Interesting poll details so far, on quite a large sample.
Glad to see that over 49% of responses are sane.
Printable View
Interesting poll details so far, on quite a large sample.
Glad to see that over 49% of responses are sane.
Creation -- believe in creation. Every little thing's are created. That means us too.
No but the debate is whether you believe if God zapped humans directly on the planet from scratch, or if you believe in evolution. please specify (of course we were created, but from what?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Reccura
Several generations? That's it?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
A good answer, but come on - the idea that a plant is carnivorous goes against the general rule of plant life. I do not see the logic in a plant which lives in an environment so bereft of "food" in the soil that it somehow managed to morph into a meat eater rather than simply die (like most of the other plants around it that were certainly starving too)? Really? Your answer is at the same time reasonable and absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Well good grief, joe, don't let me waste your time. You're free to ignore any comment of mine that strikes you as absurd, illogical, or just plain ignorant, OK? Nobody makes you respond.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
I wonder the same thing, but in the spirit of Christian forgiveness and compassion, I and my believing brothers do the best we can to put up with them :DQuote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Why is that the funniest thing you've seen this year? It is an odd theory and the evidence of it is something I wish to analyze. Einstein analyzed Newton, but that detracts nothing from either. Einstein even proved Newton wrong in regards to the details of gravity. Speculation is inevitable, and just because I have a preconcieved notion in the issue does not mean that it is false. You have given no evidence to suggest that you are more knowledgable than I except that you side with a majority of biologists while I don't. That means nothing. New ideas inevitably replace old ones. The story of Genesis has been replaced, but what it has been replaced with (Darwinism) can still be subject to retrospect. I'm not even talking about religion, I intend to find the scientific evidence for evolution via natural selection and to find the truth and not be subjected to "The Peppered Moth Experiment" and the Archeopterix as proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Just attempting to clear up a few things from the last couple of pages:
Generations to take effect for adaptations/mutations:
Ok, I am going to attempt to not go too far into genetics to explain this, but there are some basics of genetic theory neccessary to be understood for this (the work of the monk Mendel in particular).
The short answer is the # of generations for the change to be noticeable basically depends on 3 things: How beneficial is the original mutation; How shallow is the gene pool; How complex is the organism.
Now the longer answer.......Most physical characteristics have a dominant and recessive characteristic, the characteristic I am going to use in this example is vestigial wings in fruit flies (idea is the same for all characteristics - with the exception of linkage, which if people are interested I will try to explain at a later date).
So a short intro to genetics (please bear with me I am not sure the level of knowledge of everyone regarding this subject so I will be starting from scratch) Genes are located on different chromosomes. Chromosomes are found as pairs inside the nuclei of cells. When an offspring is created it will get one chromosome from each parent for each chromosome pair.
All right back to our Drosphilia (fruit fly). The dominant characteristic is to have normal wings (designated to be N in the cross below) as opposed to vestigial wings (signified by n).
2 "strong" normal wing parents:
NN x NN Parents
NN NN NN NN Offspring
All offspring will be "strong" normal winged fruit flies
1 "strong" normal wing & 1 vestigial wing:
NN x nn Parents
Nn Nn Nn Nn Offspring
All offspring "weak" normal winged
1 "strong" normal wing & 1 "weak" normal wing:
NN x Nn Parents
NN Nn NN Nn Offspring
"strong" and "weak" normal offspring created in 1:1 ratio
2 "weak" normal winged:
Nn x Nn Parents
NN Nn Nn nn Offspring
Normal and vestigial winged offspring created in a 3:1 ratio
So as can be seen from the above once the mutation has found its way into the gene pool it will become visible in the 3rd generation, however the offspring bearing that charateristic will be in a definite minority. Then depending on the benefits/drawbacks of the mutation it will become more or less prevalent in the society
I had been going to attempt to explain some other things as well, but this post has taken longer than I thought so I'll adress them at a later date.
It's a mix between Creation and Evolution.
The whole thought of creation arises the possibility of a creator. I could easily believe that even if i don't follow any mainstream religion.
Exactly. No one doubts that simple changes can arise, but complex organs (such as the cellular cilia) cannot be explained without undertaking immense odds against such an occurance. Darwinism doesn't accept cellular Darwinism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakiryu
When refering to billions of years, 5% is an awful lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
But there should be at least as many poorly mutated creatures as pathways of well mutated creatures. Fossils show a direct pathway, without as many poor mutations as there should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
The Earth is said to be indefenedtly old, yet life is a recently new development.
