The Human Body Could not have Evolved

[Rodion_Raskolnikov_]

Thank you, Enoch.

I agree with everything you said and you have said better than I ever did. I'm not very good at communicating.

Unfortunately, you're dealing with a faith (as you already know). This faith is in a special category, though. Those who practice evolution as science (and atheists who believe in any true morality) refuse to acknowledge it as a faith in spite of any evidence, or even logic. You have all the same fanatical acceptance of faith an Islamist suicide bomber would envy, but the inability of the individual to even realize that they're fanatical. This is a state of mind that Big Brother would envy (at least in its populace).

As I said; keep preaching the Truth. It's all you can do. Those with open minds, and hearts, will recognize the truth for what it is. Most won't, however.

I was converted, so I can tell you (from personal experience) that it isn't a lost cause. Keep preaching the truth. I can also tell you that you shouldn't expect to get through to many. You know that as well as I do. Better, probably.

Either way, thank you again.

[Enoch2021]

Thank you, Enoch.

I agree with everything you said and you have said better than I ever did. I'm not very good at communicating.

Unfortunately, you're dealing with a faith (as you already know). This faith is in a special category, though. Those who practice evolution as science (and atheists who believe in any true morality) refuse to acknowledge it as a faith in spite of any evidence, or even logic. You have all the same fanatical acceptance of faith an Islamist suicide bomber would envy, but the inability of the individual to even realize that they're fanatical. This is a state of mind that Big Brother would envy (at least in its populace).

As I said; keep preaching the Truth. It's all you can do. Those with open minds, and hearts, will recognize the truth for what it is. Most won't, however.

I was converted, so I can tell you (from personal experience) that it isn't a lost cause. Keep preaching the truth. I can also tell you that you shouldn't expect to get through to many. You know that as well as I do. Better, probably.

Either way, thank you again.

 

 

===========================================================================================================

 

Thanks for the Encouragement.

 

Yes, it's been my experience over the past few years that people will hold on to their "beliefs' with a Kung Fu Death Grip No Matter how nonsensical and after being shown their error.  My Job, as I see it, is to stay with the TRUTH in hopes that maybe others viewing these threads or the Addressee will see it @ some point;  But that's for the Holy Spirit...and is exponentially beyond my Pay Grade.

 

A word of Caution and I alluded to it on the other thread, is the term "FAITH".  "Biblical" Faith and "Blind" Faith are the polar Opposites of each other....be careful not to Equivocate the two.

 

"Biblical" Faith -  (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

It has Substance and Evidence.

 

"Blind" Faith --- Belief without substance or evidence. (Life from Non-Life, Something from Nothing, et al)

 

"Blind Faith" is specifically admonished against in Scripture: (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

regards

[Rodion_Raskolnikov_]

 

Thank you, Enoch.

I agree with everything you said and you have said better than I ever did. I'm not very good at communicating.

Unfortunately, you're dealing with a faith (as you already know). This faith is in a special category, though. Those who practice evolution as science (and atheists who believe in any true morality) refuse to acknowledge it as a faith in spite of any evidence, or even logic. You have all the same fanatical acceptance of faith an Islamist suicide bomber would envy, but the inability of the individual to even realize that they're fanatical. This is a state of mind that Big Brother would envy (at least in its populace).

As I said; keep preaching the Truth. It's all you can do. Those with open minds, and hearts, will recognize the truth for what it is. Most won't, however.

I was converted, so I can tell you (from personal experience) that it isn't a lost cause. Keep preaching the truth. I can also tell you that you shouldn't expect to get through to many. You know that as well as I do. Better, probably.

Either way, thank you again.

 

 

===========================================================================================================

 

Thanks for the Encouragement.

 

Yes, it's been my experience over the past few years that people will hold on to their "beliefs' with a Kung Fu Death Grip No Matter how nonsensical and after being shown their error.  My Job, as I see it, is to stay with the TRUTH in hopes that maybe others viewing these threads or the Addressee will see it @ some point;  But that's for the Holy Spirit...and is exponentially beyond my Pay Grade.

 

A word of Caution and I alluded to it on the other thread, is the term "FAITH".  "Biblical" Faith and "Blind" Faith are the polar Opposites of each other....be careful not to Equivocate the two.

 

"Biblical" Faith -  (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

It has Substance and Evidence.

