-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
The Bible pwns Evolution with Cryptozoology
- Thread starter AV1611VET
- Start date
- Status
Freodin
Devout believer in a theologically different God
Talking about bias...
So it is "contended" that an atheist who find a fossil that does not fit within his view would lie and twist the facts or even destroy the evidence. A bold claim, but one without any evidence. It would be simple to test it: just present this wierd fossil and see what would happen.
But this you cannot do. Quite contrary: new claims are made as to why such fossils do not exist.
On the other hand, it can be "contended" that a creationist who is faced with a fossil from the human ancestry would do everything do deny its relevance.. perhaps rename it as a "deseased outcast". And lo! this has indeed happened. Evolution has the fossils to show and the reaction of creationists to them.
Biases...
So we are presented with a list of creatures that present a problem to evolution... but we don´t have any such creatures to see if there is any problem.
Isn´t it strange? We have millions of different fossils, numbers of different species, and none of them present any problem to evolution. All of them fossilized in the one or other condition.
Only the animals that DO present a problem... they didn´t fossilize at all. Not a single one.
But I´m sure that this is only a further problem that biology, chemistry and physics is faced with: all animals that present a problem for evolution do not die bodily. They dissolve on death, leaving no evidence. Take that, science!
So it is "contended" that an atheist who find a fossil that does not fit within his view would lie and twist the facts or even destroy the evidence. A bold claim, but one without any evidence. It would be simple to test it: just present this wierd fossil and see what would happen.
But this you cannot do. Quite contrary: new claims are made as to why such fossils do not exist.
On the other hand, it can be "contended" that a creationist who is faced with a fossil from the human ancestry would do everything do deny its relevance.. perhaps rename it as a "deseased outcast". And lo! this has indeed happened. Evolution has the fossils to show and the reaction of creationists to them.
Biases...
So we are presented with a list of creatures that present a problem to evolution... but we don´t have any such creatures to see if there is any problem.
Isn´t it strange? We have millions of different fossils, numbers of different species, and none of them present any problem to evolution. All of them fossilized in the one or other condition.
Only the animals that DO present a problem... they didn´t fossilize at all. Not a single one.
But I´m sure that this is only a further problem that biology, chemistry and physics is faced with: all animals that present a problem for evolution do not die bodily. They dissolve on death, leaving no evidence. Take that, science!
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,270
- 52,669
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
That's because evolution operates on a pair of roller skates.
If anything is presented that even looks funny, it can be cleared up in almost no-time with your open-ended paradigms.
Such was the case with the coelacanth -- long thought extinct -- until one was found in 1938; then the decimal place was just slid over a few places, and everything was cleared up.
Sometimes "problems" can be cleared up with a simple one-time vote, like Pluto, by excluding a major portion of those who disagreed and not allowing them to take part.
For the rest?
Just blame the government, big corporations, or administration.
Upvote
0
Cabal
Well-Known Member
- Jul 22, 2007
- 11,592
- 476
- 39
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Because evolution doesn't state that a creature MUST change if it is already optimised for survival.
Terminology change =/= changing the empirical status of Pluto. It still orbits the earth at the same speed, it still rotates at the same rate.
Come up with something that's actually significant for a change.
Credit where credit is due, in the case of your tired out examples.
Upvote
0
ArnautDaniel
Veteran
- Aug 28, 2006
- 5,295
- 328
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
What does Pluto have to do with evolutionary theory?
All that happened with Pluto is that astronomers discovered that Pluto was simply the first observed member of what was going to turn out to be a very large class of objects in the Solar System.
So, sure, Pluto and all these objects could be classed as "planets", and then it wouldn't be too long before the Solar System turned out to have 100 planets. And pobably, in this case, a large number of things we now call "moons" would have had to be promoted to planet status...including the Earth's moon, making the Earth-Moon system a double planet.
Or we could decide that Pluto wasn't a planet and restrict the term "planet" to objects that appear rather different anyway than the group Pluto belongs to.
It is just a manner of what would be the most useful definition of the word.
How does that relate to evolution?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,270
- 52,669
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,270
- 52,669
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Freodin
Devout believer in a theologically different God
That's pretty good --
And it is so much easier to respond flippantly to flippant remarks than it is to think. So much better to lose oneself in a verbal sparring match than in a meaningful conversation.
Just in case you simply missed it, here is my question again:
You say that you don´t know science. Could it be that your ignorance of science prevents you from correctly identifying what is a "problem" and what is not?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,270
- 52,669
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I have asked point-blank before if finding a dinosaur with a navel would constitute a problem, and have gotten fuzzy answers.
And in light of the fact that you guys like to bring up four-legged grasshoppers as evidence that that the Bible was written by those ignorant of zoology, I'll go ahead and turn that around and say they knew exactly what they were talking about; and the problem is on your side, not theirs.
Upvote
0
Of course you'll do that, but you'll be wrong because there's no evidence for any of those creatures ever living.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,270
- 52,669
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
