Originally posted by RJHindsHe was lying š
To Twhitehead:
I think I remember somebody warning me
about you. He said everything I said would
be a lie to you. It looks like he was right.
Goodbye.
RJHinds
Seriously now. I have not called you a liar. I have pointed out that early on in this thread you passed on untruths in order to discredit evolution (you have admitted doing this). I realize now that you simply did not know enough about evolution to realize what you were doing and I am simply cautioning you against passing on information about a subject you know practically nothing about.
I also take offence when you prejudge me based on what others have said, or prejudge the Theory of Evolution by calling it the work of Satan. Neither is justified.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsObviously the egg. And you should agree with this as you at least admit that all birds may have evolved from a common ancestor, so the chickens ancestors layed eggs but were not chickens. The chicken is a domesticated bird and came about through selective breeding.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
[edit] To be more accurate there are a number of different species that get called 'chickens'.
Originally posted by josephwIt seems to me you have not understand towards what exactly our Taoman said he is open to, so I will give it one more tryšµ
Jesus
Emptiness can be known by a thought: if a present thought is absent, nothing at all can be known; if your thought “Jesus” is not present, Jesus cannot be known. In analogy, all knowledge is just a by-product of thought awareness. Therefore, when your thought “Jesus” is present, its obvious emptiness is existent.
However, from the very beginning, the Natural State (to which our Taoman said he is open to) stands beyond thought and thus it cannot be grasped by the mind -this is exactly what I shared with our Taoman. You see, whenever you try to grasp or apprehend “Jesus”, you conduct nothing but mental activity, and so you find yourself in the realm of the mind, and not in the Natural State. But thoughts always cut up and split apart objects, otherwise you are unable to grasp them -you can merely assimilate reality in pieces. Therefore “Jesus” can be understood solely intellectually, for it can solely be reached by thoughts. Unfortunately, you cannot proceed by means of thoughts because all thoughts, “Jesus” included, are always partial and one-sided -and, as such, they never encompass the Whole (from which our Taoman does not want to be separated, that is)
šµ
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not suggesting that RJHinds will stoop to such levels, but sometimes people say, "it was a joke" as a form of backtracking. They originally didn't mean it as a joke but having been pointed out their error they change it to a joke in a poor attempt to save their dignity. Often it is easy to identify when they have done this, because the "joke" isn't funny.
I am sorry, but since it wasn't clear that it was a joke, it made you look silly instead. Now that we know it was a joke, can you explain why it is silly to believe that one kind of animal somehow turns into another kind of animal? So far the only reasoning you have given is 'because God made it that way', which to an atheist like me, sounds silly.
We ca ou have any counter evidence or do you see any flaw in any of the logic used in the theory?
Sometimes it is phrased as "of course it was a joke!" to undermine the person questioning it, implying that they are too stupid to figure they meant it as a joke.
EDIT: Having said that, I can't understand why RJHinds would attempt to argue against evolution by using such a joke (if it was intended as a joke in the first place). I agree that it just makes him look silly and weakens his argument.
Originally posted by RJHindsA genome is the DNA code for a particular organism. It's the 'instructions' for making that organism, in our case a dog. All living organisms DNA are different, different 'instructions' for making different organisms.
To Proper Knob:
I am not a biologist, but from what little I know
that seems true. so go ahead.
RJHinds
So if we take our hypothethical dog, which for this scenario is male, he impregnates a female dog. Now his offspring are going to have 50% of his DNA and 50% of the DNA from the dog he impregnated.
Make sense so far?
To twhitehead:
Satan tries to complicate matters sowing doubt
into the mind of believers, like the example with
Eve. I see the theory of evolution as an attempt
to complicate matters in an attempt to sow doubt
that God created anything and doubt that there is
a God. Satan cleverly mixes truth with a lie to
convince Eve that God is lying to her. That is the
same thing he is doing with this theory of evolution.
I know you can't see it and you don't want to see it.
Although, Satan is the father of lies, he likes to call
those that tell the truth liars.
I never admitted that all birds came from a common
ancestor. I guess you can't see that you are doing the
same thing Satan would do. And Satan would try to
complicate matter so he could say the egg came before
the chicken. He is good at turning the truth into a lie.
