Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No crap, no one was arguing that there are not different species of bacteria.
When creos say stupid things like a species of bacteria changing into another species is not an example or evidence of evolution because it has not changed into another 'kind' because it is still a bacteria that is ignorant of how the classification system works. It will always be a bacteria no matter how much change happens just like you will always be a primate and a Eukaryote.
This is what I explained my then wife who was a 'Born again Christian'. There is no reason for Christian beliefs to clash with science. Science deals with the physical world and Christianity with the spiritual. She sort of actually accepted it after a while.
Katz, old-earth creationists don't find it objectionable. I myself am an old earth creationist. It's the young earth creationists who because they believe that the heavens and the earth were literally created in a six day period resist any scientific evidence of an old Earth and and an even older Universe.
That's how I would describe myself, Mike. I cannot personally conceive of a universe as complex as ours or the enormous variety of lifeforms -- and man, in particular -- that were not the work of a Creator. But when people think it somehow compromises their faith in God to believe in a young earth that was created in six days, I have to wonder at why they're so hard-headed. It's like they refuse to think. The sciences were always my hardest subjects in school. There was so much I just couldn't grasp. Now that I'm an adult (and have been for a very, very, very long time), I look at scientists with a lot of admiration. I definitely don't see them as "the enemy."
It is post like this that assure me you don't have a clue as to what constitutes scientific evidence. NO ONE has explained HOW it is possible. As usual they only say it happened. Until someone explains HOW this discussion is as waste of time.
Have a + day.
I'm having a great day.
As usual, you miss the point. That it demonstrably happened is the ONLY thing you need to know. Evidence that it happened over a long period of time (we can debate geological dating if you want, but you have lost this one before old son, even if you don't recall it), and that is enough to debunk the Genesis -based creation -claims. How it happens ..well there are plausible mechanisms, backed up by some research, but dickering about that doesn't dent the Fact that evolution happens, it happens Macro and it happens deep time. That is verifiable proof and sinks you.
P.s look old son, one last attempt to penetrate that ivory carapace - you don't care How God did it - it only matters to you You believe that it happened. Two rival claims, but the evidence supports our Happening. HOw is of course important, but not what is needed as proof. It is merely your excuse for rejecting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Thanks for confirming what i said about you earlier---you are not here to discuss, only to criticize.
Why don't you stop whining and offer some evidence for what you say.
I couldn't have put it better myself. You have merely carped at and criticized evolution theory, and without any understanding of it, from what we have sen, and you haven't produced a scrap of scientific evidence of your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
I broke my rule and watched that video. I was not disasppointed. He did not present one piece of evidence to support evolution. I am sure all the fundy evos in the forum gobbled it up like candy.
That is simply amazing. You must have your mind totally closed or, as some have suggested, are simply Trolling. You can only deny this as prof of evolution by making "Proof" some impossible requirement that nobody could meet, not even God himself showed you it happening in super -speed time.
p. s just tell us -why the evidence of the Cetan sequence s not adequate proof of "macro" evolution? That every intermediate stage is not to hand is irrelevant. In archaeology, parts of a wall can be missing, but you still know it is the same wall.
How is as I said, irrelevant. That it did happen is what is relevant. That is what the evidence shows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
There are Christian scientist far more intelligent and much better educated in science than you are who reject evolution because it is not based on science.
If there are (and the evidence seems to be that the majority of Creationists are not even qualified in science, but just claim they are) and they are qualified in a field of science relevant to evolution, the handful that remain are known, when talking Creationism, to simply ignore the science they know and talk Creationist non -science.
Give us a few names of these Scientists you talk of and let's have a look at them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Now is the time. You go back to that paste and cut and paste th evidence he offered and I will address it.
You couldn't find it yourself? Well it's simple. You say which is the first blue word.
The point is to show that you can't impose a definite line where one species becomes another. The Creationists who carp and whine at Evolution theory don't even understand it. That includes you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude
Clang! Clang! Clang!
Indeed The "Why" is still a puzzle. Why do such people persist in flogging a dead horse, when they ought to realize that they are not only destroying their own credibility, but the credibility of the case they are supposed to be arguing?
Is it Faith?
Is it personal pride?
Is it merely mischief?
