[__ Science __ ] Study: Only 37% of American Pastors Have a Biblical Worldview

[Paul E. Michael]

Very simple.

1) Darwin made them foundational.

IOW, "Darwin made Darwinism foundational to Darwinism."

 

[Barbarian]

What benefit do you imagine you get out of telling people that things you say "are supported by evidence

Just pointing out the fact. Facts matter.

As everyone can see, you've rather plainly and clearly been requested to show that the nonsense you have been calling "Darwin's four points" is actually four points,

Which Darwin wrote, making them "Darwin's four points." And as you now seem to realize, they are all supported by evidence.

And yet, for whatever reason, you're unable to show that even one of them is meaningful, and thus, a point. Do you think no one has noticed?

The first one explains why it matters. There is a competition among organisms for food, water, space, reproduction, etc.

The second one explains that each organism differs from the others.

The third one points out that some differences matter to surviving long enough to reproduce.

And the fourth one points out that the useful ones accumulate and result in speciation.

Again, you now seem to realize that all of these are observed facts. Even most creationist organizations admit the facts of natural selection and speciation.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

As everyone can see,

Barbarian has not answered this simple, yes/no question he has been asked:

Has any human ever been born to a non-human? Yes or No?​

For any rationally-thinking person, it is a cinch to answer this question: The correct answer is "No. No human has ever been born to a non-human."

Since no human has ever been born to a non-human, every rationally-thinking person understands the truth that

• no human is a descendant of one, or more, non-humans, and
• no non-human is an ancestor of one, or more humans.

 

[miamited]

Hi Barbarian

Fortunately, our salvation doesn't depend on which side of that, we are on, unless we make an idol of our own understanding and demand that other Christians must believe it our way.

Maybe. The Scriptures do seem to make quite an issue of those who are His children, believing Him. The day of final judgment is presented to us as 'unbelievers' not seeing eternal life. Now, some will say, "Well, that's only not believing the gospel". Maybe. But the passage merely says 'unbelievers'. And, not only are we not believing God, but we are believing the understanding of man. I sense that to be a very difficult place to be in. Jesus said that not everyone who calls out to him "Lord, Lord..." will be saved. He then goes on to describe a fairly large group of people, who are quite obviously christians, and condemns them as not being a part of him. These people claim of themselves that they performed great miracles and healed people 'in Jesus' name'. Do you believe that that great multitude of people, Jesus referred to them as 'many', hadn't confessed Jesus as Lord and been baptized and done all of the 'good' christians things that God's children are supposed to be about doing? They performed miracles in Jesus name!!!!

So, it would seem that there might be something just a bit more involved in all this than just standing in a pool of water and proclaiming Jesus as Lord and being baptized and then spending the remainder of your life going to worship services with some body of believers. Now, I don't honestly know exactly why Jesus condemns all that great 'many' people who seem to be doing all the right 'works' that believers do upon the earth...but it could be that they didn't believe God.

I certainly don't condemn anyone, but I just put it out there for consideration.

For me, I believe God has told us the truth as to the time and duration of His creating this realm in which we live. I believe God that there will come a day that it will disappear just about as quickly as it came to be and I believe that God will create another 'copy', if you will, of the heavens and the earth in pretty short order again.

Here's what I know about science, and its understanding of the things that God does.

1. Science cannot tell us how a sea parted and water stood on both the right hand and the left hand as an entire nation of at least several thousand people walked through with all of their earthly belongings. What science will tell you about that event is that it is impossible and it just didn't happen. I deny that.

2. Science cannot tell us how the entire planet was at one time covered with water. All around the globe. What they will tell you is that it had to be just a localized flood. That it's impossible for water to rise and flood the entire globe. I deny that.

3. Science cannot tell us how the shadow cast by the sun can go backwards the span of 10 steps on a set of stairs. They will tell you that it's just an event recorded by a people who were trying to make some spiritual or theological point. I deny that.

4. But for the believer, the real test of whether we should believe scientific explanations of such things over God's testimony, is that a child, a baby wrapped in swaddling clothes was born to a woman in Israel who had never had human sperm introduced into her vagina. Science will tell you that's impossible and certainly have no explanation for it, but I deny that. I do know the explanation for it. God's Holy Spirit implanted the life of that child in the womb of Mary.

I think it well to keep in mind, for born again believers, that God has often done things that man's science will tell you is impossible and just didn't happen. I deny that!!!


God bless,
Ted

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Just pointing out the fact. Facts matter.

Here, again, you're pointing out the fact that what you erroneously call "pointing out the fact" is the intellectual equivalent of standing on a street corner, brandishing a carboard picket sign on which you've scrawled, with a Sharpie, one of the boobeoisie's beloved chant slogans, "Facts matter!" at passersby.