 

"Blind" Faith --- Belief without substance or evidence. (Life from Non-Life, Something from Nothing, et al)

 

"Blind Faith" is specifically admonished against in Scripture: (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

regards

 

Ha! Thanks for separating the two. I never meant to confuse the two. To me either one is self evident. As I said, I'm not a good communicator. My wife can tell you that, and will every chance she gets

Yes. our faith is not "blind". Our faith can stand up to scrutiny. Faith it is, though.

It continues to irk me when people persist in willful ignorance...in that they refuse to recognize their belief in evolution and atheism is just that, a belief (a faith). It irks me, even more so, when people fail to recognize pure logic. In that either there is a Creator of everything (God) who created everything, including morality (objectively), or that any sense of morality must be relative in absence of the absolute. Duh!

It's either Objective, or relative. Just pick one so we can move on, and be done with it. Stop "weighing reason down in your inept mire". Not you Enoch. It's evident that you understand the truth. I'm channeling my ire towards irrational atheistic "moralists" who want to have their cake and eat it, too (absent of any logic and common sense).

I will vent these feelings to you because you understand. Instead of being, wholly, confrontational to an atheist. Thanks for allowing me to do this. And, thanks for recognizing the truth. Before I came to this site I spent a lot of time (mistakenly) trying to reason with atheists. Invariably, their irrational 'beliefs' led me to a less than Christian state. Or, their willful ignorance and circular reasoning; which you are so good at defining, Enoch.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Rodion_Raskolnikov_

[Enoch2021]

 

 

Thank you, Enoch.

I agree with everything you said and you have said better than I ever did. I'm not very good at communicating.

Unfortunately, you're dealing with a faith (as you already know). This faith is in a special category, though. Those who practice evolution as science (and atheists who believe in any true morality) refuse to acknowledge it as a faith in spite of any evidence, or even logic. You have all the same fanatical acceptance of faith an Islamist suicide bomber would envy, but the inability of the individual to even realize that they're fanatical. This is a state of mind that Big Brother would envy (at least in its populace).

As I said; keep preaching the Truth. It's all you can do. Those with open minds, and hearts, will recognize the truth for what it is. Most won't, however.

I was converted, so I can tell you (from personal experience) that it isn't a lost cause. Keep preaching the truth. I can also tell you that you shouldn't expect to get through to many. You know that as well as I do. Better, probably.

Either way, thank you again.

 

 

 

Thanks for the Encouragement.

 

Yes, it's been my experience over the past few years that people will hold on to their "beliefs' with a Kung Fu Death Grip No Matter how nonsensical and after being shown their error.  My Job, as I see it, is to stay with the TRUTH in hopes that maybe others viewing these threads or the Addressee will see it @ some point;  But that's for the Holy Spirit...and is exponentially beyond my Pay Grade.

 

A word of Caution and I alluded to it on the other thread, is the term "FAITH".  "Biblical" Faith and "Blind" Faith are the polar Opposites of each other....be careful not to Equivocate the two.

 

"Biblical" Faith -  (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

It has Substance and Evidence.

 

"Blind" Faith --- Belief without substance or evidence. (Life from Non-Life, Something from Nothing, et al)

 

"Blind Faith" is specifically admonished against in Scripture: (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

regards

 

Ha! Thanks for separating the two. I never meant to confuse the two. To me either one is self evident. As I said, I'm not a good communicator. My wife can tell you that, and will every chance she gets

Yes. our faith is not "blind". Our faith can stand up to scrutiny. Faith it is, though.

It continues to irk me when people persist in willful ignorance...in that they refuse to recognize their belief in evolution and atheism is just that, a belief (a faith). It irks me, even more so, when people fail to recognize pure logic. In that either there is a Creator of everything (God) who created everything, including morality (objectively), or that any sense of morality must be relative in absence of the absolute. Duh!

It's either Objective, or relative. Just pick one so we can move on, and be done with it. Stop "weighing reason down in your inept mire". Not you Enoch. It's evident that you understand the truth. I'm channeling my ire towards irrational atheistic "moralists" who want to have their cake and eat it, too (absent of any logic and common sense).

I will vent these feelings to you because you understand. Instead of being, wholly, confrontational to an atheist. Thanks for allowing me to do this. And, thanks for recognizing the truth. Before I came to this site I spent a lot of time (mistakenly) trying to reason with atheists. Invariably, their irrational 'beliefs' led me to a less than Christian state. Or, their willful ignorance and circular reasoning; which you are so good at defining, Enoch.