If the Earth is so old, why did life wait so long?
What caused the first mutation? The first organism wasn't born out of nothing? And then, how can if an organism be first, if it had to be born? There will always be an ancestor. A being can mutate unless is there!
At least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Plants don't respect the 'general rules of plant life', they just survive or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
The plant likely had some quirk of root structure that allowed it to get the nutrients required out of the marshy soil it lives in. The carnivorous adaptations simply help it do so more efficiently. It isn't an all-or-nothing game, and small advantages can lead to large effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
I apologize for being short. I do, however, maintain that the comment was flat-out false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
You are the only person on this part of the thread who has mentioned either peppered moths or archaeopteryxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
Yeah, fortunately we're only talking about hundreds of millions, 0.153% is still not very much. Argon is a double-check, and there are a few others that I couldn't find the specific accuracies of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
Nope. Badly mutated creatures don't reproduce. Because they're dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
I'm curious as to what you think the 'direct pathway' indicates.
The earth is a little over 4.56 billion years old and life is probably somewhere between 3.9 and 4.1 billion. The difference is presumeably the time it took for conditions to become favorable (it's hard to have life with a molten crust, for example).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakiryu
Short answer: dunno. There are a few hypotheses floating about regarding how organic molecules could have arisen from inorganic compounds, but nothing is really settled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakiryu
Exactly! That is why there can't be evolution without creation!
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakiryu
I'm missing something.
Wrong again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
For heaven's sake will you please at least do some elementary mathematics and biology before you make these wild, incorrect assertions.
I really wish you would analyse it. You'd stop being a creationist for a kick-off. Given that you understand neither mathematics nor biology and appear to have no knowledge at all of physics, I find it mind-boggling that you think there's any way at all you could attack the established science of evolution! Not to mention being able to "dismiss it as an idle fancy"Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
The Vatican spent over a hundred years, using the finest minds in christianity trying to understand what evolution means to god and religion.
They now accept evolution, but you're going to see it dismissed as an idle fancy.
Ok.
See, again you're missing the point. Science is refined by further generations. The science of evolution is being refined all the time. It is not going to be reversed in its tracks and proved wrong in its entirety. To suggest that the earth was created 6010 years ago is to negate all science, not just evolution - you do understand that, don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
It would mean that all physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology and every physical discipline ever known is completely and utterly wrong. I think YECs forget that - you're not just fighting evolution, you're also fighting the physical laws which say that The Flood can not have happened. You're saying that all known biology is completely wrong. You can't have it both ways.
And you, personally, are going to negate the past 500 years of science one afternoon. Does any of this sound a little odd?
Correct. I'm saying your notion is incorrect, because as shown above, in the face of 500 years of science versus your assertion, I'll stick with established science, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
And physicists, mathematicians, members of the NAS, Medical doctors and evolution scientists, yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
The reason I won't give you evidence is precisely as I said - if you wanted to actually learn the truth, you'd try. You'd start by accepting that accepted science is almost always right, or very, very close to being right.
If I thought there was any chance that you'd accept actual scientific facts, I'd let you have them. Your discussion with others, where you are being shown some of these facts, doesn't encourage me that you have any intention of seeing anything which might contradict your notion.
Wrong again. New ideas hardly ever replace old ones. Things change over time as we learn more. What are combustion engines but an improved version of a lever, fulcrum and wheel combined with fire? What is your computer but a fancy abacus? The keyboard working on exactly the same principles as early printing presses. Again I reiterate, accepted science is often updated, but hardly ever proven to be incorrect. Even the "flat-earth" argument falls over. Given the primitive means of measurement, the earth was damn near flat and certainly flat enough to let people think it was flat all over. Once we realised it was round, we thought it was a sphere. That wasn't right either, but it was pretty close. We now know exactly what shape the earth is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
During the past 100 years, methods of identifying ages of substances found on this planet have become remakably accurate - well over 99% accuracy. That can sound like a lot when billions of years are considered, but it's minute. It may be improved to 99.9999999999% accuracy, but it will not be proven to be 100% wrong.