Which Darwin wrote, making them "Darwin's four points."

I did not say Darwin did not write something you said he wrote, did I? No. As you now seem to realize, the fact that Darwin wrote something you choose to call "points" does not make what you choose to call "points," points.

And as you now seem to realize, they are all supported by evidence.

As you now seem to realize, since the nonsense you choose to call "Darwin's four points" is nonsense, none of what you choose to call "Darwin's four points" is supported by evidence.

 

[miamited]

Our ignorance of the world is great, and science, imperfect as it is, is all we have.

That's actually not a true statement for the believer. What we have is the word made sure. What Jesus called 'truth'.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Paul E. Michael]

1. More organisms are always born than can survive long enough to reproduce.

I can't tell what (if anything) you're trying to say, here. Are you trying to say that more organisms have been given birth to than have given birth?

 

[Barbarian]

I can't tell what (if anything) you're trying to say, here.

More organisms are produced, every generation, than can survive long enough to reproduce.

For most people, that's not a very difficult concept. What about it confuses you?

Are you trying to say that more organisms have been given birth to than have given birth?

I'm pointing out that more organisms are born than can survive long enough to reproduce. And so many fail to pass on their alleles to offspring.

 

[Barbarian]

Here, again, you're pointing out the fact that what you erroneously call "pointing out the fact" is the intellectual equivalent of standing on a street corner, brandishing a carboard picket sign on which you've scrawled, with a Sharpie, one of the boobeoisie's beloved chant slogans, "Facts matter!" at passersby.

No, and I'm pretty sure you know better, too.

For example, as you seem to now realize, each of Darwin's points are supported by observed facts.

You're getting yourself all worked up again. Try to compose yourself and respond in a rational and respectful way.

Barbarian has not answered this simple, yes/no question he has been asked:

Has any human ever been born to a non-human? Yes or No?​

"Human" would be the genus Homo. "Non-human" would be any other hominin. So yes, at some point, a population of some other genus did evolve to be a different genus, Homo. Remember, evolution happens to populations, not individuals. So this was, as we have observed in nature, a gradual process of speciation. Would you like to learn about some of those observed speciations?

Even groups like AIG and ICR now freely admit that speciation is a fact. They also admit that new genera appear from the modification of earlier genera. Would you like me to show you that?

 

[Barbarian]

Maybe. The Scriptures do seem to make quite an issue of those who are His children, believing Him.

Unfortunately, many creationists (and a few evolutionists) often decide that it's an issue of who believes them. The fact is, how life developed on Earth is not part of the Gospels, nor does God say exactly how any of that happened. And He certainly did not make belief in any particular interpretation of His creation a salvation issue. Those who say that it is, regardless of their interpretation, are making an idol of their own wishes in place of God.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Barbarian has not answered this simple, yes/no question he has been asked:

Has any human ever been born to a non-human? Yes or No?​

For any rationally-thinking person, it is a cinch to answer this question: The correct answer is "No. No human has ever been born to a non-human."

Since no human has ever been born to a non-human, every rationally-thinking person understands the truth that

• no human is a descendant of one, or more, non-humans, and
• no non-human is an ancestor of one, or more humans.

A human is a member of Homo, as in Homo erectus or Homo sapiens. Your question reveals an ignorance of how evolution works.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

No, and I'm pretty sure you know better, too.

For example, as you seem to now realize, each of Darwin's points are supported by observed facts.

You're getting yourself all worked up again. Try to compose yourself and respond in a rational and respectful way.


"Human" would be the genus Homo. "Non-human" would be any other hominin. So yes, at some point, a population of some other genus did evolve to be a different genus, Homo. Remember, evolution happens to populations, not individuals. So this was, as we have observed in nature, a gradual process of speciation. Would you like to learn about some of those observed speciations?

Even groups like AIG and ICR now freely admit that speciation is a fact. They also admit that new genera appear from the modification of earlier genera. Would you like me to show you that?

At least twice, now, I have asked you:
Has any human ever been born to a non-human? Yes or No?

So far, you have refused to answer this simple, yes/no question. Until you have replied to this question by saying either

"Yes, [at least one human has been born to another human],"
or
"No, [no human has ever been born to another human],"
​

you will continue on in your failure to have answered the question.

Note that I did not say, "Did a population of some other genus did evolve to be a different genus, Homo?" To say that would be to say nonsense, rather than to ask a question.

So, you can either answer the question I asked you, or continue to sit there having never answered it, and lying about your failure to have answered it. The choice is yours.

 

[T. E. Smith]

At least twice, now, I have asked you:
Has any human ever been born to a non-human? Yes or No?

