What Evolution Is and Is Not:

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,155
51,516
Guam
✟4,910,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The above post is an attempt to get people to educate themselves on Evolution. It seems most people, even myself included, have been exposed to some misinformation about Evolution.
Alright --- here's my perspective --- and an uneducated one at that:

Even evolutionists don't know what evolution is --- that's why so much misinformation abounds.

As Chuck Swindoll so superbly put it: If there's a mist in the pulpit, there'll be a fog in the congregation.

And although he wasn't referring to evolution here, the concept is the same.

The Bible contains 4 solid reasons why evolution is wrong; so solid, in fact, that the only way to counter them is to change the way the words are interpreted.

We don't need to educate ourselves on Evolution, there's a Higher Authority that says it's wrong --- so it's wrong.

That's what Bible literalists do --- appeal to a Higher Authority to show something is right or wrong.

Keep your "education" --- I'm not interested.
 
Upvote 0

uke2se

Active Member
Jun 8, 2009
313
9
Sweden
✟510.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Alright --- here's my perspective --- and an uneducated one at that:

Even evolutionists don't know what evolution is --- that's why so much misinformation abounds.

As Chuck Swindoll so superbly put it: If there's a mist in the pulpit, there'll be a fog in the congregation.

And although he wasn't referring to evolution here, the concept is the same.

The Bible contains 4 solid reasons why evolution is wrong; so solid, in fact, that the only way to counter them is to change the way the words are interpreted.

We don't need to educate ourselves on Evolution, there's a Higher Authority that says it's wrong --- so it's wrong.

That's what Bible literalists do --- appeal to a Higher Authority to show something is right or wrong.

Keep your "education" --- I'm not interested.

Yes, that was really uneducated, AV. "Even evolutionists don't know what evolution is"? Are you joking? Evolutionary scientists know exactly what evolution is. Just because Joe Sixpack can't provide a working model for evolution doesn't mean that "evolutionists don't know". Your argument is not only uneducated, it's severely dishonest.

As for keeping our education, well, you might well chose to go through life as a dummy, but that doesn't mean you have the right to infect others with your stupidity. That's what we're trying to stop.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,155
51,516
Guam
✟4,910,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, that was really uneducated, AV.
Thank you --- it took me 55 years to be this uneducated.
"Even evolutionists don't know what evolution is"? Are you joking?
No, I'm not joking.

Read the OP again --- I thought it was very-well written and honest.
Evolutionary scientists know exactly what evolution is.
Then why are there so many mistakes and misconceptions?
Just because Joe Sixpack can't provide a working model for evolution doesn't mean that "evolutionists don't know".
Forget Joe Sixpack --- I'm talking about the king himself --- Charles Darwin (and everyone after him).
Your argument is not only uneducated, it's severely dishonest.
Ya --- I get that a lot too.

People tend to use "dishonest" as a synonym for "uneducated".

It used to be, when I first came here, I was "uneducated"; and when I started admitting it, then I became "dishonest".

It's interesting that when I admit I'm "uneducated", then I'm "dishonest" --- and should I admit I'm dishonest, I'd be "educated".

You guys are a riot --- ;)
As for keeping our education, well, you might well chose to go through life as a dummy, but that doesn't mean you have the right to infect others with your stupidity.
And you might consider that not everyone on the face of the earth knows evolution as well as you guys don't.

I wouldn't consider you a "dummy" if you didn't know astronomy, would I?

Not everyone is cut out to be "so knowledgeable" in evolution --- some of us drive taxis, you know.
That's what we're trying to stop.
As far as I'm concerned, you guys can abandon your crusade against those who choose not to believe in evolution --- it only makes you guys look (and talk) silly.
 
Upvote 0

uke2se

Active Member
Jun 8, 2009
313
9
Sweden
✟510.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Then why are there so many mistakes and misconceptions?

Mainly because of religious indoctrination, and people like you constantly trying to muddle the waters.

Forget Joe Sixpack --- I'm talking about the king himself --- Charles Darwin (and everyone after him).

Are you saying Charles Darwin didn't know what evolution is, or are you lambasting Charles Darwin for being ignorant of the progresses in evolutionary biology since his death?

People tend to use "dishonest" as a synonym for "uneducated".

It used to be, when I first came here, I was "uneducated"; and when I started admitting it, then I became "dishonest".

It's interesting that when I admit I'm "uneducated", then I'm "dishonest" --- and should I admit I'm dishonest, I'd be "educated".

