What are the Holes in Evolution?

[ReverendDG]

Excuse me?

You need to go back and re-read what I posted.

I gave the definition of kind after prayerfully considering it.

Then I was asked what God's taxon is, and I do not - (that means I don't) - have access to it.

Now if you want to consider that lying, go right ahead.

but you were not able to answer the question, you just further obscured it by talking about gods taxon
if we can't even define what "gods taxon" is then what good is it? why not just throw it out since it is meaningless?

that is lying, you led people to think you could answer it, but you can't, is that not what lying is?

 

[Elduran]

Yes.

I meant you and your "higher standard of science", but if you want to agree with me, then great!

 

[AV1611VET]

that is lying, you led people to think you could answer it, but you can't, is that not what lying is?

Please show me where I led people to think I could answer what God's taxon is - (especially since all along, I have been claiming I don't know what it is).

 

[AV1611VET]

I meant you and your "higher standard of science", but if you want to agree with me, then great!

What "higher standard of science"?

I said we hold science to a higher Standard - meaning "God" - (don't you see the capital ess)?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Fair enough --- then all that stuff you said in Post 169, IMO, is wrong - (where it contradicts the Bible, that is).

NOW you're talkin'! Let's see where the Bible contradicts statistics. It will be a fun diversion from Crevo.

Since we all know Creationists try to take on evolution "scientifically" because they think they understand it but they studiously avoid any of the harder topics because they know they don't really understand most of it and just focus on the "easy stuff".

It's like I always ask: why don't Creationists fight against various quantum mechanics or string theory topics? Is it because they really care about science qua science, or is it because evolution is something that seems easy enough to talk about and it appears to relate to their religion?

I think we all know the answer.

(NOTE: Statistics is hard for me. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a great statistician, but I'm trying to learn it and apply it. Something I see very few Creationists do with regards to science).

 

[AV1611VET]

NOW you're talkin'! Let's see where the Bible contradicts statistics. It will be a fun diversion from Crevo.

Sure ---

1 + 1 + 1 = 1 (Godhead)

[bible]Leviticus 26:8[/bible]
[bible]1 Kings 18:18-19[/bible]
[bible]Matthew 16:9-10[/bible]

How's that for starters?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sure ---

1 + 1 + 1 = 1 (Godhead)

[bible]Leviticus 26:8[/bible]
[bible]1 Kings 18:18-19[/bible]
[bible]Matthew 16:9-10[/bible]

How's that for starters?

A faulty analogy, and thus a shakey start. You are treating everything as discrete integers to be summed, rather than sets to be combined. Take a look at set theory, and see that:
{A}∪{B}∪{C}={A,B,C}
Each set of curley-brackets is one thing, but the latter contains all of the elements of the former.
That is better maths, and doesn't demonstrate the fallacious statement 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.

 

[thaumaturgy]

A faulty analogy, and thus a shakey start. You are treating everything as discrete integers to be summed, rather than sets to be combined. Take a look at set theory, and see that:
{A}∪{B}∪{C}={A,B,C}
Each set of curley-brackets is one thing, but the latter contains all of the elements of the former.
That is better maths, and doesn't demonstrate the fallacious statement 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.

Thank you Wiccan!

I'll also remind AV that 1+1+1=1 is not statistics.

IF, however, he said he had "several gods" all crammed together in a box big enough for only ONE and it was necessary to figure the likelihood that there was only ONE in there, we might be talking statistics.

 

[Loudmouth]

What "higher standard of science"?

I said we hold science to a higher Standard - meaning "God" - (don't you see the capital ess)?

That would be a non-existent standard, not a higher one.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thank you Wiccan!

I'll also remind AV that 1+1+1=1 is not statistics.

IF, however, he said he had "several gods" all crammed together in a box big enough for only ONE and it was necessary to figure the likelihood that there was only ONE in there, we might be talking statistics.

Agreed. However, given that God is seen as infinite, any 'box' that can contain one God can contain an unlimited number of God's, all infinite in size. This is because the box that contains an infinite God must itself be infinite (and then some).
It's the Infinity Hotel paradox, really.
Wow, arguing for Christianity is interesting...

 

[Elduran]

What "higher standard of science"?

I said we hold science to a higher Standard - meaning "God" - (don't you see the capital ess)?

If you hold science up to your god's standard, then I can only conclude that you believe he has NO standards.

 

[LittleNipper]

If you hold science up to your god's standard, then I can only conclude that you believe he has NO standards.

No, we believe evolutionists made up their own, and now want science to be run accordingly.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

No, we believe evolutionists made up their own, and now want science to be run accordingly.

Which standards do "evolutionists" follow that the rest of science does not?

 

[LittleNipper]

Which standards do "evolutionists" follow that the rest of science does not?

They do not presently claim to control all fields of science?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

They do not presently claim to control all fields of science?

Almost all scientific fields independantly, and basically incedentally, support the theory of Common Descent.
Apart from this, I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

 

[TheOutsider]

They do not presently claim to control all fields of science?

Creationists are the only one to make that claim. Evolutionism is a term your side made up, not ours.

 

[ReverendDG]

Please show me where I led people to think I could answer what God's taxon is - (especially since all along, I have been claiming I don't know what it is).

did you read what i posted? i said you lied when you said you could define what kind is, well saying something that is in "god's taxon" is not defining it. that is just adding in something else to obscure the fact that you can't define it
i should say rather that trying to make up something that is even more confusing and useless is just dishonest, rather than lying, its still worse than saying "i don't know and i won't use kind anymore since i can't define it" which would be the honest approach

 

[Inan3]

Creationists are the only one to make that claim. Evolutionism is a term your side made up, not ours.

But nevertheless it is a term for the here and now and even has a place in the revered Wikipedia.

 

[TheOutsider]

But nevertheless it is a term for the here and now and even has a place in the revered Wikipedia.

or

In the creation-evolution controversy, those who accept the scientific theory of biological evolution by natural selectiongenetic drift are often called "evolutionists", and the theory of evolution itself is referred to as "evolutionism" by creationists. This label is used by creationists to suggest that evolution is similar to other "isms", such as Creationism, Evangelism, Judaism, Socialism, Communism, Catholicism. In this way, creationists bolster their claim that the scientific theory of evolution is a belief, dogma, ideology or even a religion, rather than a scientific theory. The terms "evolutionism" and "evolutionist" are rarely used in the scientific community as self-descriptive terms.

As I said, it was a term made up by Creationists. The Theory of Evolution covers just the diversity of life on earth. Creationists often conflate it with Abiogenesis, Geology, Astrophysics and Methodical Naturalism for some unknown reason.

 

[Inan3]

or
As I said, it was a term made up by Creationists. The Theory of Evolution covers just the diversity of life on earth. Creationists often conflate it with Abiogenesis, Geology, Astrophysics and Methodical Naturalism for some unknown reason.

So these things in no way related to evolution. There is no connection whatsoever?