So far, you have refused to answer this simple, yes/no question. Until you have replied to this question by saying either

"Yes, [at least one human has been born to another human],"
or
"No, [no human has ever been born to another human],"
​

you will continue on in your failure to have answered the question.

Note that I did not say, "Did a population of some other genus did evolve to be a different genus, Homo?" To say that would be to say nonsense, rather than to ask a question.

So, you can either answer the question I asked you, or continue to sit there having never answered it, and lying about your failure to have answered it. The choice is yours.

There's no clear differentiation. Over time, offspring became more and more human, but there was no point at which a nonhuman suddenly gave birth to a human. It took a lot longer.

 

[Barbarian]

At least twice, now, I have asked you:
Has any human ever been born to a non-human? Yes or No?

So far, you have refused to answer this simple, yes/no question. Until you have replied to this question by saying either
​

You already have your answer. See above. It just wasn't the answer you wanted to hear. We all get that. As you just learned, even many creationists admit that new genera arise from earlier ones. So yes, Homo did indeed arise from an earlier hominin genus. I bolded the answer for you. And remember, evolution doesn't happen to individuals. It happens to populations. Which, I suppose, you were trying to avoid here.

As Darwin pointed, out, if evolution is true, such nice demarcations would be almost always impossible to point out. Instead, we'd see all sorts of intermediate cases between two other taxa. And in fact that's what we do see. If creationism were true, we wouldn't see anything like that. It's another reason why almost all biologists accept evolutionary theory.

Note that I did not say, "Did a population of some other genus did evolve to be a different genus, Homo?"

Yes, we get that. You don't want to know what happened. You were hoping for some other response. But here you are. Again, individuals don't evolve; populations do.

Good try, but the "yes or no" ploy really isn't very effective in cases like this.

 

[Barbarian]

There's no clear differentiation. Over time, offspring became more and more human, but there was no point at which a nonhuman suddenly gave birth to a human. It took a lot longer.

It's an interesting problem. You see, part of human evolution includes a chromosome fusion, which probably was effective in reproductive isolation or at least made interbreeding less successful. There might indeed have been a point where a new taxon came about in a very short time. We often see that in plants, where polyploidy is not generally fatal, and a new species can appear in one generation.

On the other hand, there is some genetic evidence that early members of Homo were still capable of breeding with other hominins, including the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. Apparently, the diversion of both species from the common ancestor, took a surprisingly long time, given the genetic data. There's been a flood of genetic data due to more effective means of sequencing, and the data is way ahead of the ability of scientists to analyze it all.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

There's no clear differentiation.

You don't agree with rationally-thinking people, that some individuals are humans, and that the rest are non-humans? You don't agree that no human is a non-human, and that no non-human is a human?

I know what you'd like to do. You'd like to try (and, for your sake, I hope you'd like to fail) to whitewash the glaring fact of your hatred against truth and logic, and so you will misuse the word, "logic," by referring to your irrational thinking—your war against truth and logic—by a phrase like "fuzzy logic".

Over time, offspring became more and more human, but there was no point at which a nonhuman suddenly gave birth to a human. It took a lot longer.

Has any human ever been born to a non-human? Yes or No?

YES = "At least one human has been born to a non-human."
NO = "No human has ever been born to a non-human."

YES OR NO?​

 

[T. E. Smith]

You don't agree with rationally-thinking people, that some individuals are humans, and that the rest are non-humans? You don't agree that no human is a non-human, and that no non-human is a human?

Even the designation "homo" is somewhat arbitrary since it is just what people came up with. I don't believe in some "divine image" that makes a human, for example.

Has any human ever been born to a non-human? Yes or No?

YES = "At least one human has been born to a non-human."
NO = "No human has ever been born to a non-human."

YES OR NO?​

Barbarian has already clarified that your question cannot really be answered straightforwardly yes or no, because it is a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. But if you want a yes or no, with some caveats, then take yes.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Barbarian has already clarified that your question cannot really be answered straightforwardly yes or no,

by Darwinists such as you and him, because, being Darwinists, you are committed to your war against truth and logic. Unlike Darwinists, any rationally-thinking person has no difficulty, whatsoever, answering a question as straightforward as "Has any human ever been born to a non-human? Yes or No?" The correct answer is NO.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

You already have your answer.

You've reacted to the question. So far, you've never answered it.

Here, again, is the very simple question you have not answered, your failure to answer which you are brazenly lying about:

Has any human ever been born to a non-human? Yes or No?

YES = "At least one human has been born to a non-human."
NO = "No human has ever been born to a non-human."

 

[Paul E. Michael]

And remember, evolution doesn't happen to individuals. It happens to populations.

Remember: As you've demonstrated, your cherished nonsense word, "evolution," is neither the name, nor a descriptor of anything that happens, at all (whether to individuals, to groups of individuals, or anything else).