A Challenge for Evolutionists

[Sum1sGruj]

Yes you have been a busy bee with these things.

If you know little to no science how can you argue against it?

You haven't contributed jack to the subject. Everything you have stated through the entirety of this thread is one big ad hominem.
You have been rude and ridiculous, thinking because someone does not have a PhD that logic does not avail them. I know plenty about science, I am just not Einstein.
Maybe if you took a second to get over yourself and pay attention to what the thread is about, you will notice that my OP directly addresses all the PhD's ideas in which neither they nor you, the guy who once worked under Hawkings, can even muster up in defense.
Quite the circularity you are playing now, as with the rest of the band wagon.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

If OECs hold no credibility with you, then why make this thread? This just makes it sound like you were looking for an excuse to rip on OECs.

To level the playing field. In no ways should OEC's be attempting to push their Deism onto others. It really should be the other way around, as you all are the one's twisting the Bible to no other extent and trying to hide it with the weakest bag of ideas I've ever heard in my life.
This must seriously be how the Jews felt when their religion became Hellenized, except for this, there is no Lucifer but only a likely, impending embarrassment to Christianity.

 

[KerrMetric]

You haven't contributed jack to the subject. Everything you have stated through the entirety of this thread is one big ad hominem.

You obviously do not know what ad hominem means. You are like a kid with a new toy - the toy in this case being some debating terms.
It is not attacking the man to point out posted falsehoods. In fact the person committing the attacks was you in your first post to me calling me a liar just because I pointed out some falsehoods you stated. And you even admitted to one of those falsehoods.

You have been rude and ridiculous, thinking because someone does not have a PhD that logic does not avail them. I know plenty about science, I am just not Einstein.

You must be confusing me with someone else. I never mentioned a PhD to you - that was your discussion with another poster. Keep your bloody stories straight.

And from what I have seen, as a professional scientist, you know very little about science both in a factual sense and in a philosophical sense.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

You obviously do not know what ad hominem means. You are like a kid with a new toy - the toy in this case being some debating terms.
It is not attacking the man to point out posted falsehoods. In fact the person committing the attacks was you in your first post to me calling me a liar just because I pointed out some falsehoods you stated. And you even admitted to one of those falsehoods.

You must be confusing me with someone else. I never mentioned a PhD to you - that was your discussion with another poster. Keep your bloody stories straight.

And from what I have seen, as a professional scientist, you know very little about science both in a factual sense and in a philosophical sense.

You need to grow up. You corrected me on a difference between constant and formula as I was going on with an idea that nothing to do with either or.
You are seriously starting to aggravate me. How old are you, really?

I called you a liar because you stated that my ideas were wrong. Should I re-post the damn thing or are you going to save yourself a little dignity and be done with it?

To be honest, half the reason why I have lost patience with this thread is because of you, and then dealing with several other people stacking their ideas immediately after. It's too much for one person to take on without getting aggravated. It's ridiculous, but you know what? It brings out the insecurity of some people with their own beliefs, finding comfort in the masses of agreeing statements.

You didn't say anything about a PhD.. what does that have to do with anything? I was suggesting that you are on your high horse thinking you are more intelligent then others because of your career.

Even your little personality thing indicates that you have little depth, which is just as important as logic. So the way I see it, we are about equal.

 

[Incariol]

To be honest, half the reason why I have lost patience with this thread is because of you, and then dealing with several other people stacking their ideas immediately after. It's too much for one person to take on without getting aggravated. It's ridiculous, but you know what? It brings out the insecurity of some people with their own beliefs, finding comfort in the masses of agreeing statements.

How horrible. Instead of being stumped by your questions, multiple people found them fairly easy to answer, and agree on the answers. Its bizarre that you actually find consensus a bad thing.

 

[KerrMetric]

You need to grow up. You corrected me on a difference between constant and formula as I was going on with an idea that nothing to do with either or.
You are seriously starting to aggravate me. How old are you, really?