RJHinds
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds“.... How does nature create anything? ...”
To Andrew Hamilton:
Nature? How does nature create anything?
Without a creation there is no nature.
Explain what kind of nature you are talking
about please.
RJHinds
here are some examples: Star formation, Evolution creating complex life forms, Snowflake formation.
I could go into the details of the physics of each but, I think you get the point.
Would you agree that nature creates snowflakes?
“...Without a creation there is no nature. ...”
nature itself was never “created”.
For something to be correctly said to have been “created”, one minimal requirement is that there first has to be a point in time when it didn't exist and then there has to be a point in time (after that first point in time) when it did exist -do you agree with that?
There was no point in time when there existed nothing (regardless of whether or not time began at the Big Bang) and there was no point in time when nature was “created” (else that would imply there was a point in time before that when there was no nature) .
“...Explain what kind of nature you are talking
about please. ...”
all that exists physically and which is not man-made and also excluding any so-called “supernatural” thing.
Originally posted by RJHindsI know you weren’t talking to me but:
To Proper Knob:
So the genome and the DNA code is the same.
And that is the computer program code that
God gave the organism to reproduce itself.
But why can't it be 60% - 40% or some other
percentage equal to 100%?
RJHinds
“...And that is the computer program code that
God gave the organism to reproduce itself. ..”
actually nature did.
“...But why can't it be 60% - 40% or some other
percentage equal to 100%? ...”
because egg and sperm cells (gametes) only contain half of the required genome each and, only when sperm and egg cells fuse to form a zygote, does the resulting cell (zygote) have the complete genome required to grow into the organism. So half the genes comes from the egg and half from the sperm (which, of course, is the same as saying 50% from each).
Originally posted by RJHindsThe genome is the name given to the entirety of the organisms hereditary information, namely it's DNA, genes and chromosones. DNA itself is just the code.
To Proper Knob:
So the genome and the DNA code is the same.
And that is the computer program code that
God gave the organism to reproduce itself.
But why can't it be 60% - 40% or some other
percentage equal to 100%?
RJHinds
It has to be 50-50. We, human beings, have 23 pairs of chromosones. During fertilisation, the sperm reaches the egg and it's 23 chromosones match up with the 23 chromosones in the egg.
Dogs have 39 pairs of chromosones. So during fertilisation for a dog the 39 chromosones in the sperm match up with the 39 chromosones in the egg. 50-50 again.
The point i'm making is that when an organism, in our case a dog, reproduces there is a sharing of information when the sperm meets the egg. The 'instructions' from the male combine with the 'instructions' from the female.
Make sense?
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd why do you believe that? Is it because someone you respect told you that, or did you come up with that theory yourself? Have you asked yourself if it actually makes any sense?
I see the theory of evolution as an attempt
to complicate matters in an attempt to sow doubt
that God created anything and doubt that there is
a God.
Why do you pick out the Theory of Evolution in particular? Do you have the same belief about The Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Gravity and all those other science theories that do not require God in the equations?
Although, Satan is the father of lies, he likes to call
those that tell the truth liars.
Yes I know you think I am Satan. But I am just an ordinary person who thinks you are paranoid.
I never admitted that all birds came from a common ancestor.
My apologies then. Except I didn't say that you had made that admission. I thought though that you said that birds were a single kind and that a given animal could evolve within its kind but never cross the 'kind' barrier. I assume therefore that it is theoretically possible that any given bird could be related to any other given bird unless you know of a reason to think otherwise that you have not yet stated.
I guess you can't see that you are doing the same thing Satan would do.
You know we could both go around throwing charges of doing the same thing Satan would do. You yourself have already posted proven falsehoods in this thread that you admit were falsehoods. Satan would do that. Satan would also claim innocence when caught as you did. But I do not accuse you of being Satan do I? Instead I accept that you were ignorant at the time that it was a falsehood and were in error. It to may be in error, but I am not lying, nor am I Satan.
And Satan would try to complicate matter so he could say the egg came before
the chicken. He is good at turning the truth into a lie.
Why would Satan care which came first?
