Creation / Evolution.

[Theland]

What can you say that you know one thing about evolution?

[nailit]

Ive yet to hear one single creationist come up with a plausable scenario of how a complex planet came about without resorting to a 6 day creation by a supposedly almighty being that allowed a talking snake into a magical garden to outwit his dirt man and rib woman into eating a magical fruit from a magical tree and thus bringing cancer and other evils into the world.
I am not scientifically minded but count me out of this nonsense!

[Theland]

A mob?
From my perspective I find some of the posts are distinctly unfriendly and mindful of a mob.
Apologies though to any biologists, chemists or other scientists who have posted and may have taken umbrage at my comments.

[Theland]

Nailit, you need to listen to a scientist and NASA engineer named Spike Psarris to answer your questions about planetary formation.
He will challenge your worldview.

[Khandro]

Nailit; (or anyone) 1. Can you point to a being that can cause itself? 2. From where did you come?

[Theland]

Beso - Your lengthy explanations of the ascent of man is flawed with assumptions that do not constitute evidence.
All you present is an unproven hypothesis that is shared by the establishment of evolutionary science.

[beso]

Theland //Beso - Your lengthy explanations of the ascent of man is flawed with assumptions that do not constitute evidence.//

Name the invalid assumptions you claim are in the maths I used to explain how the total of four percent difference between the genome of humans and chimps can accumulate from one non-injurious change in each of several tens of thousand of matings.

Do you dispute the measurement of the difference in the genomes? They are counted from the completely sequenced genomes. Exactly which established facts do you dispute? Don't just say "assumptions".

You simply wave around the vague notion of "assumptions" and pretend that is an explanation. It isn't and never will be.

As many have said, you refuse to engage in debate and remain firmly fixed in your religious beliefs that rely wholly on the giant assumption that a book written by ignorant Bronze Age misogynists is factual when it has repeatedly been shown to be nonsense.

[Theland]

So your maths is proof?
And any proof of how additional genetic beneficial information just suddenly appears
Its never been witnessed, only assumed.
And then you get angry.
No need.

[naomi24]

Theland, //From my perspective I find some of the posts are distinctly unfriendly and mindful of a mob. Apologies though to any biologists, chemists or other scientists who have posted//

So you apologise selectively. Lovely. To the best of my knowledge only one poster on these pages makes a song and dance of broadcasting his qualifications - the rest don’t feel the need so stay schtum and yet you have no hesitation in rudely relegating people you don’t know to ‘mob’ status. Odd that you should apologise to nameless ‘scientists’ anyway bearing in mind you disagree with them. The fact is you have no idea who others are or what they do, but every argument you offer has been countered with well-researched counter-arguments. It’s that simple.

Spike Psarris has a B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering and worked at NASA for a while, so hardly what you claim him to be. He is another of your Christian advocates for Creationism who’s making money from the gullible. When you offer something to support your claims from an independent source it may be worth looking at.

[Old_Geezer]

Beings don't cause themselves, they emerge as a result of evolution which has been discussed occasionally in this thread. (Quantum fluctuations are possibly the only thing that might be claimed to cause itself, although those even are the result of random chance. We realise they can and therefore have to occur, but one might debate whether that means that they are self caused, or perhaps, probably more accurately, have no cause save inevitability.)

[Khandro]

OG; You are craftily avoiding my questions at 22:20

"they emerge as a result of evolution" isn't an answer & simply will not do.

[vulcan42]

Theland, I stayed up late last night to watch Spike Psarris on youtube. I began to wonder if I was listening to you, for he also spoke glibly of evidence without offering any proof. In other words he made " assumptions that do not constitute evidence" which you have said to Beso this morning. Strange how you can believe one person who doesn't offer proof for his evidence but disbelieves another who does.

[beso]

Theland //And any proof of how additional genetic beneficial information just suddenly appears.//

There is a ton of evidence fpr gene duplication.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/gene-duplication

[beso]

Theland //Its never been witnessed, only assumed.//

Nothing in the Bible has been witnessed yet you accept it as irrefutable truth.

[Khandro]

Here you have a spokesman (& what spokesmen!) for both sides in this wonderful & famous exchange of Coplestone & Russell;

I think Coplestone wins the day, but you decide, - that is if you have the tenacity & intellectual stamina;

[vulcan42]

Khandro, I will listen to that later as I have to go out. One point however, it took place nearly eighty years ago, we have discovered many things since then, that these two gentlemen knew nothing about, so how relevant is the discussion?

[jim360]

I'm not sure who Naomi is talking about at the start of her post at 8:29, but she has a point. In apologising to "scientists", and not to the "mob", when in actual fact they are saying the same things and making the same points, you're being extremely disingenuous. It again comes back to the issue I highlighted in the post you've so laughably chosen as best answer: you care too much about who is speaking, and far too little about what they say.

[Khandro]

vulcan; //so how relevant is the discussion?//

You will have to judge that & if you find there is something lacking due to its age you can point that out, but generally speaking philosophical & theological argument is not negated by scientific discovery.

[Theland]

Vulcan - Think you for watching the Psarris video.
You have given me a lot to think about, which I will.

[Theland]

Beso - That document takes some absorbing, but I will try my best to understand it.
If I have been wrong I will gladly say so, and first impressions are that I have been missing something. Thank you.

[Old_Geezer]

I disagree and suspect most would. "they emerge as a result of evolution" is an excellent answer & simply the only one with credibility. I reiterate that beings don't cause themselves, which makes your question invalid.