I still don't know. Because out of all the deconverts, I have never come across one who did this and explained why they did it. I know one who said "I simply did not listen". Maybe that's all it is. Clang, clang, clang, as you say.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-14-2017 at 03:36 PM..
This is what I explained my then wife who was a 'Born again Christian'. There is no reason for Christian beliefs to clash with science. Science deals with the physical world and Christianity with the spiritual. She sort of actually accepted it after a while.
anybody that only sees science vs religion is part of the problem. science vs religion is like math vs art. Its just flat out stupid.
Now scientist against priests? oh yeah. But Even then, I focus on how each person formed their belief first. Not what they believe. and of course, when a personality defect is proven, like milli-mentalism and fundy-mentalism, i think more about the people around them that they can hurt.
believer vs non believer? I definitely focus on the person first. 8/10 times neither should be telling anybody else what to believe. But I must admit, most people are non fundy/milli mentals so they will negotiate a reasonable belief based on the information we have.
That's how I would describe myself, Mike. I cannot personally conceive of a universe as complex as ours or the enormous variety of lifeforms -- and man, in particular -- that were not the work of a Creator. But when people think it somehow compromises their faith in God to believe in a young earth that was created in six days, I have to wonder at why they're so hard-headed. It's like they refuse to think. The sciences were always my hardest subjects in school. There was so much I just couldn't grasp. Now that I'm an adult (and have been for a very, very, very long time), I look at scientists with a lot of admiration. I definitely don't see them as "the enemy."
yup, they compromise what the universe is ... lmao ... not really, i guess that's impossible
I love the graphic you offered, but to be fair, the TOE does have 2 additional requirements of fundamental importance:
(1) Each incremental change needs to have superior survival value and
(2) The process of change needs to involve self-organization (i.e., physical systems must be able to do this without intervention from a guiding/engineering mind).
Unfortunately for creationists, both of these requirements have been addressed in at least "proof of concept" form. With (1) every time a creationists screams "irreducible complexity" for a particular system, biologists have shown potential intermediates with survival value along with genetic mechanisms that can make the necessary leaps. (The Ken Miller videos tend to explain this fairly well, as well as present fossil evidence for many of the intermediate steps. But, of course, the videos do no good if the creationist refuses to watch them). As for (2), we now have some excellent mathematical models and cellular automata models that demonstrate and prove the basic possibility for the self-organization of matter - even on the assumption of pure algorithmic determinism. But, probably, matter is not purely deterministic, which implies even more potentiality for "creative leaps" in material evolution. Evidence does not absolutely rule out the guidance of a divine intelligence (hence there will probably always be room for religious faith in a God who creates via evolution, or guides evolution for some divine purpose), but the evidence does, nonetheless, give a clear sense of how non-ID evolution is possible. In fact, given just the mechanism known so far, it seems that evolution is not only possible but virtually unavoidable. You would need some divine magical intervention to stop species from evolving into new species.
I'm sure that Raffs understands that, but the mechanism of the change isn't the point. It is why the idea that anti -evolutionists have that change from one form to another is beyond credibility is a failure of imagination on their part. The gradual micro changes add up to Macro changes is not credibly deniable. Thus there is in principle no credible objection to "macro" evolution, if "Micro" is accepted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
and why not say your god do it through evolution anyway?
your god gave us the rock record in his handwriting. No middle man, like that bible.
I already suggested to him that he could save himself looking a fool and denialist by doing just that. It was a waste of posting time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Can someone who is a creationist (and in particular a young earth creationist) please tell me what is so objectionable about God having taken a very long time to create this world and all of its inhabitants and done so according to the laws of nature?
I doubt that you will get an answer. Omega is the only one who seems to have the degree of boneheaded denial needed to reject all the evidence, so I will make a suggestion: Because it is not what the Bible says.
That fact is that we know that Christian evolutionists have to Interpret the Bible to fit science. In effect they have to rewrite it and ignore what they can't.
6 days, becomes 2,50 billion years divided by 6, and the less said about sun and moon marking morning and evening, the better.
I won't go into that any further as of course I like to have Christians on the evolution side rather than the Creationist side, but there is more than one atheist spokesman who has shown a sneaking respect for the Bible -literalist in refusing to abandon the idea that the Bible is literally true cover to cover.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-14-2017 at 03:38 PM..
