Testing Out My Writing Please Have A Look

[dlamberth]

And how did that "nomadic tribe [sic]" get into the desert in the first place?

Unknown. Desert nomadic tribes have a way of moving around and as as they did so they brought their creation story with them. Which is what culture tend to do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unknown.

Would you like one of our first graders to tell you?

Desert nomadic tribes have a way of moving around and as as they did so they brought their creation story with them.

You must have someone other than the Jews in mind, as you use the term "tribe" singular.

Even our first graders know there were twelve tribes.

You have a decimal place problem, don't you?

Which is what culture tend to do.

Not this culture.

They weren't an example of "the present is key to the past" nonsense.

 

[Yttrium]

I don’t think evolution is sound at all or even the most likely explanation for how life formed on earth because it does not make sense. You can’t make something out of nothing and it’s not reasonable for life to form sporadically on its own via abiogenesis. In my view point atleast it sounds ridiculous but to other people if they want to consider that the most plausible reasoning for life on earth they have to make that judgement and assessment for themselves.

I agree that you can't make something out of nothing. But you seem to be suffering from a misconception regarding evolution. The Theory of Evolution was formed specifically to deal with the evidence of morphologic, fossil, and genetic trends in living organisms. The process of evolution itself is the change in frequency of alleles in a population over time/generations. The whole point there is you need a population of organisms for biologic evolution to happen. So that's what ToE covers. It doesn't deal with anything else.

ToE starts with the first population of living organisms. How that population came about doesn't matter to evolution. It's up to a different scientific theory, which currently doesn't exist, to explain where that population came from. Abiogenesis isn't part of ToE, and certainly something from nothing has nothing to do with ToE (or any other theory in science, for that matter).

So ToE doesn't conflict at all with the idea of a creation of life by God. It does of course conflict with the story of the creation of creatures and Adam and Eve in Genesis, so I can appreciate why someone who believes in that story could have a problem with ToE.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think that is often the intent of science although it’s not explicitly expressed out loud. I find it often to be biased and the people quite unreasonable at times. If you find the opposite then that’s your opinion but it’s not factual.

You see, dear correspondent, in science we don't care what people think about the nature of the Universe and the things inside it, only what we can demonstrate. We don't even care about our own feelings or opinions. (I don't care for general relativity, but that doesn't mean I get to ignore it.) Our task is to figure out how things work based on evidence. Nothing more; nothing less.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Also the people who claim to be Christian but if you don’t have faith in the Bible and you choose belief in science over your own faith it’s just not acceptable to claim to be a Christian at that point.

I spent a long time as a Christian, and not once, ever, did anyone ask me to take a position on any scientific result or theory because of our faith, nor did anyone ever preach for against any such result or theory of science. Not once.

But nonetheless take everything that the scientific community presents with a grain of salt. It was actually studying astronomy that led me to believe in God the fact that so many celestial objects on a macroscopic scale were so highly organized made me doubt random probability.

Someday, in some other thread, but not this day, you and I and @sjastro and @Astrophile and others should have a conversation in this section about what gravity can do. (It's pretty powerful at organizing things.)

 

[BCP1928]

Other branches of Christianity? Do you mean denominations what does that even mean? I’m sharing my personal conviction and understanding of this subject make of it what you will. As I told the other person I don’t need to validate other people’s religions because according to the Bible they are respectfully false and deceptive. I don’t mean that to be mean or belittle others but this is plainly what the holy book says and my main objective is to influence and help others to come to the truth. It’s not to be mean or anything but I’m not going to endorse a lie. I’m sorry if that offends anyone but I don’t feel right about doing that.

Be that as it may, your beliefs will have a bearing on the effectiveness of your argument. If you disprove evolution, all you will have is a disproven theory. You still will have the task of bringing people to share your beliefs about the Bible. This will be especially difficult to accomplish with Traditional Christians, who have different beliefs about the Bible and are convinced that their beliefs support essential Christian doctrine just as well as yours do. They may be wrong as you see it, but having embraced Christ as their savior they will see no particular need to also embrace your view of the Bible, their own having served, in their minds, to support essential Christian doctrine for two millennia. It's going to be a hard sell. It will be interesting to see how you go about it.