To Andrew Hamilton:
You defined the kind of nature you were talking
about as all that exists physically and which is
not man-made and also excluding any so-called
“supernatural” thing. Well, that would be the
creations of God. Like I said without the creations
of God there is no "nature". The supernatural
thing that was excluded is "God".
RJHinds
To twhitehead:
Yes, somebody gave me the idea; but it
still makes sense to me.
The theory of evolution in particular, in its
concept, presents the ideas in a way that
implies that God had nothing to due with
creation. Like I said, it is truth mixed with a
lie.
No, I don't think you are Satan. I know you
are just another person like me. But Satan is
also the great deceiver. See how easily he
twisted God's words to deceive Eve. I don't
how he does it; but there is another good
example of how he tried to deceive Jesus the
christ in the Holy Bible. You should read it.
The Holy Bible does not say he created a particular
Bird species. It only says that he created birds
(plural) which could mean, and probably does,
that he created a number of bird species. But
even if there is cross-breeding among those birds
they still must remain in the bird kind by God's Law.
As the Holy Bible points out we have all sinned and
come short of the glory of God.
Satan's interest is to deceive us and turn us
against God. You must be on the alert.
I recommend you read and study th Holy Bible.
You will need help to make sure you understand it
correctly.
RJHinds
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWell it seems to me like the person that gave you the idea is the one who tried to give you truth mixed with a lie. The Theory of Evolution says nothing about creation - at least not the creation you are talking about - so that is a lie. It is true that the Theory of Evolution says nothing about God having anything to do with it, but the same applies equally to every other theory in science.
Yes, somebody gave me the idea; but it
still makes sense to me.
The theory of evolution in particular, in its
concept, presents the ideas in a way that
implies that God had nothing to due with
creation. Like I said, it is truth mixed with a
lie.
If God is the cause of gravity, then so be it. Science only tells us what to expect from gravity and that it is consistent in its actions. If God is the cause of evolution then so be it. Science only tells us what to expect from evolution and that it is consistent in its actions. Neither theory denies the existence of God.
No, I don't think you are Satan. I know you
are just another person like me. But Satan is
also the great deceiver. See how easily he
twisted God's words to deceive Eve. I don't
how he does it; but there is another good
example of how he tried to deceive Jesus the
christ in the Holy Bible. You should read it.
But you seem to be convinced that Satan talks through me but not through you. Why are you not equally skeptical about your own words, or those coming from whoever told you untruths about evolution? If we go through life seeing Satan in everything then we will become paranoid. If we go through life only seeing Satan where we choose to see him then we will be deceiving ourselves. Satan doesn't need to do anything, people lie to each other and to themselves without his assistance.
The Holy Bible does not say he created a particular
Bird species. It only says that he created birds
(plural) which could mean, and probably does,
that he created a number of bird species.
I am fine with that.
But even if there is cross-breeding among those birds
they still must remain in the bird kind by God's Law.
Where did he put down that law? Does the Bible actually state that two kinds can never cross bread?
What about swapping genes? Plants swap genes between vastly different species all the time. Scientists have managed to insert genes into animals from other animals or even from insects or plants I believe. Does this violate the law or is it only normal breeding that is banned?
Satan's interest is to deceive us and turn us
against God. You must be on the alert.
I recommend you read and study th Holy Bible.
You will need help to make sure you understand it
correctly.
Thank you for your recommendation, but I am not a Christian and am not particularly interested in understanding it correctly. At the same time I try not to make false claims regarding it due to my lack of understanding.
In our discussion of evolution I am not trying to turn you against God, I am merely trying to help clear up some obvious misunderstanding you have regarding evolution, what it is and how it works. It is something that happens all the time, is proven by science, and can be understood by anyone willing to learn about it. It does not require you to become atheist, it does not require you to turn against God, but the full theory, like much of the rest of science, does imply that a literal interpretation of genesis is not compatible with observation. But I must emphasize here that the Theory of evolution really has almost nothing to do with this. It is really geology, astronomy and other fields which result in this conclusion. The Theory of Evolution explains the data, it does not present it. The data (fossil evidence, ancient rocks, astronomical observations etc) are obtained from other fields of study.