A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

[tirdun]

However, all of the theories are that - theories. They have the same amount of science backing them.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, it is a muddled hypothesis (God fills in the gaps). It has no means of falsification, has no means of experiment, has no research, scientific study or support from any other science. It claims only a few mathematical formulas, debated ones at that, as part of the overall theory and has yet to produce one iota of useful data. Creationism cannot even claim to be a hypothesis. It has no method or testability. It claims it all happened in such a way that is beyond our understanding of the natural universe.

They're all equally supported by this information above.Wait - we all breathe air, too!!!! The final proof!!!!!

Actually, all living things don't all breath air/oxygen. In fact, at one time most living things didn't.

I've looked myself, and can't find that identical connection with primates, horses, whales, and bats (not to mention trees and insects and viruses that must have all formed from that original cell of life).

So this is the level of proof you want? The entire history of evolution, billions of evolutionary changes and adaptations spelled out to you in some kind of web link? I see how your victory works, demand the universe in a bottle then cheer when your opponent balks.

What exactly are you looking for? One fossil? It probably doesn't exist as the breaks between primates and other mammals was not the same for bats or whales. There is an excellent record of horse evolution back to a common ancestor to whales, and some excellent whale transitional fossils. Genetic connections fill in some of the gaps, but eventually it becomes impossible to undo the destruction of time. Want more? Take a college biology course.

By creationism's claim all those creatures evolved into existence from some early "kind" sometime after the flood then died. It demands a rate of evolution that is ridiculous, one which would still be seen rocketing along today. Intelligent Design either demands a God that twiddles with the gears every few thousand years or who destroys a species and replaces it with a similar, but not exactly the same species. This God sounds like my uncle working on his muscle car in the garage. A new carb here, a new exhaust there, never satisfied, never perfect.

no one has ever claimed to know this until you just now.

I've claimed nothing. I've provided some generalized information to answer the original question, expanded it to answer your basic question and asked what YOU wanted as proof. I then proposed what I considered overwhelming evidence and moved on.

Thank you for joining my side of the argument. Your "proof" is as strong as mine!

I'm sorry, you provided something in this thread approaching proof? I've seen nothing from you except repeated claims of victory and dismissal of science.

Yes, science is rarely sure of things because the universe doesn't seem to work that way. Being "unsure" is not, however, the same as "guessing". A scientific theory is a widely supported description of how a process works, see gravity and electromagnetism and thermodynamics for other examples. Under a theory there are mathematical laws, scientific proofs and mechanics to test and study.

 

[Toxick]

This thread wasn't started because anyone has a genuine interest in biology.

100% of the posts in the Religion forum, where a "question" is directed at a disperate group, are not started because of a genuine interest in anything.


Who cares?

 

[This_person]

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, it is a muddled hypothesis (God fills in the gaps). It has no means of falsification, has no means of experiment, has no research, scientific study or support from any other science. It claims only a few mathematical formulas, debated ones at that, as part of the overall theory and has yet to produce one iota of useful data. Creationism cannot even claim to be a hypothesis. It has no method or testability. It claims it all happened in such a way that is beyond our understanding of the natural universe.

That's much of what evolution claims, as well. It is impossible to test evolution as it relates to humans. There is no equation or any testable data as it relates to humans. If that's your definition of no hypothesis, then evolution is not even a hypothesis for humans, either. Humans are clearly a different animal than any other on the planet, so testing evolution with mosquitos is not the same in any way.

Actually, all living things don't all breath air/oxygen. In fact, at one time most living things didn't.

I was referring to your stunning proof that a problem with vitamin C compares us to other primates. I was answering your claim, not making one of my own. It was a joke.

So this is the level of proof you want? The entire history of evolution, billions of evolutionary changes and adaptations spelled out to you in some kind of web link? I see how your victory works, demand the universe in a bottle then cheer when your opponent balks.

I don't want proof. I don't need proof. My point (as repeatedly shown here) is to show you you have NO more proof for your faith in science than I do for my faith in God. You tell me about testable theories, and yet you cannot test evolution on humans. You cannot show a common ancestor for a human with any other species. You guess and ponder and pontificate, but you've got nothing more than I do - an earnest belief in something that has nothing but empiracle data.