**SIGH**Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
You need to realise that Genesis is a "just-so" story - a story made up to fit unknown problems. This is why sensible churches have given Genesis the complete swerve and accept that it's purely allegorical.
It has been well and truly refuted as any kind of fact.
Darwinian evolution has come a long way from Darwin, just as computers have come a long way in the past 30 years. A 1977 computer to run a single payroll schedule took up more floor space than a double bed. Now, you could run ten on your desktop PC at the same time as talking on Skype and writing at a forum, connected to the internet. Technology improves.
Well, I do wish you the very best of luck, because as noted, if you genuinely seek answers, you'll find them alright. They won't do your beliefs any good, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
You also need to realise that the fossil record can never be complete. Only the minutest percentage of all animals which lived have been fossilised. Lack of a complete record speaks in favour of the evolutionary time-frame.
Read and enjoy.
Faith. For both sides, Christianity and evolution. That's how I believe the Flood happened and that Jesus died and rose again because of course, I wasn't there to see those events happen but God and other people did and God inspired them to write the books of the Bible. Evolutionists have to have strong hearty faith in order to believe evolution because evolutionists have no way of knowing that the Big Bang actually occured, say, or that a whale actually is an animal that was a sea-creature-turned-land-animal-turned-sea creature again simply because there was/are no people there to observe it.Quote:
What is it that allows seemingly sapient beings to come in and post the worst and most obvious lies possible, claiming them to be true?
Other than christianity, I mean.
Glad you rejoined the discussion. :wave:
i am not convinced one way or the other, but i do like solid evidence and good arguments. evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. its what happened once life started that evolution theorizes.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
sure, people werent around to observe the whale change from sea to land to sea. but fossil evidence is. fossil evidence is the equivalent of a telescope. although the stars arent really observed by people since a device is aiding them, ,so goes with fossils. people arent really observing the evolutionary changes, but we are using a device--fossils--to see these changes.
Finally. The reason why the arguments have been going on in this thread is because certain individuals still believe that adam and eve is historical fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
How come you cant belive in both? Thats what I would like to know. I belive in bothQuote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
really? Now this I want to read are there any books on religion and eveloution as in the compromise between the 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Can I say somthing now this is a pure aside and neither here or there just a logical argument point.... but if people like Darwin and whoever else lets say galilio only it wasnt him but never mind. If people like that hadnt said OI there is somthing distinctly fishy with this well established idea we all take for granted evloutionary theory would exsist heck America as we know it wouldnt exsist.Quote:
Correct. I'm saying your notion is incorrect, because as shown above, in the face of 500 years of science versus your assertion, I'll stick with established science, thanks.
:D
Incorrect: the reason arguments are still going on in this thread is that you have two suppositional foundations upon which two parties are hurling their "evidence" at each other; neither has definitive (or even thoroughly convincing) proof of their position; both foundations - because they are fundamentally unprovable and unobservable - require a certain degree of faith from its adherents in order to accept as true; both involve indoctrination. Whether or not Genesis is literal or metaphorical or allegorical does not change the fact both sides of this debate are entrenched into their presuppositional foundations upon which both are constructing their arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
sorry to bud in, but evolution and creationist do not have similar foundations. a similar foundation would be something like concrete vs brick. creationist have a foundation of straw. straw being the substance that books are made out of, figuratively speaking. evolutionist have the foundation of concrete, concrete being the substance that real life stuff is made out of, like fossils. fossils vs. books. in terms of real evidence, there isnt a question as to which is a better foundation. i agree that evolution needs faith, by faith i mean intellectual trust. creationism needs belief. by belief i mean wishing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Only if "facts" and observable reality (requiring human interpretation) are the full measures of reality (they're not). You also underestimate faith - but then again, Naturalists have no need of faith, so perhaps it's less a matter of underestimating and more of not understanding at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Why don't you do us all a favor: rather than tell us how ignorant you think we are, why don't you show us how knowledgable your comments imply you to be - because it really takes zero knowledge, ability or understanding to express how un-knowledgable you believe others to be. Walk the walk you appear to be talking and show us what you know that makes you so confident; telling us how lacking in knowledge we must be really accomplishes nothing of value. I see lots of dismissiveness