 

 

 

 

===========================================================================================

 

There are more compliments in this post than I've received in the past 5 Years, combined!!  You feeling ok? lol  May start to go to my head......Fat Chance!

 

Praise The LORD!!

 

regards

[LuftWaffle]

 

This event was later found, our chromosome #2 shows where this fusion took place. If they didn't find this fusion event, evolution would have been in trouble.

 

 

Nah, if they didn't find the supposed fusion site, they would have simply assumed that the fusion happened long ago and have since mutated out of the genome. Missing evidence has never been a problem for neo-darwinism.

 

Also, prediction in science works on the basis of running experiments by isolating, as best one can, a certain mechanism and then reproducing an outcome time and time again until one can say with a small enough error margin and a high enough probability that P therefore Q. This is how the basic inductive reasoning of science works and when people speak of prediction, this is generally what they mean.

 

The Ken Miller example, is a single prediction about the unrepeatable past, and as such really just amounts to a fallacy of affirming the consequent,

which is to say If P then Q, Q therefore P.

 

In short if you take inductive reasoning and you substract controlled repetition in a lab, all you're left with is a fallacy of affirming the consequent.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

This event was later found, our chromosome #2 shows where this fusion took place. If they didn't find this fusion event, evolution would have been in trouble.

 

 

Nah, if they didn't find the supposed fusion site, they would have simply assumed that the fusion happened long ago and have since mutated out of the genome. Missing evidence has never been a problem for neo-darwinism.

 

Also, prediction in science works on the basis of running experiments by isolating, as best one can, a certain mechanism and then reproducing an outcome time and time again until one can say with a small enough error margin and a high enough probability that P therefore Q. This is how the basic inductive reasoning of science works and when people speak of prediction, this is generally what they mean.

 

The Ken Miller example, is a single prediction about the unrepeatable past, and as such really just amounts to a fallacy of affirming the consequent,

which is to say If P then Q, Q therefore P.

 

In short if you take inductive reasoning and you substract controlled repetition in a lab, all you're left with is a fallacy of affirming the consequent.

 

 

 

Very well said.

 

 

Also, prediction in science works on the basis of running experiments by isolating, as best one can, a certain mechanism and then reproducing an outcome time and time again until one can say with a small enough error margin and a high enough probability that P therefore Q.

 

 

Yep, it's called a "Valid" Scientific Hypothesis...

 

"Formalized hypotheses contain two variables. One is "independent" and the other is "dependent." The independent variable is the one you, the "scientist" control and the dependent variable is the one that you observe and/or measure the results.

The ultimate value of a formalized hypothesis is it forces us to think about what results we should look for in an experiment.

 

Notice there are two parts to a formalized hypothesis: the “if” portion contains the testable proposed relationship and the “then” portion is the prediction of expected results from an experiment.  An acceptable hypothesis contains both aspects, not just the prediction portion."  {Emphasis Mine}

http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm

 

 

regards

[Bonky]

Enoch did you realize earlier that you stated that chimps aren't "great apes"? I'm puzzled as to why you state that.

[Enoch2021]

Enoch did you realize earlier that you stated that chimps aren't "great apes"? I'm puzzled as to why you state that.

 

Yes, I surely did.  Then I stated "I stand corrected", here: 

 

I do make mistakes from time to time....I'm human.  And I never claimed I was some Jane Goodall.

 

Although this mistake is pretty low on the totem pole due to just being a mis-Classification within a Man-Made (Somewhat Arbitrary) Classification System. 

 

Any other Quibbling (Fallacies) you'd like to waste more time on?

 

Quibbling Fallacy: Using the technical tools of logic in an unhelpful and pedantic manner by focusing on trivial details instead of directly addressing the main issue in a dispute.  Irrelevant over precision.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/121-logic-chopping

 

 

regards

[Bonky]

Enoch I didn't see the retraction, to be honest I wasn't trying to harp on it I was just so puzzled by it initially.

[MorningGlory]

 

I am saying that God is the explanation.  He is the reason the world remains in a general state of order and uniformity.   God is the best explanation for why animals have the ability to adapt to different climates and conditions.   It is evidence of His design.

 

I don't know if you realize this but most species have died out on this planet if you look at the historical (fossil) record.   That doesn't bode well for your argument.   

 

 

Not true.  It makes a lot more sense for extinction to be part of a divine plan than for it to be random and arbitrary.  The Universe is based on order; extinction doesn't fit the bill unless directed by an intelligence.