What exactly are you looking for? One fossil? It probably doesn't exist as the breaks between primates and other mammals was not the same for bats or whales. There is an excellent record of horse evolution back to a common ancestor to whales, show me and some excellent whale transitional fossils. Genetic connections fill in some of the gaps, but eventually it becomes impossible to undo the destruction of time. Want more? Take a college biology course.

I've taken some. Guesses due to genetic similarities has as much scientific validity in filling in the gaps as God does.

By creationism's claim all those creatures evolved into existence from some early "kind" sometime after the flood then died. It demands a rate of evolution that is ridiculous, one which would still be seen rocketing along today. Intelligent Design either demands a God that twiddles with the gears every few thousand years or who destroys a species and replaces it with a similar, but not exactly the same species. This God sounds like my uncle working on his muscle car in the garage. A new carb here, a new exhaust there, never satisfied, never perfect.

And?

I've claimed nothing. I've provided some generalized information to answer the original question, expanded it to answer your basic question and asked what YOU wanted as proof. I then proposed what I considered overwhelming evidence and moved on.

You provided guesses, just as I did. Your evidence was as overwhelmingly FOR intelligent design as for evolution (which, by the way, are not necessarily different).

I'm sorry, you provided something in this thread approaching proof? I've seen nothing from you except repeated claims of victory and dismissal of science.

I've provided no proof. That was the point of the comment.

But, I do not dismiss science. I trust it will one day prove intelligent design (probably the creationism version of it) true one day.

Yes, science is rarely sure of things because the universe doesn't seem to work that way. Being "unsure" is not, however, the same as "guessing". A scientific theory is a widely supported description of how a process works, see gravity and electromagnetism and thermodynamics for other examples. Under a theory there are mathematical laws, scientific proofs and mechanics to test and study.

And, under creationism, there's a proof too. See procreation for one example. Saying it's not the same as guessing does not make that a true statement. Guessing is, at it's nature, providing an answer of which you are unsure. Providing proof of parts of the guess makes it a good guess, but a guess nonetheless.

Based upon my experiences, I'm guessing I'm right. I can prove creation by seeing that there is a world, heavens and stars and other creatures. So far, my guess is proven correct, but it's still a guess. One in which I have great faith. So much so that I'm offended when people call it just a guess. Sound familiar?

 

[tirdun]

It is impossible to test evolution as it relates to humans.

Really? I suspect you had milk sometime this week... unless you are of recent Asian or Native American descent. Evolution does interesting things sometimes.

Humans are clearly a different animal than any other on the planet, so testing evolution with mosquitos is not the same in any way.

While you dismiss my example of flawed Vitamin C synthesis, it is a perfect example of evolution. Humans and chimpanzees, creatures that we are "clearly different" from, both have the genetic data required to create vitamin C rather than being forced to eat it. Amazingly, we both have broken versions, identically broken versions in fact, which by your logic means that God intelligently designed all hominids to have the exact same broken bit of nonfunctional genetic material.

It was a joke.

It was sarcasm, and telling sarcasm at that. My reply that some creatures don't breathe oxygen was more support for evolution. Such creatures are far less prevalent today, a nice example of environmental pressure.

I don't want proof. I don't need proof.

No, I can see that. You've quite obviously made up your mind.

My point (as repeatedly shown here) is to show you you have NO more proof for your faith in science than I do for my faith in God.

Wait, are we debating the existence of God now? I thought this was about evolution and young earth creationism and Intelligent Design.

You tell me about testable theories, and yet you cannot test evolution on humans.

Of course you can. Changes in rates and types of sickle-cell anemia and malaria resistance are well documented in humans. Small population diseases like Tay-Sachs Syndrome can be traced and examined, the potential for eliminating the genetic keys lies in evolutionary biology.

You cannot show a common ancestor for a human with any other species.

What if we haven't found it yet? What if Africanus is the link? I suppose if we just say "oh well, God stepped in here, so why bother looking" we'll be better off?