pointed towards the assertions of other posters, but no "facts" or arguments to rebut them effectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Evolution will eventually be proven false (because Earth's Architect will show up and silence all argument on the matter :) ). To suggest that the roughly 1.7 million lifeforms on the earth developed out of a single cell is beyond any "fantasy" that the Bible may be accused of presenting and is easily as absurd as the Biblical literalist's insistence of a 6000 year-old earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Not quite - just the parts that tell us that life came from non-life, that matter came out of nothing, that random chance designed the mind-numbing complexity of all living creatures. Those parts are wrong - but the rest - the stuff about gravity and colds and how earthquakes happen? That stuff's all right (as far as I've heard).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
What "physical laws" say the flood could not have happened? Besides, if God is behind the flood (the Bible says He was) then so what? He created the physical laws; He can "bend" them when He wishes to accomplish His will (such things are called "miracles"). "All known" biology isn't wrong - just the parts that say life came from non-life and random chance took a single cell and morphed it into the hundreds upon thousands of forms of life now on the earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
No odder than people who claim as fact an unproven theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
500 years of science has not been directed towards the validation of evolution. The theory of evolution is not 500 years old. "Established science" is almost an oxymoron: it is "established" on many things at a fairly stable level; on others, its "establishment" is liable to be revised and "re-established."Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'm tired of this cop-out. Either you have evidence or you don't; either you have confidence in it or you don't. Quit bluffing and show your cards - because I'm starting to wonder.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Your final sentence is a key one, because it reveals the presuppositional base that you're arguing from; note that you understand that one must first accept your presupposition about science in order for the assertions of evolution to make sense and seem plausible. This could be restated from my side of the coin like this: If you wish for me to "prove" Creation to you, I'll be happy to do so; first we'll need you to accept that 1) God exists and 2) that the Bible is His revelation of Truth.
Side note: I loved the qualifiers: "almost always right or very, very close to being right." That's awesome :D
The same could be said about you in terms of considering Creationism or Intelligent Design; the truth is, you are as deeply indoctrinated as the Christians here are. Again - here you are retreating from the challenge; if you've got evidence, let's see it - quit bluffing. Finally, notice again that you have revealed your suppositional requirements for the argument: see things from inside my frame and I'll give you evidence. You're a smart person, because you know, just like I know, that facts can only be considered inside a frame that gives them meaning. Without Naturalism firmly in place as your frame, you know that your evidence has no power.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Clever but flawed logic. Notice how you "spun" the flat-earth problem by saying essentially "well, since it looked flat to them, it was flat, so science was right." The flat-earth believers were wrong because they based their "facts" on limited observation (they didn't have the entire picture, and were therefore speculating based on their physical observations to fill in the gaps - you know, like evolutionists are doing right now).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Yes: I know the feeling too - it generally strikes me whilst posting on this forum (right about now, I think).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I love it when people who know little if anything about the Bible tell believers what they need to do - that's pretty silly. Here: What you need to realize is that God wrote the book and it's for real. There: how effective was that? Are you "realizing" even now as you read? Why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
"Sensible" because they fit your world-view. Are they still sensible if they say Christ's resurrection was literal? Can a church be partially "sensible" and partially "deluded"?
Neat analogy, but not apt. Darwin's theory has become even less convincing and even adherents admit to some of the difficulties in the theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Here we go again: nobody "needs" to do anything you say. We only need present our points in a reasonable and coherent manner (the same as you). The incomplete fossil record is one of the key pieces of evidence that is frustrating evolution's "triumph." Without it to confirm the speculations of evolutionists, the hypothesis of evolution remains speculative. When you're dealing with something you claim to have happened historically, you need more than speculation - you need to have some sort of corroboration - and without the fossil record, you're down a big one.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
And you would be wrong in most of what you've said here. Both positions are inherently unprovable; both positions have "evidence" that is largely given force through matters of interpretation; both positions require a "leap of faith" in order to accept. Faith is at the bottom of both positions. Your analogy is interesting, but irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
Faith an "wishing" are not synonyms.
