactions, which we know a lot about? Or did it come from some spook that we know nothing about using magical methods that we know nothing about?
Plus, once life came into existence it started evolving. Life doing what it naturally does results in evolution.
Therefore, the entire question of whether life arose naturally or supernaturally is moot! It doesn't matter!
Nor does life having arisen naturally rule out "some spook that we know nothing about", except instead using magical methods it used natural processes which any actual creationist (instead of fake creationists like candle2) would realize.
Though we just shrug off that idea as an unnecessary complication that contributes nothing. I just offer it to show that creationists' perceived conflict between evolution and a Creator is also moot. It doesn't matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by ringo, posted 09-29-2022 10:27 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by candle2, posted 09-30-2022 9:58 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5949
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 97 of 106 (898814)
09-30-2022 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by candle2
09-30-2022 9:58 AM


Re: Sez Who?
Jessica H. Christ! What is wrong with you?
I did not say what you falsely accuse me of saying. Are you truly incapable of reading? Or are you being a typical creationist and deliberately lying?
Here is what I had actually written in Message 91 -- read it this time! (and don't complain that your phone screen is too small for you to read anything on it --use your computer, you idiot!):
DWise1 writes:
ringo writes:
]The question is where the FIRST life came from. Did it come from chemical reactions, which we know a lot about? Or did it come from some spook that we know nothing about using magical methods that we know nothing about?

Plus, once life came into existence it started evolving. Life doing what it naturally does results in evolution.

Therefore, the entire question of whether life arose naturally or supernaturally is moot! It doesn't matter!

Nor does life having arisen naturally rule out "some spook that we know nothing about", except instead using magical methods it used natural processes which any actual creationist (instead of fake creationists like candle2) would realize.

Though we just shrug off that idea as an unnecessary complication that contributes nothing. I just offer it to show that creationists' perceived conflict between evolution and a Creator is also moot. It doesn't matter.
It was very clearly ringo who called your god a "spook", not me! Look at what you are getting in my face about:
DWise1 writes:
Nor does life having arisen naturally rule out "some spook that we know nothing about", except ...
Do you see those double tick-marks before "some" and after "about"? Those are called quotation marks and they are used to quote what somebody else said. Apparently this is an idea that you have never encountered before, but most people are quite familiar with it and are able to recognize it immediately.
And, yes, we do know and understand a lot about your god, the many other versions of "the Christian God", and the other gods as well. Along with the religions and myths which accompany them. And of the Bible, what it says, how it was written, etc.
Obviously, a helluva lot more than you know or understand.
You simply do not know what those who have a relationship with God know.
You hypocrite!
You whine that (in Message 82):
candle2 writes:
Whenever an evolutionist does not want to, nor cannot,
answer a specific question they reply "you just don't
understand what evolution is."
And then you do the exact same thing you accuse us of doing to you. That is the kind of hypocrisy that you fundies pull constantly which we normals object to.
And to remind you, since you have obviously chosen to refuse to read it, in Message 86 I replied to you:
DWise1 writes:
candle2 writes:
Whenever an evolutionist does not want to, nor cannot,
answer a specific question they reply "you just don't
understand what evolution is."

Do you mean like when you claimed that evolution was a dog giving birth to kittens? And you wanted us to prove that that happens? Which does not happen and cannot happen because that's not how it works! And you don't know that and cannot understand that, which directly demonstrates that you do not understand evolution!

What part of that do you refuse to understand?
Well?
 
You still need to actually reply to my Message 91 to which you just "replied" with a blatant false accusation:
DWise1 writes:
Plus, once life came into existence it started evolving. Life doing what it naturally does results in evolution.

Therefore, the entire question of whether life arose naturally or supernaturally is moot! It doesn't matter!
Or is "moot" too big of a word for you to understand? Or to be able to read on your phone's tiny screen?
You also still need to reply to my having to explain what "evolution" means in my Message 86.
 
And do follow that link in "Jessica H. Christ!". You should find it interesting. Or are you afraid of learning something (I do realize that learning is against your religion).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by candle2, posted 09-30-2022 9:58 AM candle2 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5949
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 102 of 106 (898886)
10-02-2022 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by candle2
10-01-2022 10:21 AM


Re: Sez Who?
Never has it been shown that chemicals can create life.
SO WHAT?
You seem to think that your question is important. Why?
Do you think that it somehow presents a problem for evolution? Again, why would it? Why should it?
As you have already been informed (by having read my Message 91 to which you "replied" albeit without understanding any of it), once life has come into existence, completely and utterly regardless of how, then that life would be evolving. Evolution is what happens when life does what life does; given life there is no way to keep evolution from happening.
Therefore, any question of whether life emerge through supernatural agency or through natural processes is rendered moot! For that matter, even if life arose through natural processes that still does not in any way negate a Divine Creator as an actual creationist would surely know (though fake creationists like you YECs are still in the dark).
Any and all questions concerning abiogenesis have absolutely no bearing on whether life evolves. You're just wasting your time trying to attack evolution through abiogenesis. So what's your problem?
Which leaves us yet again with the same question for you and all other fake creationists (which is what YECs are): What the hell are you talking about? Do you even have any clue what you are talking about?
Yet, evolutionists cling to this ridiculous assertion.
What the hell are you talking about? And, what you mean by evolutionist? Do you simply mean someone who accepts evolution? Well then in that case most creationists (actual ones, not you fake ones) are also "evolutionists" since most of the people who accept evolution also believe in a Creator God (eg, biologist and one of the most effective opponents of YEC's "creation science", Dr. Kenneth Miller, self-describes as a "creationist" since, as a practicing and believing Catholic, he believes in God the Creator -- I can cite the article for you and transcribe that part of for you, except you would yet again refuse to read it as you usually do in your typical willful stupidity).
So yet again, what the hell are you talking about? Because nothing you are saying makes any sense at all!
 

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by candle2, posted 10-01-2022 10:21 AM candle2 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024