 

[driewerf]

Other branches of Christianity? Do you mean denominations what does that even mean? I’m sharing my personal conviction and understanding of this subject make of it what you will. As I told the other person I don’t need to validate other people’s religions because according to the Bible they are respectfully false and deceptive. I don’t mean that to be mean or belittle others but this is plainly what the holy book says and my main objective is to influence and help others to come to the truth. It’s not to be mean or anything but I’m not going to endorse a lie. I’m sorry if that offends anyone but I don’t feel right about doing that.

Look at this: a religious believer that claims that his Church is the only true one and all the others are wrong. No politician will say that the other candidate is better. No, every political hopeful will proclaim that (s)he is the best than all the others. No salesman will say that other brands are better. (S)he sales the best and don’t go look for something else. Every religionist will claim that (s)he worships the one true god and all the others are wrong. And his “Holy Book” is da Truth and all the other “Holy books” are lies. Without any other evidence, I am very unimpressed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Every religionist will claim that (s)he worships the one true god and all the others are wrong.

Like Jesus did?

Not everyone likes Heinz 57 catsup.

 

[driewerf]

Like Jesus did?

Among a few billion other religionists.

 

[eleos1954]

I always appreciate it when people promote lack of faith, since I lack faith in anything myself. Faith in scientific theories can lead one to avoid trying to disprove them, which is a major part of the scientific method. One can consider that a scientific theory is the most likely explanation without throwing faith into it.

Not sure that's where you were going with that, though. Taking a non-faith approach to Christianity sounds like a tricky thing to do. But I wouldn't dissuade people from trying.

no there is faith involved with evolution belief ... faith is believing something/someone to be true ... and some believe the evolution theories ... so it does take faith. We collect information and that information is then interpreted not to say the interpretations are true.

With all the intricacies involved with the universe and the earth .... it takes too much faith for me to believe in millions/billions of happen chances occurring over millions/billions of years ...

Evolution is the alternative for those who do not believe the biblical account of creation.

The fact is how we came into being is unknown ... however the only 2 plausible explanations are evolution or creation ... and both take faith to believe.

Faith isn't just a religious thing ... faith can be applied to many things.

faith

/fāTH/
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

 

[eleos1954]

I'm sorry you feel you have to make that choice.

It's not a choice I have to make .... it's the choice that is more logical to me ... given the extreme intricacies we are aware of about the universe and our earth and life ... other reasons but will relent.

 

[BCP1928]

It's not a choice I have to make .... it's the choice that is more logical to me ... given the extreme intricacies we are aware of about the universe and our earth and life ... other reasons but will relent.

Why not creation and evolution? That's what most Christians and other theists believe.

 

[Yttrium]

no there is faith involved with evolution belief ... faith is believing something/someone to be true ... and some believe the evolution theories ... so it does take faith. We collect information and that information is then interpreted not to say the interpretations are true.

You're not contradicting me. Belief without proof is faith. We don't have proof in scientific theories, so it takes faith to have complete trust or confidence in them. Yay. We agree. Faith is bad news, right? You make such a good point that we should all do our best to avoid it.

Evolution is the alternative for those who do not believe the biblical account of creation.

Nope, you've set yourself up a false dichotomy there. If people just step back and avoid faith in either, they'll find a lot more possibilities, and then they can take a hard look at the evidence and try to figure out which of all the possibilities seem a bit more likely than the others.

 

[weekEd]

We are made of many of the same elements derived from soil and water as Genesis 2:7 states " God formed man of the dust of the ground & breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul". Everything in our physical world has a basis in being created out of star dust. Star Dust in other words debris from Super Nova's that occurred billions of years ago particularly during the beginning of time at approximately 13.7 billion years ago. See here how this fact relates to Genesis 2:7 dust to modern day astronomer and physicist view of the origin of the universe, our physical world being derived from star dust. We are made and comprised of the same elements that the heavenly bodies is composed of as well as our terrestrial environment.

Some of our oldest fossil records are linked to a single event called the Cambrian or Silurian explosion. Out of this event evolved some of the earliest arthropods and primarily aquatic species. We can observe today that some species such as the aquatic isopod underwent micro evolutionary changes to adapt to living on land. On the terrestrial isopod commonly known as the wood louse or (roly poly or pill bug) we can observe gills that allow these crustaceans to survive when submerged in water for short periods of time, this reminiscent of their aquatic ancestry. Many animals within the animal kingdom have underwent the process of evolution on a microscopic scale however large evolutionary jumps such as those purported by Darwin have yet to be seen and tested. This is due to the proposed processes taking approximately one million years to occur. However the Cambrian explosion indicates how life all stems from a single point and a plethora of species was produced during this pivotal time period.