Besides, why should I? Will you accept my word that it's a common link? What if the science supports it? Will you accept Hyracotherium as the ancestor of both horses and rhinos? Or Pakicetus, probably Whale - dolphin - hippo, although Ambulocetus is certainly the ancestor to all whales, dolphins and their kin. Perhaps Archaeopteryx rings a bell? You'd probably accept that dogs and wolves are kin, they are pretty much the same species in fact, but how far out does this go? Foxes? Jackals? They all came from Miacis, who also trace forward to weasels, badgers and bears.

You guess and ponder and pontificate, but you've got nothing more than I do - an earnest belief in something that has nothing but empiracle data.

Either you are claiming to have empirical evidence of God or Intelligent Design or you are claiming that thousands of scientists from all over the world for the last, oh, hundred years are making things up without doing any experiments or research. I'd love to see either.

Your evidence was as overwhelmingly FOR intelligent design as for evolution (which, by the way, are not necessarily different).

They are, by their very definitions, different. Intelligent design claims that there are areas in which evolution cannot and has not worked to change species and suggests that some "Designer" stepped in. This is not only not the same as evolution, it violates the very foundation of the scientific method.

I've provided no proof. That was the point of the comment.

I'll agree to the first, I've no idea what your point is.

I can prove creation by seeing that there is a world, heavens and stars and other creatures.

So far you've observed reality, proving that it exists.

So far, my guess is proven correct, but it's still a guess. One in which I have great faith.

Faith is belief without proof. You can have faith in anything you want, whether it is a God who tinkers and breaks things in his creation or that science is just "guessing". Guessing that electromagnetism would make the screen you're looking at right now work, or that transmitting data across copper wires would facilitate communication or that the bacteria in my son's ear would not respond to standard amoxicillin since it had evolved to resist it.

So much so that I'm offended when people call it just a guess. Sound familiar?

Not really, you've yet to offend me.

 

[This_person]

No there isnt any inconsistancy. I never said the Bible took ALL the beliefs from Religions that predate it, just that it was a conglomeration of different beliefs. (there is a difference).

I'll grant you that. You simultaneously discounted some beliefs with one breath, then attacked them with the next. You're right, I was wrong.

Because of how/when/where you were raised and exposed to, you believe in this particular belief.

No, actually it's despite that, not because of it.

if you were around pre-6000 years ago (which conflicts with your Bible since it wasnt around)

This has been said on here before - the Bible does not provide such a time table. A single guy (actually, several single guys with several different dates) calculated out a date of creation. In no sense does that mean that's a Christian belief. That is those people's beliefs, and the people who don't look at the math involved.

you would have been part of some other religion. Who would have also claimed their creation belief (similiar to yours or not) was just as valid.

Maybe, maybe not. That's just a guess on your part.

The problem with Creationism/ID is it doesnt account for beliefs that do have different Creation Stories, even though they do exist, and are just as valid a belief as yours.

Well, Intelligent Design DOES account for a number of different possibilities. Each religion/belief may have it's own particulars, but ID doesn't discount those possibilities.

The animated-by-lightening mud theory, ID, Creationism, etc., are all equally valid beliefs, I agree. None of them are testable.

 

[This_person]

Really? I suspect you had milk sometime this week... unless you are of recent Asian or Native American descent. Evolution does interesting things sometimes. While you dismiss my example of flawed Vitamin C synthesis, it is a perfect example of evolution. Humans and chimpanzees, creatures that we are "clearly different" from, both have the genetic data required to create vitamin C rather than being forced to eat it. Amazingly, we both have broken versions, identically broken versions in fact, which by your logic means that God intelligently designed all hominids to have the exact same broken bit of nonfunctional genetic material.

Not so perfect. It can be neither tested through replication (the true test), nor proven through anything but conjecture. If that's perfect proof, than I've got a truckload of perfect proof for you for Creation

My reply that some creatures don't breathe oxygen was more support for evolution. Such creatures are far less prevalent today, a nice example of environmental pressure.

Yep, things change. Is that evolution? Is that "sh!t happens"? Wait, same thing.....

Wait, are we debating the existence of God now? I thought this was about evolution and young earth creationism and Intelligent Design.

In the grand scheme of things, this debate is ID (my brand being creationism) and atheism. At no time will you read me discussing the young earth theory. Evolution and ID can go hand in hand. At it's core, this discussion is the origin of life - for which no one has an answer.

Changes in rates and types of sickle-cell anemia and malaria resistance are well documented in humans. Small population diseases like Tay-Sachs Syndrome can be traced and examined, the potential for eliminating the genetic keys lies in evolutionary biology.

The test would have to lie in getting a human from a non-human species. Minor changes in disease resistance seems very inconsequential to me. Evolution is one species becoming at least a whole different species. No one has been able to conclusively show a link for that with humans. Take a group of monkeys and evolve them into humans, and I'll buy the test.

What if we haven't found it yet? What if Africanus is the link? I suppose if we just say "oh well, God stepped in here, so why bother looking" we'll be better off?

No, I would probably accept it. And, then say, "what about before that?" But, again, then show me in the Bible where it says mankind looked like we look today. I've never read that! Whether a single species changes throughout time is really not something I disagree or argue with. Whether I share an ancestor with a toad - yes, I argue with that.

Either you are claiming to have empirical evidence of God or Intelligent Design or you are claiming that thousands of scientists from all over the world for the last, oh, hundred years are making things up without doing any experiments or research. I'd love to see either.

I'm claiming the 1% of all life that's ever been on earth being here today is empirical proof of God. I'm claiming that the scientists are not making anything up, I'm saying their tests don't test making humans from another species. And, all they've proven is that limiting the gene pool of a species will sufficiently cause enough significant mutations in that species to make it unviable with it's parent or sibling species. But, I've not read that they can replicate a species change for given environment effects. For example, take a group of a species, and divide it into four groups. Take group A and B and submit it to the same environment for a set number of generations, and groups C and D and do the same with different environments. Now, if evolution works as described, the groups A and B will have evolved similarly, and be a new off-shoot species with virtually identical characteristics - able to reproduce with one another, but not with groups C and D (who CAN reproduce with one another). If it does NOT work that way, then evolution is a farce, and the test only proves interbreding changes a species beyond recognition from the parent species.

Intelligent design claims that there are areas in which evolution cannot and has not worked to change species and suggests that some "Designer" stepped in. This is not only not the same as evolution, it violates the very foundation of the scientific method.

I didn't say they said the same things - I said that the evidence you provided was as true for ID as for evolution.

However, the mechanism of evolution could very well be in the design, thus making the two VERY compatible.

I'll agree to the first, I've no idea what your point is.

I said your "proof" was as good as mine. That was my point.

Faith is belief without proof. You can have faith in anything you want, whether it is a God who tinkers and breaks things in his creation or that science is just "guessing". Guessing that electromagnetism would make the screen you're looking at right now work, or that transmitting data across copper wires would facilitate communication or that the bacteria in my son's ear would not respond to standard amoxicillin since it had evolved to resist it.

Yes, guessing. We used to guess that the model for the atom was the plum-pudding model. Then, we have the Bohr model. Certainly, there could be no sub-atomic particles. Oh, wait.... Yes, guessing.

Not really, you've yet to offend me.

Annoyed? You're certainly not calm about it.

There's more than one possibility, and to preclude an idea that's been around for several millenia because humans can't own and classify it is not a rational way to think.

 

[This_person]

There is a reason it comes up on here. 2a and others (i believe Hessian) are Christians, who make the claim the Bible (and stories in it) are (roughly) 5000-6000 years old, since nothing existed before the verses in the Bible, the Earth couldnt have existed before that.

It may not be YOUR Christian belief, but it is definelty a Christian belief, made by Christians, using the Christian Bible to support this belief.

I'll agree with them that nothing we could comprehend existed before God created the heavens and the earth. If they believe that was roughly 6000 years ago, I personally think they really have no good Biblical standing for that. That's an assumption for sure. I don't think you'd find it a basic tenet of Christianity.

 

[Tonio]

And yours relies on what? Nothingness. Events having a “specific series of events” that preceded it, but it all occurred out of nothing.

I made no such claim about nothingness. Part of my point is that we don't know everything about how the universe and life originated - we don't know what all the preceding events were. Admitting we don't know is not only acceptable, it's also intellectually responsible.

But then you go on to say there is a possible intelligence. Can intelligence exist in a vacuum?

I'm saying that we cannot rule out the possibility of such an intelligence, however remote the possibility. But the burden of proof is on any claim that such an intelligence exists.

And how can you claim God has no scientific basis when you said yourself “our senses aren't capable of perceiving all the preceding events”? Doesn’t God fall within this “senses” problem?

I'm not sure of your point. I'm saying that the question of the existence of gods is a scientific question. It's not a question of faith or a question of theology. For example, we cannot perceive black holes directly with our senses, but we can perceive their effects.

 

[This_person]

Part of my point is that we don't know everything about how the universe and life originated - we don't know what all the preceding events were. Admitting we don't know is not only acceptable, it's also intellectually responsible.

This sets you apart from most arguing the scientific side of things!

Yes, the burden for any side of the argument is proof. None of us have it, or we wouldn't be having the discussion.

 

[Tonio]

By "random", I meant without reason. No intelligence causing it to happen. No meaning behind it.

The word also means "chance" and "causeless," which is the meaning I was using.

I don't see your point, honestly. I guess I see science and religion as very similar - in search of truth. Religion and philosophy searches for reason, for meaning. Thus, religion is a compliment to both philosophy and science. Religions attempt to answer by whom, and why. Science attempts to answer the specific detail of how.

There are two types of "truth" - objective facts about the physical universe, and subjective concepts about the "mental universe" of human experience. Meaning is something that we create ourselves through the experience of living. There is no evidence for meaning that exists outside the human mind. Similarly, there is no evidence for reasons for natural events. Any claims about "by whom and why" are claims about the physical universe, and thus amount to religion intruding on the realm of science. Religion shouldn't make any claims about the physical universe at all. Instead, religion should focus exclusively on the "mental universe."

But, evolution doesn't attempt to answer the origin of the life. Why we're as tall as we are, or why we're bipeds is a science question for determining the details of HOW. Where life comes from isn't addressed by evolution.

True - it's really a topic for abogenesis. My point is that creationism mistakenly labels that as a flaw in evolution, and that the origin of life is a scientific question.

Actually, it's attempting to explain the source of "natural" phenomena.

Again, faith and belief have no place in explaining anything about natural phenomena.

 

[Tonio]

Yes, the burden for any side of the argument is proof. None of us have it, or we wouldn't be having the discussion.

We must not confuse possibility with probability. When dealing with an unexplained event, we cannot treat claims about supernatural causes as having the same probability as the possibility of some natural cause. The burden of proof is on the supernatural cause, partly because such claims insist on rejecting the possibility of some natural cause that hasn't yet been detected. Whereas the burden of proof doesn't reject supernaturalism, it simply requires evidence for it other than faith or belief. Creationism mistakenly claims that gaps in scientific knowledge amount to automatic proof for its position.

 

[This_person]

The word also means "chance" and "causeless," which is the meaning I was using.

And, unless there's a hand guiding something with a reason, a meaning, a purpose - that's what the act would be - random, by chance, without a guiding cause.

There are two types of "truth" - objective facts about the physical universe, and subjective concepts about the "mental universe" of human experience. Meaning is something that we create ourselves through the experience of living. There is no evidence for meaning that exists outside the human mind. Similarly, there is no evidence for reasons for natural events. Any claims about "by whom and why" are claims about the physical universe, and thus amount to religion intruding on the realm of science. Religion shouldn't make any claims about the physical universe at all. Instead, religion should focus exclusively on the "mental universe."

Why? If the cause is a supreme being - the who and why (alpha and omega, as it were) - then why shouldn't religion report and record that?