If you and your "peers" would only admit that you don't know anything about evolution and stop trying to undermine the education of coming generations, we could call you just uneducated. Since you won't shut up, we'll call you dishonest, as you know you don't know anything, but you still talk as if you did.

You guys are a riot --- ;)And you might consider that not everyone on the face of the earth knows evolution as well as you guys don't.

I wouldn't consider you a "dummy" if you didn't know astronomy, would I?

Most smart people would strive to educate themselves on a topic if they were to partake in a discussion on it. Not you, though.

Not everyone is cut out to be "so knowledgeable" in evolution --- some of us drive taxis, you know.

Then stop trying to undermine the teaching and progress of evolutionary science.

As far as I'm concerned, you guys can abandon your crusade against those who choose not to believe in evolution --- it only makes you guys look (and talk) silly.

We will, as soon as creationists stop trying to undermine the teaching of evolutionary science.
 
Upvote 0

theFijian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
8,898
475
West of Scotland
Visit site
✟63,625.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
The man actually believes these fables, he has swallowed them hook, line and sinker, does religion damage the brain? I don't know if it does or not but dad is living proof that it sure won't do it any good.

Still waiting for you to produce evidence for your previous claims, or like dad are you just all talk?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,155
51,516
Guam
✟4,910,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here's an exercise for us, let's list the things they knew nothing about or didn't have, things like toilet paper, sanitary towels, soap, toothpaste, medicine, the list goes on and on, they had no way of telling the time, they didn't know what thunder was, in short these people knew very little about themselves or what was around them, and they lived in fear of everything, 99.9% of people were illiterate and innumerate.
You mean people like Leucippus, who talked about atomic theory circa BC 450?
 
Upvote 0

uke2se

Active Member
Jun 8, 2009
313
9
Sweden
✟510.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Still waiting for you to produce evidence for your previous claims, or like dad are you just all talk?

Are you still on about his claim about ancient people not having any way to tell time? It was a mistake, as has been pointed out to him. His point still stands though. Ancient people did not have the means to perceive reality with the same clarity as we do now, thanks to modern science.

Your insistence in continuing to drag this up is not a little ridiculous.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,155
51,516
Guam
✟4,910,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Leucippus didn't talk about atomic theory.... he talked about the philosophy of atomism. Do you know/understand the difference?
.
Dicionary of Scientists said:
Our knowledge of Leucippus comes from the writings of Aristotle http://www.answers.com/topic/aristotleand Theophrastus. He is said to have been the teacher of Democritus http://www.answers.com/topic/democritusand author of the Great World System and On Mind. He is also credited with being the originator of atomic theory, although it is difficult to distinguish his contributions from those of his pupil Democritus.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,155
51,516
Guam
✟4,910,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ancient people did not have the means to perceive reality with the same clarity as we do now, thanks to modern science.
This is a real pet peeve with me.

They knew reality ten times better back then than we do today.

(Okay --- make it 66 times better --- if you know what I'm saying.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

uke2se

Active Member
Jun 8, 2009
313
9
Sweden
✟510.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
This is a real pet peeve with me.

They knew reality ten times better back then than we do today.

(Okay --- make it 66 times better --- if you know what I'm saying.)

No they didn't, and saying they did shows how little you know about science, not to say that it shows extreme ignorance of reality itself.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,155
51,516
Guam
✟4,910,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No they didn't, and saying they did shows how little you know about science, not to say that it shows extreme ignorance of reality itself.
It does, huh?

I can just see today's hot-shot "scientists" back then.

The Egyptian army closing on them, the only direction they can go is forward into a major body of water, and what do they do?

Whip out a current copy of the Periodic Table and pray ... er ... hope that water tension back then was stronger?

Close their eyes and hope their peers in the future will look back and say 'it didn't happen'?
 
Upvote 0

uke2se

Active Member
Jun 8, 2009
313
9
Sweden
✟510.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
It does, huh?

I can just see today's hot-shot "scientists" back then.

The Egyptian army closing on them, the only direction they can go is forward into a major body of water, and what do they do?

Whip out a current copy of the Periodic Table and pray ... er ... hope that water tension back then was stronger?

Close their eyes and hope their peers in the future will look back and say 'it didn't happen'?

That's quite a ramble of off-topic jibberish you've got there. You wanna pit Einstein against the harlot of Babylon next?
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
200
usa
✟8,850.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
It does, huh?

I can just see today's hot-shot "scientists" back then.