The Cambrian explosion is also referred to as the biological big bang it occurred 538.8 million years ago. It is considered a biological epoch because virtually all modern day animal phyla developed during this event which lasted 13-25 million years a blink of an eye in terms of cosmic timeline. Let's look at Genesis 20, In this section of the Bible the following is stated, "And God said, Let the water teem with living creatures", this indicates that according to the Bible life originated in the ocean first and foremost which corresponds with the scientific view of life first developing in the oceans via life forms such as, arthropods and mollusk both being of aquatic origin.

"What is the great difference between supposing that God makes variable species or that he makes laws by which species vary?"- Louis Aggasiz

There is no fundamental difference in these two separate statements. In the eyes of believers the natural development and progression of natural, processes, occurrences, phenomena and organisms in general is often proof in an of itself for intelligent design. The intricacies and very well planned out details of these phenomena cannot occur sporadically without careful thought being put into these natural workmanship(so to speak). It is the thought process behind these extremely detailed and well thought out designs along with the creative intellect that is stand alone proof for a divine creator. To deny such or claim that random probability was the driving force for such well formed organized systems along with tangible/intangible products is unsubstantiated.

intelligent design and fine tuning are mutually exclusive

 

[eleos1954]

You're not contradicting me. Belief without proof is faith. We don't have proof in scientific theories, so it takes faith to have complete trust or confidence in them. Yay. We agree. Faith is bad news, right? You make such a good point that we should all do our best to avoid it.

Nope, you've set yourself up a false dichotomy there. If people just step back and avoid faith in either, they'll find a lot more possibilities, and then they can take a hard look at the evidence and try to figure out which of all the possibilities seem a bit more likely than the others.

Proof isn't required for faith.

Faith - definition
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Belief often refers to an intellectual acceptance of facts. However, faith adds trust and commitment.

So if one trusts the science (theories) they have faith in it and are committed to it and that is faith.

Evidence? It's a matter of interpretation of information gathered and there are many interpretations of the evidence ... many.

It takes faith to believe either in creation or evolution. It's a matter of what one puts their trust and confidence in.

 

[Yttrium]

It takes faith to believe either in creation or evolution. It's a matter of what one puts their trust and confidence in.

You're still saying nothing that contradicts me, and you're still making a good argument that we should avoid faith.

So... good job.

 

[eleos1954]

You're still saying nothing that contradicts me, and you're still making a good argument that we should avoid faith.

So... good job.

I'm not saying faith should be avoided .... just stating what faith is.

 

[Estrid]

no there is faith involved with evolution belief ... faith is believing something/someone to be true ... and some believe the evolution theories ... so it does take faith. We collect information and that information is then interpreted not to say the interpretations are true.

With all the intricacies involved with the universe and the earth .... it takes too much faith for me to believe in millions/billions of happen chances occurring over millions/billions of years ...

Evolution is the alternative for those who do not believe the biblical account of creation.

The fact is how we came into being is unknown ... however the only 2 plausible explanations are evolution or creation ... and both take faith to believe.

Faith isn't just a religious thing ... faith can be applied to many things.

faith

/fāTH/
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

So it can. But faith that the car will start,
that's its really beans in the can, that your
mother won't stab you, and that the
contract will be honored is confident
assurance on solid, vdrifiable evidence based and
rational.
It also allows for the possibility of error,
tho often like with sunrise or validity of
ToE, very small.

Faith as per in God is diametrically opposed.
As per Bible it's in things unevidenced, and the
more faith / the less evidence the greater the virtue.

It's pure equivocation fallacy to compare confidence in
some aspect in science with faith that one's personally chosen version of a god is True.

And that it's impossible to be in any sort of error.

Capital letter type "Faith" equals not faith that
the teapot won't leak.

 

[Yttrium]

I'm not saying faith should be avoided .... just stating what faith is.

Whaaat??? You keep bringing up faith like it's a bad thing, though. Are you telling me that you're not a skeptic after all?

 

[Estrid]

Whaaat??? You keep bringing up faith like it's a bad thing, though. Are you telling me that you're not a skeptic after all?

Perhaps your friend is trying to raise awareness
of the grim Vice of equivocation .