is the Bible a history book?
- Thread starter vedickings
- Start date
Druweid
{insert witty phrase}
- Aug 13, 2005
- 1,825
- 172
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Pagan
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
That is quite precisely the point. A misquote is a misquote. Period.
And you continue to refuse to address my original answer.0rion said:
If you don't understand what I've said already, go back and re-read the thread.0rion said:
The underlined portion is the author's opinion. You cannot establish what an idea is trying to convey without considering it in context. If the author is saying that the idea it tries to convey is wrong regardless of the context, he's contradicting the first half of his statement.0rion said:
I am not talking about semantics. I made my statement, supported it with a source, and you cannot properly refute it.0rion said:
No. Scrap the rest of your arguments until you answer one question: Is there or is there not a verifiable DNA link from modern man to either cro-magnon or neanderthals? If you can't give an informed answer to that one question, this discussion is concluded.0rion said:
-- Druweid
Upvote
0
Druweid
{insert witty phrase}
- Aug 13, 2005
- 1,825
- 172
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Pagan
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Oddly enough, I don't think so.
This directly contradicts the statement "Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true..." You cannot have it both ways; either context is a consideration, or the above quote is false.imind said:
The only persons trying to approach evolution from a specifically scientific POV are you and Orion. Every other person who has mentioned it on this thread has referred to it generally.imind said:
Why throw in the word "mere?" Save the rhetoric. I have stated that, generally speaking, evolution is a theory, not a fact. I supported that statement with an outside source. If you want to refute me, supply a source that categorically states that evolution is complete and unequivocal fact.imind said:
-- Druweid
Upvote
0
- May 19, 2015
- 125,492
- 28,588
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
How about a "New Creation/Creature?
(Young) 2 Corinthians 5:17 so that if any one [is] in Christ--[he is] a New creature/creation; the old things did pass away, lo, have become New the all things.
(Young) Revelation 21:5 And He who is sitting upon the throne said, `Lo, New all things I make; and He saith to me, `Write, because these words are true and stedfast;
Upvote
0
Druweid
{insert witty phrase}
- Aug 13, 2005
- 1,825
- 172
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Pagan
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Biologists can "consider" whatever pleases them. "Consider" does not mean "proven." "Consider" is a term of subjectivity.
This entire paragraph might be appropriate for a science classroom, but does not pertain to this discussion.
The continual insistance that evolution should be treated as "fact," is little more than a smokescreen to cover those pesky little details that have not yet been proven by modern science. Same as I said to Orion: Is there or is there not, a verifiable DNA link from modern man to either cro-magnon or neanderthals?
-- Druweid
Upvote
0
No, a misquote is what you are doing with this :
"Calling the theory of evolution 'only a theory' is, strictly speaking, true..."
When I said it, I still conveyed the same message, which was that if Evolution supported atheism, it would not support theism. Even if you remove the word 'only' from the sentence it conveyed that same meaning. So please stop whining about an uncapitalized letter, etc...
You are the one that did not understand.
You said, "evolution" is a theory.
By evolution what are you talking about?
1. The Fact of Evolution?
2. The Theory of Evolution?
If by evolution you mean #2, then it is reduntant, there is no point in saying it ... really.
If by evolution you mean #1, then you are just plain wrong.
It seems that you did not understand what that sentence is actually saying. Let me explain it to you in layman's term:
What you are doing is similar to saying that the phenomenon of Gravity is a thoery, because The Theory of Gravity is just that, a theory.
Yes, the Theory of Gravity is a theory, this is strictly speaking true - because this is plain tautology, rendundancy ... BUT, the phenomenon of Gravity is not a theory. The idea that you are trying to present is completely wrong.
You are trying to dimiss gravity by disproving its theory.
You are trying to dismiss lighting by disproving Zues.
The context of, "Evolution is only a theory", remains in that same context, and you are also using it in that same context.
It has been already refuted. If you did not understand how it was refuted is another thing.
Funny, how you asked to quote you where you are trying to disprove evolution, and when I did, you want it scrapped...
Are you asking to show evidence with DNA that modern humans evolved from neanderthals? Druweid, let me ask you, who are you to set the standards of how evolution should be proven? If you are a layman (no offense) about this subject, you will only be setting biased standards of what you believe evolution should be and disregard the evidence. Modern humans did not evolve from Neanderthals since they both lived at the same time.
But, why does evolution have to be proved by just asking for questions regarding human evolution? I have already told you, the topic of evolution is not limited within the confines of human evolution. There is also fossil transition as well - of humans and other species , not just DNA link between two species.
But you want a link, I gave you a link of evidence of human chromosome ( fyi, chromosomes contain DNA ) which are almost exact to those of the Great Apes (Orangutan , Gorilla, etc) except where a pair in humans was fused together. That is why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and the great apes have 24 pairs.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
Evolution is happening all around us
You wanted a link that talks about Neanderthal DNA ? http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/dna.html
Upvote
0
Proof is only for alcohol and math.
In our real world, what we deal with is evidence, and what this evidence does is demonstrate its existance. There is no mathematical proof that shows I exist, but there is evidence that demonstrate such.
If you read the next sentence of what you were criticizing, (with this new found knowledge of what it means for something to be evidence) you would see that it says it(biological evolution) can demonstrated today - and also that the historical evidence for it is overwhelming.
Upvote
0
Exonoesis
Active Member
- Nov 7, 2006
- 195
- 7
- 40
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Labor
What's your point?How about a "New Creation/Creature?
(Young) 2 Corinthians 5:17 so that if any one [is] in Christ--[he is] a New creature/creation; the old things did pass away, lo, have become New the all things.
(Young) Revelation 21:5 And He who is sitting upon the throne said, `Lo, New all things I make; and He saith to me, `Write, because these words are true and stedfast;
Upvote
0
Similar threads