The Egyptian army closing on them, the only direction they can go is forward into a major body of water, and what do they do?

Whip out a current copy of the Periodic Table and pray ... er ... hope that water tension back then was stronger?

Close their eyes and hope their peers in the future will look back and say 'it didn't happen'?


What Id like to see is a theocreologist get in a time machine and travel back to see what really happened.

The red sea just never seems to part anywhere, at any time.

What do they do? Get out their book and say THIS is where it parts! Right here on this page! See? Dont look at the water, look at this page, you will see it!

Seriously tho, if time travel is some day possible and a person could go back and look for some miracles and they dont happen, look for the ark, look for people cavorting with dinosaurs, and it just isnt there.... how many fails does it take before figuring out that their book got it wrong?

And then what do they do?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,155
51,516
Guam
✟4,910,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You wanna pit Einstein against the harlot of Babylon next?
The "harlot of Babylon" would eat Einstein for breakfast --- starting with a demonstration of what you guys call 'abiogenesis' --- something "scientists" hold in high esteem.
Revelation 13:15 said:
And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

WilliamduBois

BenderBendingRodriguez
Mar 11, 2006
252
9
Desselgem, WVL, Belgium
Visit site
✟7,964.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
It does, huh?

I can just see today's hot-shot "scientists" back then.

The Egyptian army closing on them, the only direction they can go is forward into a major body of water, and what do they do?

Whip out a current copy of the Periodic Table and pray ... er ... hope that water tension back then was stronger?

Close their eyes and hope their peers in the future will look back and say 'it didn't happen'?

Wow, AV. You hit a new low, and that's quite an accomplishment, considering your other ramblings. Admit it: you don't really think this will open anyones eyes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

loveiseverywhere

Theistic Evolutionist / Ex-Atheist
Jun 8, 2006
722
86
53
Pensacola, FLorida
Visit site
✟9,143.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Yes there is. And the ark was anything but impossible. You can talk, but you can't back er up. Apparently you are more of a hit and run type.

Actually, I can back it up. With pages and pages of evidence.

Creationist models are often criticized for being too vague to have any predictive value. A literal interpretation of the Flood story in Genesis, however, does imply certain physical consequences which can be tested against what we actually observe, and the implications of such an interpretation are investigated below. Some creationists provided even more detailed models, and these are also addressed (see especially sections 5 and 7).

References are listed at the end of each section.

Two kinds of flood model are not addressed here. First is the local flood. Genesis 6-8 can be interpreted as a homiletic story such that the "world" that was flooded was just the area that Noah knew. Creationists argue against the local flood model because it doesn't fit their own literalist preconceptions, but I know of no physical evidence contrary to such a model.

Second, the whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

1. Building the Ark
Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?

2. Gathering the Animals
Bringing all kinds of animals together in the vicinity of the ark presents significant problems.


Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties.
  • Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all.
  • Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?
  • Some cave-dwelling arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity.
  • Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood.
Could animals have all lived near Noah? Some creationists suggest that the animals need not have traveled far to reach the Ark; a moderate climate could have made it possible for all of them to live nearby all along. However, this proposal makes matters even worse. The last point above would have applied not only to island species, but to almost all species. Competition between species would have driven most of them to extinction.

There is a reason why Gila monsters, yaks, and quetzals don't all live together in a temperate climate. They can't survive there, at least not for long without special care. Organisms have preferred environments outside of which they are at a deadly disadvantage. Most extinctions are caused by destroying the organisms' preferred environments. The creationists who propose all the species living together in a uniform climate are effectively proposing the destruction of all environments but one. Not many species could have survived that.

How was the Ark loaded? Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark ( Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the Ark (see section 3), one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse.

...and the rest is here....

Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

atomweaver

Senior Member
Nov 3, 2006
1,706
181
"Flat Raccoon", Connecticut
✟10,391.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Originally Posted by Dicionary of Scientists
Our knowledge of Leucippus comes from the writings of Aristotle and Theophrastus. He is said to have been the teacher of Democritus and author of the Great World System and On Mind. He is also credited with being the originator of atomic theory, although it is difficult to distinguish his contributions from those of his pupil Democritus.


Sloppy source, AVVET. Leucippian philosophical atomism didn't have the ability to conceive of something as simple as a vacuum (the absence of matter). Its as far removed from any scientific atomic theory as The Noahic Flood story is removed from the Epic of Gilgamesh... ;)

 
Upvote 0