I do not need to be a scientist to see the difference between a gun going off because it's trigger was pulled by a person aiming it at someone, and a gun going off because it fell just exactly wrong and the trigger was moved by what the gun hit. The bullet will leave the barrel at the same velocity either way. The cause of the explosion that provides the motive force will be the exact same. However, if the bullet from both instances hits someone, the result is very different - has a different meaning. I need to be a scientist to explain why the bullet flies as it does, how the trigger causes the explosion, what the impact actually does to the human flesh, etc. But, I don't have to be a scientist to understand the meaning behind the two actions are very different.

This is my view of science and religion. My religion has every ability to speak to the meaning of things, and what that caused. If scientist want to research the mechanism through which the Creator did His work, please feel free. I'm interested in that Truth as well.

True - it's really a topic for abiogenesis. My point is that creationism mistakenly labels that as a flaw in evolution, and that the origin of life is a scientific question.

Not flaw, per se. Omission. There is no scientific explaination that has any shred of credibility. Or, testability.

Again, faith and belief have no place in explaining anything about natural phenomena.

Then science should stay out of it until they have credible proof. Wait, you can't even attempt to prove it unless you have a belief as to how it could be, with still no proof. Thus, evolution is just a belief that people have faith in - like a religion without a supreme being. Are you saying science shouldn't be involved? (Yes, I know you're not saying that. I'm trying to make the point that EVERY unproven theory is just a belief, a faith in something that hasn't been proven yet)

 

[This_person]

We must not confuse possibility with probability. When dealing with an unexplained event, we cannot treat claims about supernatural causes as having the same probability as the possibility of some natural cause. The burden of proof is on the supernatural cause, partly because such claims insist on rejecting the possibility of some natural cause that hasn't yet been detected. Whereas the burden of proof doesn't reject supernaturalism, it simply requires evidence for it other than faith or belief. Creationism mistakenly claims that gaps in scientific knowledge amount to automatic proof for its position.

My point is that there are gaps in scientific AND religious knowledge. Neither side is any more credible with these gaps.

When it comes to life from lifelessness, EVERY action would be a supernatural action. There is no higher nor lower probablity of serendipitous lightening and chemicals than to a supreme designer's hand.

 

[Tonio]

And, unless there's a hand guiding something with a reason, a meaning, a purpose - that's what the act would be - random, by chance, without a guiding cause.

A cause need not be a "guiding hand." Your example of the gun falling exactly wrong is what what I mean by "cause." True randomness would involve no causes at all, with no predictability or pattern for any natural events.

Why? If the cause is a supreme being - the who and why (alpha and omega, as it were) - then why shouldn't religion report and record that?

To be specific, we're not talking about religion in general, we're talking only about religions that make claims about supreme beings. Such religions must show that these claims are more than simply ideas in someone's head.

My religion has every ability to speak to the meaning of things, and what that caused.

Why does there have to be a meaning?

(I'm trying to make the point that EVERY unproven theory is just a belief, a faith in something that hasn't been proven yet)

Beliefs are independent of evidence, while scientific theories are attempts to explain evidence. If new evidence contradicted a theory, then science comes up with a new theory that better fits all the evidence. But if new evidence contradicts a belief, then the belief pretends that the evidence doesn't exist.

 

[Tonio]

When it comes to life from lifelessness, EVERY action would be a supernatural action.

What basis is there for that assumption? It rejects the possibility that some natural process was involved that we currently don't understand. And if we never truly know how life arose, so what?

 

[This_person]

A cause need not be a "guiding hand." Your example of the gun falling exactly wrong is what what I mean by "cause." True randomness would involve no causes at all, with no predictability or pattern for any natural events.

We seem caught up in quite a semantics issue here. By my understanding of the words, there can be a cause, but it's still random (which molecule is where in a pressurized gas chamber, for example. There's a reason that each molecule is where it is - it's being held there by the others. However, there's no order to it, it's purely random WHICH molecule is where)

To be specific, we're not talking about religion in general, we're talking only about religions that make claims about supreme beings. Such religions must show that these claims are more than simply ideas in someone's head.

As is true of any scientific theory.

Why does there have to be a meaning?

There doesn't. I just believe there is. As have trillions of people for millenia.

Beliefs are independent of evidence, while scientific theories are attempts to explain evidence. If new evidence contradicted a theory, then science comes up with a new theory that better fits all the evidence. But if new evidence contradicts a belief, then the belief pretends that the evidence doesn't exist.

That may be a fair generality, but my beliefs do not deny any evidence. Show me evidence, and I believe it can fit into my belief. Any that can't, I'll change my belief based upon the evidence.

 

[This_person]

What basis is there for that assumption? It rejects the possibility that some natural process was involved that we currently don't understand. And if we never truly know how life arose, so what?

I'm just saying that it is beyond any natural event we've been able to witness, classify, replicate, test, hypothesize about intelligently, etc., etc.

If we never KNOW, so what? I believe I'll know for sure in about 35 years (give or take). If I never do, then I never do.

My only point in this discussion is to merely help people realize that science and religion are NOT necessarily at odds. Science can find the how, religion can answer by whom and why, and all fit together nicely. Religion is not some ignorant fairy tale myth that has no business in the discussion, subordinate to science. I do not try to make scientists believe my (or anyone else's) religion. I do not accept being force fed hypothesis as fact. We all have equal voices, each a different piece of the pie, with the same goal of truth.

 

[Dodgem250]

Ok I need some help with this.
We get the first animal that evolved that has the capability of reproduction. What did it reproduce with?

LMAO!

See... it don't matter. When you are writing a "story book", you can create whatever characters and creatures you want from whatever your imagination dreams up. This is just another perfect example of the "egg/chicken" thing, mentioned in the previous post about "How many men did God create"? Thus giving us the most perfect answer found in those replies stating "How many men created God"

My question is, What reason did people start honoring God to the highest of regards? What did he do?

 

[Marie]

LMAO!

What did he do?

What did he do? He satisified the law, he paid our sin debt by dying on the cross to pay for our sins. He humbled himself taking on the body of a man, he was punished on the cross which was reserved for the lowest of the low the worst criminals the scum. He did that for his enemies, for those that hate him, the proud and the foolish people lost in their sin and loving it! He died for you and me so we can spend eterininty with him, if we repent of our sins and turn from them and trust that he paid that debt on the cross.
Have you broken any of the ten commandments? Ive broken every one of them.
If you break one one time that as bad as breaking all of them.
God is a just God if he were to judge you by the 10 commandments on judgement day would you be innocent or guilty?
A hint unless your name is Jesus Christ you would be guilty like all the rest of us.
So hes a just God, and you broke the law, would you go to heaven or hell?
Hell because he just he cant just let you go no judge in a court would do that not if he's just! And God hates sin he took great joy in pouring out his full wrath on his only son on the cross to pay that fine.
<DIR>Isa 53:10 And Jehovah hath delighted to bruise him, He hath made him sick, If his soul doth make an offering for guilt, He seeth seed--he prolongeth days, And the pleasure of Jehovah in his hand doth prosper.

<DIR>Isa 53:10 Yet hath it pleased the Lord to smite hym with infirmitie, that when he had made his soule an offeryng for sinne, he might see long lastyng seede: and this deuice of the Lorde shall prosper in his hande.

This was his son of whom he loved and was well pleased.

What did he do? The most gracefull thing possible by paying that sin debt so you wouldnt have to. Thats what he did he loved you enough to do that for you.
</DIR></DIR>

 

[Tonio]

We seem caught up in quite a semantics issue here.

That may be partially true.

There doesn't. I just believe there is. As have trillions of people for millenia.

On what basis do you and others believe there is meaning?

That may be a fair generality, but my beliefs do not deny any evidence. Show me evidence, and I believe it can fit into my belief. Any that can't, I'll change my belief based upon the evidence.

Propositions must always fit the evidence. Even an attempt to fit evidence into a belief is problematic. I use "belief" to mean any proposition held independent of evidence, even if the proposition matches the evidence.