No crap, no one was arguing that there are not different species of bacteria.
When creos say stupid things like a species of bacteria changing into another species is not an example or evidence of evolution because it has not changed into another 'kind' because it is still a bacteria that is ignorant of how the classification system works. It will always be a bacteria no matter how much change happens just like you will always be a primate and a Eukaryote.
That won't get you anywhere. Creationism doesn't use speciation as science does.
By "species" they mean "Kinds". That is one that (as Kent Hovind said) a five year old kid could recognize one from the other. And one beetle is like another beetle and to say there are different species of beetles is merely evasion to them.
I was going to say that 'dogs from cats' is merely ironic from them, really that is what they mean. To Them evolution is a dog suddenly producing a cat, or girraffe a porpose, or a heron a hedgehoig, with rhyme or reason. I don't know whether they really believe this or are just lying to delude others. I don't know what to make of this Faith that not only requires them to reject the evidence that all life was not made in Kinds that did not essentially change, but to ascribe a cockamamie objection (1) that is nothing to do with evolution -theory. That is why they (bewilderingly) kept exhibit mules and donkeys as proof that interbreeding beween different 'kinds' (2) and it took me some time to understand what the point was. In fact the point is not to come up with a Theoy of Kinds themselves but just some up with objections.
(1) it is not even a coherent theory, it produced both Bovine to Blowhole (Gish, I believe) as well as Crocoduck, which are contradictory and serve merely to ridicule their strawman Evilooshum which bears no resemblance to actual evolution -theory.
(2) you see what i mean about contradictory? Donkeys and horses are all 'horse -kind', so according to their theory they should be able to breed viable offspring. It is evolution that says that won't breed viable offspring because of genetic divergence into becoming different 'species'.
10-14-2017, 04:38 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
That won't get you anywhere. Creationism doesn't use speciation as science does.
By "species" they mean "Kinds". That is one that (as Kent Hovind said) a five year old kid could recognize one from the other. And one beetle is like another beetle and to say there are different species of beetles is merely evasion to them.
I was going to say that 'dogs from cats' is merely ironic from them, really that is what they mean. To Them evolution is a dog suddenly producing a cat, or girraffe a porpose, or a heron a hedgehoig, with rhyme or reason. I don't know whether they really believe this or are just lying to delude others. I don't know what to make of this Faith that not only requires them to reject the evidence that all life was not made in Kinds that did not essentially change, but to ascribe a cockamamie objection (1) that is nothing to do with evolution -theory. That is why they (bewilderingly) kept exhibit mules and donkeys as proof that interbreeding beween different 'kinds' (2) and it took me some time to understand what the point was. In fact the point is not to come up with a Theoy of Kinds themselves but just some up with objections.
(1) it is not even a coherent theory, it produced both Bovine to Blowhole (Gish, I believe) as well as Crocoduck, which are contradictory and serve merely to ridicule their strawman Evilooshum which bears no resemblance to actual evolution -theory.
(2) you see what i mean about contradictory? Donkeys and horses are all 'horse -kind', so according to their theory they should be able to breed viable offspring. It is evolution that says that won't breed viable offspring because of genetic divergence into becoming different 'species'.
Yes, but he defined kinds as a breeding population so according to his own definition and the evidence of speciation he should now admit that he is wrong. But he won't - he will only juke and jive his way around it with irrelevant and misunderstood BS. And saying that because something has undergone speciation is no way evolution because they are still bacteria is asinine - and this is the cirlce of stupidity he continues to peddle.
I love the graphic you offered, but to be fair, the TOE does have 2 additional requirements of fundamental importance:....
Quite so old beast. Their argument is always that micro-evolution does happen but macro-evolution does not. It is just a simple graphic (it has to be simple for them to understand...and even then they don't understand) demonstrating how, by minute, indistinguishable change (micro-evolution), we can get from one species (colour) to another.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I couldn't have put it better myself. You have merely carped at and criticized evolution theory, and without any understanding of it, from what we have sen, and you haven't produced a scrap of scientific evidence of your own.
Well it's simple. You say which is the first blue word.
Creationism doesn't use speciation as science does.
