one.opinion Posted August 27, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 27, 2018 15 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: That entire post is theologically incoherent. It really bugs you to no end that I can arrive at the same essential doctrinal points even though I read the history differently. Frankly, I'm ok with that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, one.opinion said: It really bugs you to no end that I can arrive at the same essential doctrinal points even though I read the history differently. Frankly, I'm ok with that. No, it's not that. And we don't end up at the same essential doctrinal points. It's that I understand what is behind that post and what you actually believe. The post doesn't really reflect what you truly believe. It is rather dishonest incoherent presentation of what you claim to believe, given that Evolution isn't a creative "theory." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted August 27, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: No, it's not that. And we don't end up at the same essential doctrinal points. It's that I understand what is behind that post and what you actually believe. The post doesn't really reflect what you truly believe. It is rather dishonest incoherent presentation of what you claim to believe, given that Evolution isn't a creative "theory." Oh Shiloh, you were doing so well for nearly a week. We were actually having not only one, but TWO decent conversations. Now you've reverted to form and have started with the ad hominem arguments and telling me what I believe again. Obviously when you tell me what I believe and it is different from what I actually believe, you are mistaken and are rapidly losing credibility. Why does what I believe bother you enough that you feel you need to resort to obvious fallacy? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 12 minutes ago, one.opinion said: Oh Shiloh, you were doing so well for nearly a week. We were actually having not only one, but TWO decent conversations. Now you've reverted to form and have started with the ad hominem arguments and telling me what I believe again. I am not telling you what you believe. I know from history just how inaccurate and bizarre your theology really is once we get behind what you "claim" to believe. The devil, as they say, is in the details. And once we break down what you actually believe, you really do have an incoherent theological position that is based on twisting and perverting Scripture to make it accommodate your false doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted August 27, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 27, 2018 28 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: The post doesn't really reflect what you truly believe. 6 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: I am not telling you what you believe. Seems contradictory to me, but I'm sure you've convinced yourself otherwise. If you have something reasonable to discuss, please post and I'll get to it later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 8 hours ago, one.opinion said: Seems contradictory to me, but I'm sure you've convinced yourself otherwise. If you have something reasonable to discuss, please post and I'll get to it later. Not a contradiction. Based on what you have told me in the past, I know what you believe and I know the false doctrine lies behind what you posted above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkins Posted August 27, 2018 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 45 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/25/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted August 27, 2018 Science is about the prediction of an end-to-end repetition. Science is accurate because it's always about something which can repeat infinitive number of times for humans to observe and most importantly to predict how it repeats to draw a conclusion. The methodology ToE employed is completely different from any other science. This is so simply because it takes millions of years for an end-to-end evolution to possibly repeat itself. We don't have that time to observe and predict how it repeats to draw any scientific conclusion. If you implicitly claim that a human can be evolved from in the end a single cell organism, then you have to make the single-cell to human process repeats itself infinitive number of times for humans to do enough observations, and most importantly predictions on how this repeats in order to draw a scientific conclusion. That's how each and every single science works. This is so because humans are creatures of the present. We don't have the capability to reach the past, and we don't have the capability to reach the future. It is because we have no capability to reach the future that if we can correctly and repeatedly predict how a phenomenon repeats itself into the future, we know that we hit a truth in terms of how we make use of a "theory" to predict the repetition. This is the nature of science and why it is accurate. In a nutshell, science is the making use of predictions repeatedly to identify a truth (which can repeat). ToE is a valid hypothesis in suggesting that evolution (from single cell to fully grown) can be a repeating process (of natural selection). However it's not up to the scientific accuracy as long as you can't make it repeat itself (to the extent of infinitive number of times) for the prediction of its repetition to be made correctly and repeatedly. That said, to me the theory of common ancestry is a joke in concluding that everyone has an invisible common ancestor without knowing who it is. In terms of how things work, the genes are so if you would like that animal to have its appearance and behavior. If you want a chimp to have its current appearance and behavior, you need the genes to be so disregarding whether the genes share anything in common with that of humans. Everything else can be anything, not necessarily be a result of evolution. It can be a result of interbreeding or a mixture of interbreeding and adaptation. The difference between adaption and evolution is that species can be selected by the nature, however this may not be the way how they are brought to their current state from a single cell. An analogy is that whenever you see someone in uniform sitting in the cockpit of a plane, you draw the conclusion that he's a pilot. This can be true however it's a pure speculation. He's a pilot when he launches and lands a plane from one airport to another repeatedly as we predict. Then he's a pilot. This what science is and how it makes a difference from the pure speculation. Similarly, when you see how nature changes a species to draw the conclusion that nature can drive a single cell to that species, it's a pure speculation. If you can predict repeatedly how a single cell turns into that species without error, only then you have a science! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis1209 Posted August 27, 2018 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 18 Topic Count: 347 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,466 Content Per Day: 2.70 Reputation: 5,378 Days Won: 1 Joined: 09/27/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted August 27, 2018 On 8/23/2018 at 7:27 AM, one.opinion said: I'm afraid you are incorrect. I can show you dozens of examples of evolution that we can observe directly, so you'll need to specify what aspect of evolution you believe does not exist. There absolutely is evidence - both direct and indirect. Without using adaptation and metamorphism (larvae - caterpillar - butterfly - etc.), I'd like just one example of evolution myself. A changing of species from say a horse to a lion or such, a DNA structure change evolving into something totally different by natural selection? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted August 27, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 27, 2018 33 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said: Without using adaptation and metamorphism (larvae - caterpillar - butterfly - etc.), I'd like just one example of evolution myself. A changing of species from say a horse to a lion or such, a DNA structure change evolving into something totally different by natural selection? Let me make sure I am understanding what you are asking. You need to see specific DNA mutations that lead directly from one mammalian class to another in order to be convinced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis1209 Posted August 27, 2018 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 18 Topic Count: 347 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,466 Content Per Day: 2.70 Reputation: 5,378 Days Won: 1 Joined: 09/27/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted August 27, 2018 8 minutes ago, one.opinion said: Let me make sure I am understanding what you are asking. You need to see specific DNA mutations that lead directly from one mammalian class to another in order to be convinced? No not "class" or "kind", let's get our terms correct. Genetic 'species' changes. We can plainly see alterations, adaptations and changes in classes and kinds of the same species, man-made and natural. You can include a virus mutating over time into a bacteria, grass genetically changing into a tree. corn into a tomato, or primate to man. After their own kind in Bible terminology. Horses to zebra's, breeds of dogs and genetic splicing and the like, etc., doesn't qualify as a change of species. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts