Logic: if apes connected to humans, humans can "reconnect" to humans - what is the good of that?

[returntosender]

In regard to the theory of evolution .... the major pillar of it is TIME.

Time according to Einstein and others is an illusion ... and it is. Without planet earth how is time calculated? Does it even exist? UNKNOWN

What did Albert Einstein say about time?

In the Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein determined that time is relative—in other words, the rate at which time passes depends on your frame of reference.

so ... remove planet earth and what is the frame of reference to measure time? UNKNOWN Who believes planet earth existed before anything else? No one.

Why should we calculate time (for the universe) according to what planet earth does? It is non-sensical. Yet we do.

A year is the time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun once

So, the theory of evolution is based on an illusion (time) ... is an illusion scientific? Is an illusion logical? No .... Evolution is based on an illusion from the get go ... so why even argue how life could have "evolved" over million/billions of earth years?

Time in regard to the universe is NOT a fact .... it's an illusion. It is UNKNOWN.

You belong here,lol

 

[returntosender]

Perhaps it is settled for you but not it is not for me.

It's settled for me somewhat because he has been floating back and forth for months and driving me nuts. If it's true we are at the end times he better be firmly standing soon.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem is there is scientific evidence for a 13+ billion year universe, a 4.5 billion year earth, plus evolution on earth for at ~4 billion years.

Only on paper.

 

[Gottservant]

This is not how evolution works.

That's what I am saying! There is a difference between how Evolution starts to work, and how Evolution finishes working. Just knowing you have evolved, does not tell you how evolved you are (relative to your own Evolution).

It's like someone running in a race, do they have a good position among the other runners or do they have a good finishing time, relative to their other times doing the same race?

Evolutionists are all too quick to say life has evolved, but say nothing about evaluating where the life that has evolved has arrived at?

 

[Gottservant]

Humans are connected to other humans in exactly this way. There is no need to "reconnect" in this sense... and if you want to use "reconnect" in a different meaning, the usage of "connect" in relationship to apes is meaningless.

An ape can have a partner, then another (partner) and go back to the original partner - that would be "reconnecting".

The thing you will have difficulty with is the idea, that this (reconnecting) can be done "spiritually".

Jesus said we need to be "born again" to enter Heaven; I would suggest we need to be "reconnected to Evolution" to enter joy with Heaven the more.

 

[Gottservant]

I don't understand. I don't get the connect or reconnect part.

Jesus said "be born again", I am saying "reconnect again".

Once mankind learns that "evolution" does not need to have a carnal origin, then we will truly make progress in the sciences.

At the moment, all we have is a tit for tat, that man had more to do with apes than is actually evidenced.

 

[Larniavc]

There is a difference between how Evolution starts to work, and how Evolution finishes working.

Not so. It is all the same process of change in allele frequency over time.

 

[Larniavc]

It's like someone running in a race, do they have a good position among the other runners or do they have a good finishing time, relative to their other times doing the same race?

That’s not like evolution at all. Evolution does not have an end point. As long as there is replication with error evolution will keep going.

 

[Freodin]

An ape can have a partner, then another (partner) and go back to the original partner - that would be "reconnecting".

The thing you will have difficulty with is the idea, that this (reconnecting) can be done "spiritually".

Jesus said we need to be "born again" to enter Heaven; I would suggest we need to be "reconnected to Evolution" to enter joy with Heaven the more.

This is what you wrote in your OP. I boldened the important part.

"if apes connected to humans (genealogically)..."

If you want to talk about genealogical connections... do so. All humans are genealogically connected to each other. There is no need to "reconnect", in either having different partners or "spiritual" whatevers.

If you want to talk about these... then there is no relevance for genealogical connections.

Chose one. Even you can do better than that.

 

[Frank Robert]

Only on paper.

Your response is at the root of the confusion due to a fundamental misunderstanding of science. As I commented many times: The scientific method is based on observed evidence and predictions from testable hypotheses, while religion is based on faith and belief. The real conflict is not between creationism vs science. It is between those denominations who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and the denominations that do not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your response is at the root of the confusion due to a fundamental misunderstanding of science. As I commented many times: The scientific method is based on observed evidence and predictions from testable hypotheses, while religion is based on faith and belief. The real conflict is not between creationism vs science. It is between those denominations who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and the denominations that do not.

I totally disagree.

I think one of the biggest ... if not THE biggest ... disconnects between today's science and the Bible is in the area of Earth's history.

Take trilobites as an example -- (or dinosaurs).

I believe trilobites and dinosaurs existed in Adam's time.

But today's science comes along and "accordions out" the timeline between Adam and the trilobites & dinosaurs to the point where they are incompatible with each other.

THEN, science goes on to demean anyone who doesn't agree with them, calling them "uneducated" and a host of other names, some of which are inappropriate to mention.

We may be uneducated in the area of what scientists are saying today about issues, but that's because we choose not to have to listen to their blasphemy and irreverent slandering of God and the Bible.

And don't even get me started on what science [silently] says about the Jews, or I'll get moderated.

 

[Frank Robert]

I totally disagree.

I think one of the biggest ... if not THE biggest ... disconnects between today's science and the Bible is in the area of Earth's history.

Take trilobites as an example -- (or dinosaurs).

I believe trilobites and dinosaurs existed in Adam's time.

But today's science comes along and "accordions out" the timeline between Adam and the trilobites & dinosaurs to the point where they are incompatible with each other.

THEN, science goes on to demean anyone who doesn't agree with them, calling them "uneducated" and a host of other names, some of which are inappropriate to mention.

We may be uneducated in the area of what scientists are saying today about issues, but that's because we choose not to have to listen to their blasphemy and irreverent slandering of God and the Bible.

And don't even get me started on what science [silently] says about the Jews, or I'll get moderated.

Again, creationists have a distorted view of the scientific method. You can believe anything you want to believe. If creationists want their beliefs to be taken seriously outside of the creationist's circle they will need to come up with testable hypotheses that can support their belief claims with evidence. Claiming "trilobites and dinosaurs existed in Adam's time" is not supported by any evidence. In ancient times people believed that lightening was caused by Zeus which we no longer believe because we have evidence that lightening is caused by positive and negative charges in the cloud.

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, creationists have a distorted view of the scientific method.

I stopped right here, Frank.

Is there some concrete objection you have against I saying that some science works only on paper?

If so, what is it?

Scientists weren't there on the scene when Adam was around, and therefore any ecosystem that existed at the time can only be preserved on paper.

What they plug into their computers usually doesn't come out in the Bible's favor.

GIGO

 

[Frank Robert]

I stopped right here, Frank.

Is there some concrete objection you have against I saying that some science works only on paper?

You can claim whatever you want to claim even if it is wrong.

If so, what is it?

Evidence and predictions from testable hypotheses.

Scientists weren't there on the scene when Adam was around, and therefore any ecosystem that existed at the time can only be preserved on paper.

Neither were scientists around in ancient times when Zeus was throwing lightening bolts.

What they plug into their computers usually doesn't come out in the Bible's favor.

GIGO

Which goes directly to what to what I have been saying in my comments. Actually, we are in agreement: Creationism is based on belief in a literal reading of the Bible. I don't consider belief to be the problem. What I see as the problem is the creationist's drive to teach a religious belief in public schools as an alternative to evolution. The place to teach a religious alternate to evolution science is in Sunday schools or in private religious schools.

 

[AV1611VET]

No comment?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I totally disagree.

I think one of the biggest ... if not THE biggest ... disconnects between today's science and the Bible is in the area of Earth's history.

Take trilobites as an example -- (or dinosaurs).

I believe trilobites and dinosaurs existed in Adam's time.

But today's science comes along and "accordions out" the timeline between Adam and the trilobites & dinosaurs to the point where they are incompatible with each other.

THEN, science goes on to demean anyone who doesn't agree with them, calling them "uneducated" and a host of other names, some of which are inappropriate to mention.

We may be uneducated in the area of what scientists are saying today about issues, but that's because we choose not to have to listen to their blasphemy and irreverent slandering of God and the Bible.

And don't even get me started on what science [silently] says about the Jews, or I'll get moderated.

Your continued treatment of 'science' as a monolithic belief system is noted, and noted as sad.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your continued treatment of 'science' as a monolithic belief system is noted, and noted as sad.

Well-worded on your part.

Nonetheless: SCIENTISM

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well-worded on your part.

Nonetheless: SCIENTISM

From your own link:

"Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality."

Bolding is mine.

Again: Your continued treatment of 'science' as a monolithic belief system is noted, and noted as sad.

 

[Gottservant]

In keeping with the OP: which is better, to mutate again or to innovate on mutation already mutated?

There is something quantifiably absent as to what a healthy level of mutation should be?

My contention is that design, facilitates the bare minimum level of mutation, because all mutations riff on a theme (in that case?).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In keeping with the OP: which is better, to mutate again or to innovate on mutation already mutated?

There is something quantifiably absent as to what a healthy level of mutation should be?

My contention is that design, facilitates the bare minimum level of mutation, because all mutations riff on a theme (in that case?).

Your contention is nonsensical and worthless.