But the fossils don't prove slow, gradual evolution. They show masses of organisms appearing out of nowhere (again, see Cambrian Explosion). You keep calling on the fossils when you must have faith in halfway creatures to believe that the fossils prove evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
The Cambrian Explosion took about 100 million years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
The 'foolish fancy' may have been excessive on my part, but you are being excessive as well. You assume that I have no grasp of scientific topics (which is like calling me an idiot, which is rude). You also assume that I am a creationist. I am uncertain as to what you mean, but if you mean being a Christian, you will be suprised to find that a great many scientists are Christian, and if you mean that I believe Genesis verbatum then you are incorrect. I am questioning that, just like I am questioning evolution. Established science is always being changed, evolving as it were, but you seem to be angry that I should question evolution, like the anger the inquisition had over heresy.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
If the NAS does not dissuade me on a scientific issue, the Vatican certainly won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I didn't say the Earth was created 6010 years ago, nor did I say I was going to disprove evolution in one afternoon. I intend to find what is true, and so far have not heard very convincing things to the support of evolution. You have not given me any reason to believe what you believe, so why should I believe you. Also, Darwin wasn't alive 500 years ago, his theory is less than 200 years old.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Darwinism is more than just science, it is Earth's history, and history is constantly being refuted, and even if it wasn't, why should I just accept something because others say so? I haven't believed things just because someone I respect told me to since I was 1, so why start now? You have given no reason why I should not search, but you have insulted me without any basis. Also, your reason for denying me evidence is stupidQuote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
You still think that I am basing my claims on Genesis. I have given no reason for this. Technology improves, as do theories, but that doesn't mean that theories should be taken as fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Thank you, but the not doing my beliefs good is not necessarily true.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Lack of a complete record by no means speaks in favor of an evolutionary time-frame. Where do you get this idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I believe that something divine created the universe. I don't believe that the divine created man as we see it today with the snap of his fingers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
This thread can go on forever because creationists spin the whole issue. They make it seem as if evolution has nothing supporting it, when if fact their theory is absolute myth. They attack evolution, forgetting that their own theory can never be proven.
I'm not the biggest evolution buff on the forum, but I have read about fossil records (paleontology), geographic distribution of species, and the evidence from molecular biology (proteins and molecules).
here are some good links: http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution
Oh well we are half way to agreeing completly since I do sort of belive in evoloution I just belive the divine as you put it controls/created evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
But I do belive he could have and potentially did create man as we see him today if He wanted that way with the idea of snapping his fingers and thanks Ill look at that list.
I'm calling you a creationist because you believe in creation. Most christians I talk to are well aware that evolution has taken billions of years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
Disagree entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
If I thought there was any chance you'd read and understand it, I'd give you all the evidence you wish for. I don't believe that's going to happen and I'm not about to waste my valuable time finding out things which you're quite capable of finding yourself - if you had the desire to find them.
Oh boy. Nobody's asking you to take the theory as fact. If you check the facts, current evolution theory is the only possible option.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
You could certainly retain a belief in god, but you'd lose all of your beliefs about evolution. I do realise that this is precisely why you won't go and check the facts - if you do, you will find that much of what you've been saying is nothing more than lies. Once you find that one of your beliefs is a lie, you'll lose your faith and you are scared of that happening. Faith works so much better with closed eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
Very simply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
Fossils only form in very specific circumstances. Well in excess of 99% of all animals which have died did not die in those specific circumstances, so there will only ever be a tiny fraction of fossils to work with. Had the earth been created much later than the current estimate of ~4.5 bn yrs ago, then we would expect to find almost all of the bones of dead animals and we clearly haven't and aren't going to.
I gave you a very good link which also links to further information. I gave you other details to follow up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
As I just said to the other creationist, I'm not about to waste a couple of days sorting evidence into approriate forms for you to read and dismiss.
If you genuinely want to find facts, there are sufficient around for you to find them
*edit*
Ridiculous assertion, unbacked by any evidence at all. As to god coming to earth, we've been waiting ~2000 years so far and he hasn't been, despite every relevant piece in the bible suggesting it would be "very soon".Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
No matter, once you're dead, there'll be another generation of people ready to buy the myth.
Yet if you accept that earthquakes happen as a result of tectonic plate movement, then you cannot believe a global flood happened - the science only works one way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
And that's exactly why I won't debate with you or find evidence for you to ignore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
You know the truth, but when in doubt, revert to, "god can change physics as he wants".
Absurd stuff. You believe a "just-so" story from 4000 years ago, but you can't accept actual science from last week.
Another ridiculous assertion. The theory of evolution has been proven in as many ways as possible. As I said to you, it may well be refined, but it won't be proven wrong if you live to be a million.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I never suggested evolution was 500, I'm talking about science in general and as you're intending to refute all of it, it fits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Your statement is ridiculous. Every aspect of accepted evolution science has been checked, tested by peers and is accepted fact. Your assertion that it isn't is completely incorrect.
See above. Show me one area where you don't revert to "goddidit" when you strike a problem and I'll get you the evidence, no trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Absolute gibberish and 100% wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Again, completely wrong. I can accept that and still see creationism as absurd, as do most christians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Glad you see it as funny - being the exact opposite of the bible, which has been proven to be completely incorrect in many, many places.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I'm surprised you don't get sick of being completely wrong. I approached evolution with a completely open mind and arrive at agreement with current theory because it makes sense and has been worked on by some of the greatest minds on the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
It is christians who start with a pre-conceived notion, as you yourself have admitted. Please don't try to tar me with your brush - I rely on factual analysis. You rely on ridiculous assertion and tract-quoting.
See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Again you are so wrong it's laughable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
*edit*
As regards evidence - again, see above.
Facts are not subjective.
Be thankful this isn't a philosophy or logic paper, because you'd be heading into negative marks already. Go read what I wrote and talk about that rather than what you think I wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I'm glad you posted that, because I'd bet any amount of money you like that my biblical knowledge is far superior to your own. You won't get off like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Depends whether or not they try to dispute known facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Lemme give you a tip - science has moved a long way from Darwin. That's another problem with creationists - thinking that Darwin is some kind of atheist god. He wasn't, he was a very clever scientist, but his work is somewhat outdated. Given the state of his instrumentation, he was abloody genius to have got as far as he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
*edit*
Here, you're again emphasising your comlplete lack of knowledge about actual evolution science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Keep putting it that way, though, it's so much easier to assert than think.
And note my previous reply - the lack of fossil record is further proof of evolution being correct.
As to evolution's triumph over creationism, that battle has long since been won, which is why actual churches agree with it. The only dissenters are those few deluded people who listen to, and believe, charismatic preachers who stand and tell lies.
Yes, and I read through it. I saw nothing in there that definitively proved anything. I saw lots of descriptions and graphs that suggested a line of developement - but a line that made sense if one proceeded from the supposition that evolution is true; otherwise, there are other explanations for similarities between creatures. Just because two species share a feature (like elbows, for instance) does not necessarily mean they had a common ancestor; it may also imply that a designer equipped both the same because it was an efficient and flexible design.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Here were my favorite parts of the lengthy (and boring) page you sent me to:
It is supposed, then, that the chordates evolved from tunicates
it was presumed that they were the feeding parts of some animal which
It is hard to say why, exactly, the early agnathans had such heavy bony armour on their heads in the first place
It is considered to be transitional between poroforms and true osteolepiforms
it is almost certain from their anatomy
Some of the most significant differences between them, such as warm blood and suckling of young, are not, of course, preserved in the fossil record.
Then why bother replying at all? Didn't you already leave this discussion once before? Here (from post #1592):Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
If you've got nothing to add in terms of proof to back up these refutations you think you're doing, why bother re-entering the conversation?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I came here to hear the evolutionist position and challenge it. Since you seem to be standing on the "winning" side (judging by your rhetoric here), that puts you in the position of clarifying to all of us who remain confused as to why we ought to consider your position valid. You speak as if you know something, but then when pressed, you come up with nothing but brush-offs. That's not how debate works, my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
*edit*The "evidence" in question - like the conclusive "evidence" that establishes the truth of evolution - will be revealed someday soon. I'm not worried about that. I'm not worried about the Bible's "very soon" - any more than I'm sure you're troubled by the words I bold-faced in navy-blue from the evolution page you sent me to.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Yes - but thankfully there'll be other Christians here to help them see the light.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Sure I can - see? I just did. God isn't confined by science.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Then don't waste my time with these posts that do nothing but tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Give me some sort of real response rather than this repetitive dismissiveness.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
You're correct there: I do know the Truth. I just can't get you to see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Sure I can - it just depends on the absurdity of the claim that last week's science is making.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Nothing has been proven - lots of "evidence" has been amassed that has been interpreted to suggest results that fits the theory of evolution. From Dr. Lee Spetner (Ph.D, MIT):Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
"Random variations cannot lead to the large-scale evolution claimed by the neo-Darwinians...There is a lot of evidence for nonrandom [purposeful, therefore intelligent] variation."
From John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary (evolutionist scientists and authors of The Origins of Life:
"The first replicating molecules, whether nucleic acids or something simpler, could not have specified anything, and so could not be said to carry information. They are best thought of as replicating structures."
Overall, since you say evolution has been "proven in as many ways as possible," why don't you explain how these things have been proven to be true:
1) Life can come from non-life
2) Life can, by itself, bring about new forms of life
3) Eventually, animal life can develop into human life
As far as I know, evolutionists are still scrambling around trying to find enough evidence to make these outlandish claims seem true. Once their literature gets rid of the "could be" "maybe" "almost" "it is presumed" and all the other qualifiers that suggest that "were still making educated guesses" then maybe we'll have something worth considering.
Perhaps you ought read the posts addressed to you more carefully - I don't believe anybody here intends to prove all of science wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
At least that's what you say and would like us to believe. Tell me: how do you "check" an event that reportedly occurred billions of years ago? Because without verification of that event, all else is educated speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Well, what should I say if indeed, God did do it?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Offer some argument or evidence to back up this unsubstantiated claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
"Most Christians"? Really? And your statistics for this number come from where?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I've heard this one before. How does one "prove the Bible wrong"?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'd get sick of being proven wrong if it happened with regularity (luckily, it hasn't occurred in this conversation yet, aside from claims to the contrary). Your denial is stunning: you more than likely went to school somewhere, and that school more than likely gave you textbooks that spoke of evolution as a given fact (despite all its holes, inconsistencies and unproven claims); you - my friend - grew up just as indoctrinated as I - but you refuse to acknowledge that; I at least will admit to that fact. Your so-called "open mind" was already conditioned by years of a naturalistic foundation that you now stand upon and that decides what evidence you find compelling.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Some of the greatest minds on the planet have pronounced evolution wrong too - so what?
Sorry - Christians don't have a lock on philosophical presuppositions - atheists have them too; the most clear-sighted IMO will admit such. You and I both select facts, sources and evidence that fits into our already established position.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
The feeling is mutual, trust me.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Bravo for him - but again, don't all parents think their kids are the best? I know I feel the same about my kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Facts, no; interpretations of said facts, absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Well, I'm not sure what qualifies you as an expert on philosophy or logic - so I'll pass on the grade for now, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
"Knowing" (i.e. I've read it and know the factual contents) the Bible and understanding it (especially its spiritual ramifications) are two different things. Confusing the two is a serious mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
You originally brought up Darwin - not me. He was smart - he even predicted the flaws in his position that scientists are still trying to solve.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
And yet, somehow, we still manage to communicate.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
So you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
And how might that work?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
"Long since won" eh? Hyperbole will get you no where. Evolution has not definitively proven anything. It makes the amature arguer's mistake of assuming that mounds of evidence can overwhelm an opponent into thinking that so much "evidence" must mean a solid argument. No such thing - sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
The only real "liars" in this argument are high-school textbooks.
Reminder
Inflammatory comments will get you banned from the Forum temporarily / permanently.
Please discuss the subject matter, not each other.
I have to say that "The Atheist" concluded this debate in my eyes. As evolutionists provide factual evidence, creationists use the desperate "god did it" and the "god will prove you wrong".
The Atheist is open minded. He chooses not to believe in myths and he explores the mysteries of mankind using science. If only the rest of mankind would be more like him. Instead we have people concluding that a spirit is behind all the things we can't explain.
Debatable.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
(The "God will prove you wrong" response is only silly if it isn't true. We've yet to establish that it's not.)
Equally debatable.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
"Open minded" appears to mean in your post "I agree with him." Not the criteria I would say that correctly identifies an "open mind."
:lol: I'm not in this debate, but I thought those two sentences were funny. Complete contradictions. Before you jump on me, hyperborean, I believe in evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
Good call, Virgil. I wish I'd caught that irony and pointed it out! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I did word it wrong, and put the two phrases in the same sentence. He is open minded in the sense that most atheists have already reevaluated the myths brought upon them by society.
def of open-minded: "Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas"
Christianity would be the old idea...evolution being the new one. You on the other hand show no receptiveness at all when it comes to evolution.
I'm only teasing you, hyper. ;) Despite our diferences, you're OK in my book. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean