A very specific question for evolutionists.

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

You're way behind the times with this remark, MoonLancer --- I've been called this for over two years now. Like I say, I'm everything but what I claim to be, and less. As long as you guys equate dishonesty and lying with ignorance, I'll be dishonest and a liar.

You can't claim ignorance. you've been here for two years. you've been exposed to countless repeated explanations of at times, very basic science. countless attempts to make complex ideas ameanable to a layman such as yourself. it isnt as if this is the first conversation in which "individuals dont evolve, populations do" has been conveyed to you. If you are ignorant of evolution at this point it's because you want to be. it is the stubborness of your beliefs that have blocked out what we have said many times before. can you really defend that you havent realized something as basic to this debate as the error of the "just a theory" PRATT? If we accuse you of lying it's because you have already been exposed to the correct answer and have failed to modify your arguments accordingly. IOW you know better, or at least you should.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't claim ignorance. you've been here for two years. you've been exposed to countless repeated explanations of at times, very basic science. countless attempts to make complex ideas ameanable to a layman such as yourself. it isnt as if this is the first conversation in which "individuals dont evolve, populations do" has been conveyed to you. If you are ignorant of evolution at this point it's because you want to be. it is the stubborness of your beliefs that have blocked out what we have said many times before. can you really defend that you havent realized something as basic to this debate as the error of the "just a theory" PRATT? If we accuse you of lying it's because you have already been exposed to the correct answer and have failed to modify your arguments accordingly. IOW you know better, or at least you should.

I could say the exact same thing about you guys and Embedded Age --- after two years, you guys still don't understand --- but I don't call you liars.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I could say the exact same thing about you guys and Embedded Age --- after two years, you guys still don't understand --- but I don't call you liars.

We understand -- your problem is, we understand it's a crock of meaningless ad hockery.

Meanwhile, you continue to be willfully and proudly arrogant of how the world actually works, lest you be forced to modify your fairy tale.

 

[AV1611VET]

We understand ...

No, you don't understand. If you guys did, you wouldn't constantly ask the same questions over and over and over; and if I'm a liar because I don't understand your garbage, despite having it explained to me several times --- then here are a few areas where the mirror applies:

• the Crusades being the fault of Christians
• people being burned at the stake for heresies
• the Bible teaching flat earth and geocentrism
• Dispensationalism
• prophecy fulfillment vs. self-fulfilling prophecies
• the sequence of events on Resurrection Day
• God-ordered genocide

 

[Split Rock]

I think this thread has run its course. I learned a couple of things I didn't know before. As I have said before, if anyone asks me what's wrong with evolution, my answer, aside from my 4 Biblical refutations thread, would be that:

1. Evolution runs on anarchy and beastiality.
2. Evolution is an analog process --- with many, many holes (missing links) in it.
3. Evolution is just a theory --- a very weak theory --- based on filling in those holes with guesswork.

If you did then you really would be a liar. This is coming from someone who has never called you a liar before.

No, you don't understand. If you guys did, you wouldn't constantly ask the same questions over and over and over; and if I'm a liar because I don't understand your garbage, despite having it explained to me several times --- then here are a few areas where the mirror applies:

• the Crusades being the fault of Christians

• 
  The Crusades were certainly carried out by Christians. Your assertion that they weren't really Christians represents the "No True Scottsman" fallacy.
  
  

  [*]people being burned at the stake for heresies

  Are you claiming people were not burned at the stake for herecy?
  
  
  

  [*]the Bible teaching flat earth and geocentrism

  The Church taught geocentrism, based on the Church's interpretation of the Bible. I don't think the Church ever taught flat-earth.
  
  
  

  [*]God-ordered genocide

What do you call it when God orders his chosen people to slaughter every man, woman, child and goat in a civilization?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you did then you really would be a liar. This is coming from someone who has never called you a liar before.

I'll acquiesce on one point: evolution does not run on anarchy --- it's atheism that runs on spiritual anarchy --- my bad.

In addition --- I'll change what I said about the Crusades being the fault of Christians. Instead, I'd like to make the point that I have explained that the Crusades were in spite of the Scriptures, not in respect to them. (Even though I don't think Christians were involved in the Crusades --- and certainly not Independent Baptists --- who are Separatists and autonomous.)

So, if you disagree, and still believe that the Crusaders were following some Scriptural admonition to free Jerusalem from the Gentiles, then you're no better than what you accuse me of doing; and if you don't believe that the Crusaders were following some Scriptural admonition to free Jerusalem from the Gentiles, but are still bringing it up as some valid point against the Bible and/or Christianity, then again, what makes me a liar and you guys not?

I've explained some things to some people using basic Theology, Dispensation Theology, or Ontological Subordination; only to see them later asking someone else the same question again.

So, if ignorance = lying; then we're all liars, eh?

 

[corvus_corax]

I'll acquiesce on one point: evolution does not run on anarchy --- it's atheism that runs on spiritual anarchy --- my bad.

Yes, your bad
Very very bad
Tell that to every Christian who adheres to theistic evolution.
Tell them directly.
Tell Cabal that his faith based belief is "atheism that runs on spiritual anarchy".
You won't.


Of course, you wont, due to the sin of "variance" (is that right?), which I haven't been able to find* (but apparently, Paul didn't have any problem telling certain Christians that they were flat out WRONG in their beliefs)


*if you have a source, I'd appreciate it

 

[corvus_corax]

No, you don't understand. If you guys did, you wouldn't constantly ask the same questions over and over and over;

Neither do you understand*.
If you did, you wouldn't constantly ask the same questions over and over and over.
You also wouldn't post the same paradigm over and over and over again (q.v. your "challenges")

Pot? Meet Kettle

Have a great day pot.


*Some of us aren't proud of ignorance like you are.

 

[MoonLancer]

I could say the exact same thing about you guys and Embedded Age --- after two years, you guys still don't understand --- but I don't call you liars.

I fully understand your idea about embedded age, the problem is, its about as falsifiable as any made up idea, like "fairies create static" while also adding that it would be impossible to observe as such.

Its not that i don't understand your idea, its that it doesn't hold water. It doesn't hold of to criticism or scrutiny because it cant and never will be shown to be true or false, that's why its non falsifiable.

Its also compounded by the fact your are a minority in your belief your just about the only one that believes it.

I don't think theirs a single person here that has ideas about evolution that are akin to your ideas about creation.

ps: it really is because of who your are, not what your are.

 

[Split Rock]

I'll acquiesce on one point: evolution does not run on anarchy --- it's atheism that runs on spiritual anarchy --- my bad.

This makes as much sense as me claiming that Evangelical Christianity runs on a vampiric lust for Jesus' blood.

In addition --- I'll change what I said about the Crusades being the fault of Christians. Instead, I'd like to make the point that I have explained that the Crusades were in spite of the Scriptures, not in respect to them. (Even though I don't think Christians were involved in the Crusades --- and certainly not Independent Baptists --- who are Separatists and autonomous.)

All I ever argued against was your assertion that Christians had nothing to do with the Crusades. You can claim that it was done inspite of the Scriptures, a position I think can indeed be defended, but not that Christians took no part in it. As far as "independent Baptists" are concerned, no Christian on the planet at the time would have described themselves as such.

So, if you disagree, and still believe that the Crusaders were following some Scriptural admonition to free Jerusalem from the Gentiles, then you're no better than what you accuse me of doing; and if you don't believe that the Crusaders were following some Scriptural admonition to free Jerusalem from the Gentiles, but are still bringing it up as some valid point against the Bible and/or Christianity, then again, what makes me a liar and you guys not?

I never claimed the Crusades were in response to some "Scriptural admonition to free Jerusalem from the Gentiles." I know of no lines from scripture that would support that Jesus raised such a call. Quite the contrary, Jesus was a pacifist. This does not mean Christians did not organize and take part in the Crusades, however.

I've explained some things to some people using basic Theology, Dispensation Theology, or Ontological Subordination; only to see them later asking someone else the same question again.

Not everyone here reads all your posts.

So, if ignorance = lying; then we're all liars, eh?

No. There is a difference. If we tell you, evolutionary scientists claim X, but not Y, and you then post that you have learned from us that evolutionary scientists claim Y, but not X, then that would be a Lie.

 

[AV1611VET]

*Some of us aren't proud of ignorance like you are.

Oh, really?

You guys don't adhere to ignorance as one of your main doctrines?

Okay, let me ask you some questions:

1. Is the Periodic Table of the Elements complete? Why not?
2. Why are there theories in the first place? Why aren't they just called "truths"?
3. Isn't it considered "progress" when science pwns itself with a new discovery?
4. Are scientists omniscient in any of their particular fields?
5. Are there any more discoveries yet to be made?

 

[AV1611VET]

I fully understand your idea about embedded age...

Fair enough then. So if you ask me any questions about it from now on, it's because you are a "liar"?

Note: I'm through harping on being called a liar. If you guys want to believe that, I can't stop you. Jesus was called the same thing, so I'll just wear that badge too.

Its also compounded by the fact your are a minority in your belief your just about the only one that believes it.

I don't think theirs a single person here that has ideas about evolution that are akin to your ideas about creation.

Good --- then you won't be calling me "programmed" or "brainwashed" anytime soon?

ps: it really is because of who your are, not what your are.

I 100% disagree with that. When Jesus walked the earth, He backed up what He said with miracles, yet He was still rejected; not because of what He said, but because of Who He was; and He said the same thing would happen to us.

 

[AV1611VET]

As far as "independent Baptists" are concerned, no Christian on the planet at the time would have described themselves as such.

So John the Baptist was a Catholic?

...Jesus was a pacifist.

If you think Jesus is a pacifist, then you don't know the book of Revelation. And if you think Jesus was a pacifist, no pacifist would admit that he is "one" with someone who killed the firstborn of every household that didn't have the blood of a lamb sprinkled on its door posts.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Oh, really?

You guys don't adhere to ignorance as one of your main doctrines?

Okay, let me ask you some questions:

1. Is the Periodic Table of the Elements complete? Why not?

for the most part. The only ones that are added are entirely man-made and exist for fractions of a second before decaying into simpler elements. it's probably safe to say that all of the naturally occuring elements have been accounted for.

2. Why are there theories in the first place? Why aren't they just called "truths"?

And you wonder why we accuse you of lying? You KNOW that science does not deal with that degree of certainty. the best you can ever achieve is: all observed evidence supports it and none refutes it. We have theories in order to have explanations for natural phenomena. For all of human history there was no serious explanation for disease until germ theory (the concept that disease is caused by microorganisms) arrived. That's what theories are. they are not guesses, they arent assertions of absolute truth. they are explanations of natural phenomena and the successful ones have large bodies of evidence to support them.

3. Isn't it considered "progress" when science pwns itself with a new discovery?

yes it is! science is proud of new discovery and refutation of previous ideas. thats the only way to get a better understanding of the universe since we do not assume to have the answers in front of us.

4. Are scientists omniscient in any of their particular fields?

No! that's humanly impossible and an unscientific thing to claim.

5. Are there any more discoveries yet to be made?

Yes! duh! otherwise scientists would be out of jobs. there's lots and lots yet to be discovered. did you ask this question seriously? come on! ALL of these questions deal with a central concept in science of certainty. You CAN'T say that we havent told you that science can only be so certain. we cant be 100% sure of anything. we are 99.999% sure of a lot of things like gravity, evolution, germ theory, plate tectonics, and the atomic model. But never 100%

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

If you think Jesus is a pacifist, then you don't know the book of Revelation. And if you think Jesus was a pacifist, no pacifist would admit that he is "one" with someone who killed the firstborn of every household that didn't have the blood of a lamb sprinkled on its door posts.

Yes, God is all about sending messages by killing lots of people. The message he sent that day was not to mess with his people, the Jews. And we all know how well the world has heeded that message in the quintuple millenia since.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So John the Baptist was a Catholic?

I wasn't aware that John referred to himself as "the Baptist."

Nor was I aware that he was called this for any other reason aside from his tendancy to baptize people in local rivers.

Are you saying he was a part of a recognized Christian denomination, AV?

 

[corvus_corax]

constantly ask the same questions over and over and over.
You also wouldn't post the same paradigm over and over and over again (q.v. your "challenges")

Okay, let me ask you some questions:

1. Is the Periodic Table of the Elements complete? Why not? <snipped for brevity

Took you less than a page to prove my point, thankyouverymuch


BTW, still waiting to find out what the sin of variance it, and why you refuse to tell theistic evolutionists that their beliefs are atheism based on spiritual anarchy (yes, I noticed you ignored that part....go figure)

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip....
When Jesus walked the earth, He backed up what He said with miracles, yet He was still rejected; not because of what He said, but because of Who He was; and He said the same thing would happen to us.

When you back up what you say with miracles, then maybe we'll listen to you.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Oh, really?

You guys don't adhere to ignorance as one of your main doctrines?

Okay, let me ask you some questions:

1. Is the Periodic Table of the Elements complete? Why not?
2. Why are there theories in the first place? Why aren't they just called "truths"?
3. Isn't it considered "progress" when science pwns itself with a new discovery?
4. Are scientists omniscient in any of their particular fields?
5. Are there any more discoveries yet to be made?

He didn't say we wouldn't admit our ignorance, he said we aren't proud of it. You, by comparison, definitely are.

 

[Split Rock]

Oh, really?

You guys don't adhere to ignorance as one of your main doctrines?

We admit we do not know everything, but strive to learn more. Some Creationists, on the other hand, seem to think knowledge is a bad thing. You for example, have often praised being "child-like."

Okay, let me ask you some questions:

Is the Periodic Table of the Elements complete? Why not?

Because we have not yet created every possible element yet. interestlingly, we have identified every single naturally occurring element.

Why are there theories in the first place? Why aren't they just called "truths"?

Maybe we should call them "Pink Leprechauns?"

Isn't it considered "progress" when science pwns itself with a new discovery?

Sure. It means we are learning more.

Are scientists omniscient in any of their particular fields?

We are not "omniscient" in any field We are human beings, not gods. There are many creationists, on the other hand, who think he/she understands the mind of God, so they seem to think they are at least close to being omniscient.

Are there any more discoveries yet to be made?
[/LIST]

Lots and lots!

Here are some more useless questions you can ask us to obfuscate more:

Is Pluto a planet or a dwarf?
Should I take thalidomide if I am pregnant or have leprocy?
Why is dark matter dark?
Does an ape give birth to a human or does a human give birth to an ape?
How many non-winged dinosaurs does it take to fill up an ark?