I corrected you because you made an error and it seems to me that someone mouthing off about the problems with science should not make such a basic error. In other words I was highlighting your inadequacies as someone critiquing science.
You are being very childish here - I did not say anything in my initial post except to state your were making false statements and did you feel you were doing well by doing so. You the other hand sort of flew off the handle and called me a liar.

I called you a liar because you stated that my ideas were wrong.

So if someone states your things are wrong they are a liar. Did you really mean to type this? How very Christian of you. Yet you admitted an error - so I take it I wasn't lying for that part. Right?

To be honest, half the reason why I have lost patience with this thread is because of you, and then dealing with several other people stacking their ideas immediately after. It's too much for one person to take on without getting aggravated. It's ridiculous, but you know what? It brings out the insecurity of some people with their own beliefs, finding comfort in the masses of agreeing statements.

As I said before, you are not ready for this kind of discussion. I said we could discuss your errors one at a time as opposed to the usual YEC claptrap of argument by long mindless list.

You didn't say anything about a PhD.. what does that have to do with anything? I was suggesting that you are on your high horse thinking you are more intelligent then others because of your career.

You accused me of saying because you didn't have a PhD then you weren't to be taken seriously. Since I never said ANY SUCH THING, I took you to task for it. You are seemingly quite young, 23 I believe you said, you are scientifically uneducated that much is obvious and you are very inexperienced in debate. Here's a tip for ya - when someone states you made an error they are not necessarily a liar - which is exactly what your knee jerk response was. And the knee might be superfluous here.
And by the way - because of my scientific training and education I am more intelligent than you in the science arena, certainly based on your obviously limited understanding.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

How horrible. Instead of being stumped by your questions, multiple people found them fairly easy to answer, and agree on the answers. Its bizarre that you actually find consensus a bad thing.

They didn't competently answer them. Maybe in their own minds, but they surely did not solve them.
Those questions were to make a point. I wanted to see what OEC's made of them to show the circularity of their reasoning.
I didn't expect that people would actually throw up a wild idea thta they actually conquered the OP.
Perhaps that was a little much for me to do, but then again, I have stated several times that those questions cannot be absolved with Deism.

So what you are saying is just plain false. That is what is horrible. It's bizarre that you can accuse someone of being one-sided after being so yourself, and yet sticking to the accusation when I bring to light why I made this thread to begin with.

See the irony? It actually makes me glad that I made this thread, as certainly this what OEC's need to hear whether they like it or not.
As the bible implies, you will suffer by your own people when you hold your tongue to speaking righteousness. Your own fellow OEC's have called YEC's Deists and un-Christian, and you co-sign it by not stating otherwise.

I have rectified the truth to who the Deists are, however. That is one implication of others bias right there. I am fully capable of standing my ground, these clockwork rebounds don't really do much period except reinforce my statements.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

They didn't competently answer them. Maybe in their own minds, but they surely did not solve them.
Those questions were to make a point. I wanted to see what OEC's made of them to show the circularity of their reasoning.

Please explain how last-Thursdayism shows circularity.

I also fail to see the circularity in my explanation of index fossils and how they are used in geology.

I didn't expect that people would actually throw up a wild idea thta they actually conquered the OP.
Perhaps that was a little much for me to do, but then again, I have stated several times that those questions cannot be absolved with Deism.

And yet we did resolve them...funny, that.

So what you are saying is just plain false. That is what is horrible. It's bizarre that you can accuse someone of being one-sided after being so yourself, and yet sticking to the accusation when I bring to light why I made this thread to begin with.

You made the thread to show us our circularity, but we don't see it. So please, enlighten us. Expalin why our arguments are circular, preferably without reusing statements that we've already addressed.

See the irony? It actually makes me glad that I made this thread, as certainly this what OEC's need to hear whether they like it or not.
As the bible implies, you will suffer by your own people when you hold your tongue to speaking righteousness. Your own fellow OEC's have called YEC's Deists and un-Christian, and you co-sign it by not stating otherwise.

I have rectified the truth to who the Deists are, however. That is one implication of others bias right there. I am fully capable of standing my ground, these clockwork rebounds don't really do much period except reinforce my statements.

Holy tangents, Batman!

Seriously, I fail to see the relevance of this to the discussion.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Please explain how last-Thursdayism shows circularity.

Last Thurdayism- hurts OEC more then it does YEC. But you'll never except that as it is a prime accusation when OEC's want to hide the inadequacies of their theology.
It does not go without merit after all. Maybe you should look up the paradoxes of infinity that must be a property of God, and see then how much standing 13 billion years actually has over 12000.

I also fail to see the circularity in my explanation of index fossils and how they are used in geology.

Obsolete, if not circular. Every idea of OEC can fall right under either/or when pinning it to YEC.
But circularity is most of it. Example:

What indicates evolution?
We have found a DNA hierarchy.
Could they just be 'like' organisms?
No.
Why?
Because of evolution.

And yet we did resolve them...funny, that.

No.. what is it about the human mind that can make itself believe something that is obviously not true?
I have stated this before.
Please tell me.

I don't think you are grasping the supreme idiocy of thinking you or anyone has or even can absolve those questions. You do understand this, right?

You made the thread to show us our circularity, but we don't see it. So please, enlighten us. Expalin why our arguments are circular, preferably without reusing statements that we've already addressed.

Oh, you see it. You just do not want to face it. It has been a product of every post by everyone opposing YEC. You all didn't even take notice to the depth I was presenting, you all just threw out a bunch of circular, obsolete crap. That usual, run-of-the-mill argument that any atheist would put up. How can you possibly sit here and say that you are even capable of understanding something period?

Seriously, I fail to see the relevance of this to the discussion.

Well I don't see the relevance in a good 90% of what you and others have spoken since the beginning of this thread.

 

[KerrMetric]

Maybe you should look up the paradoxes of infinity that must be a property of God, and see then how much standing 13 billion years actually has over 12000.

Can anyone parse the above quote?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Can anyone parse the above quote?

As in an infinitely large circle is a straight line, we exist and not exist at the same time. An event comes and goes before it comes. Nothing was created but has always 'been', but has never 'been' all the same.
Paradoxes.

Seriously, what is so absurd about the universe being initially 'old'? There are quite a few theologies that can spur just from the one concept.
One would think that because physics relies so much on infinite, OEC's would grasp on to it seeing how they have combined Spinoza's metaphorical god with the God of Abraham, both of which rely on infinite completely.
But no, it seems people just pick up a Bible, find a quick middle ground between science and divinity, and voila! Theology complete..
And then have the nerve to call YEC's un-Christian.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Last Thurdayism- hurts OEC more then it does YEC. But you'll never except that as it is a prime accusation when OEC's want to hide the inadequacies of their theology.
It does not go without merit after all. Maybe you should look up the paradoxes of infinity that must be a property of God, and see then how much standing 13 billion years actually has over 12000.

It hurts both sides equally. Absolutely nothing can be proven with last-Thursdayism. If anyone uses that argument, they must accept that they can't know anything.

Obsolete, if not circular.

Elaborate please.

Every idea of OEC can fall right under either/or when pinning it to YEC.

What? This sentence makes no sense.

But circularity is most of it. Example:

What indicates evolution?
We have found a DNA hierarchy.
Could they just be 'like' organisms?
No.
Why?
Because of evolution.

Has nothing to do with fossils and has already been explained by others. I'm not a biologist, so I won't even try.

No.. what is it about the human mind that can make itself believe something that is obviously not true?
I have stated this before.
Please tell me.

What makes you the absolute authority?

I don't think you are grasping the supreme idiocy of thinking you or anyone has or even can absolve those questions. You do understand this, right?

And you were complaining about ad hominem attacks...

Oh, you see it. You just do not want to face it. It has been a product of every post by everyone opposing YEC. You all didn't even take notice to the depth I was presenting, you all just threw out a bunch of circular, obsolete crap. That usual, run-of-the-mill argument that any atheist would put up. How can you possibly sit here and say that you are even capable of understanding something period?

And yet you still haven't explained how what I said was circular or obsolete. Your DNA hierarchy thing has already been explained, and that was the only circular argument you talked about.

Well I don't see the relevance in a good 90% of what you and others have spoken since the beginning of this thread.

Then you obviously have no understanding of the material you were asking about.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

It hurts both sides equally. Absolutely nothing can be proven with last-Thursdayism. If anyone uses that argument, they must accept that they can't know anything.

No, because have you read the Bible? You know, the book that actually has to be included in Christian theology?
Exactly. Last-Thurdayism hurts OEC.

Elaborate please.

If you and others statements are not circular, they are obsolete. But all of them are obsolete individually, and circular altogether.
They are of no corners, but go around. When they are apart, they are vain. Logic going in a loop. A loop carrying no significance. No significance going in a loop. A well rounded, but baseless ideal.

Has nothing to do with fossils and has already been explained by others. I'm not a biologist, so I won't even try.

And fossils carry no weight. I was attempting to make sense of the baseless claim. But thanks for not even acknowledging that beautiful example of circularity. It shows who is really being ignorant to the subject matter.

What makes you the absolute authority?

Absolute authority? I am not the one who tries to fit the Bible into science rather then fitting science into the Bible. Ever read Timothy? It practically tells you that your theology is going to be wrong. With a tad bit of depth, you may actually start realizing some of the things I've stated through this thread. I have a complete theology which took me a very long time to complete. I think that is a lacking construct of OEC's. After all, your theology is inherently incomplete because you have scientific theory in it.

Then you obviously have no understanding of the material you were asking about.

Oh yeah, like this is founded on anything except for the fact that 90% of what's been said by you and others is just beating around the bush, non-answering, weightless ranting about practically nothing that has anything to do outside science's own subjective observation and I don't want to deal with such vain reasoning.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

No, because have you read the Bible? You know, the book that actually has to be included in Christian theology?
Exactly. Last-Thurdayism hurts OEC.

Only if you assume a literal interpretation of the Bible. I don't.

If you and others statements are not circular, they are obsolete. But all of them are obsolete individually, and circular altogether.

I was asking you to elaborate on how they are obsolete.

And fossils carry no weight. I was attempting to make sense of the baseless claim.

If fossils carry no weight, why did you ask for an explanation?

But thanks for not even acknowledging that beautiful example of circularity. It shows who is really being ignorant to the subject matter.

I acknowledged it. I'm not going to talk about something I have absolutely no knowledge of though. I will freely admit that I'm pretty ignorant of biology, especially advanced genetics. This has no bearing on what I've said though, because I haven't commented on biology. In fact, I specifically refrained from commenting on the biological question. However, I am a geologist by trade and training, and know quite a bit about that subject.

Absolute authority? I am not the one who tries to fit the Bible into science rather then fitting science into the Bible. Ever read Timothy? It practically tells you that your theology is going to be wrong. With a tad bit of depth, you may actually start realizing some of the things I've stated through this thread. I have a complete theology which took me a very long time to complete. I think that is a lacking construct of OEC's. After all, your theology is inherently incomplete because you have scientific theory in it.

I don't try to fit the Bible in science. I suppose I'm more of a theistic evolutionist than an OEC (which are a vast minority now, btw). I believe that God had a hand in creating the world as the one who started it all, and possibly later if He ever saw the need to nudge evolution in the right direction. I see no other need for God in science.

I think it's good that you have everything figured out to your satisfaction, but there's no need to try to force those same beliefs on others. Everyone has a slightly different understanding of the world depending on their upbringing and life experiences, and it isn't your place to decide which (if any) of those understandings is correct.

Oh yeah, like this is founded on anything except for the fact that 90% of what's been said by you and others is just beating around the bush, non-answering, weightless ranting about practically nothing that has anything to do outside science's own subjective observation and I don't want to deal with such vain reasoning.

You ask us to answer questions, we graciously do so despite the obvious baiting, and we get abuse for it. Not a very Christian attitude if you ask me.

I'm done with this thread now. If you're just going to insult me every time I post, then I have no reason to keep following it.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Only if you assume a literal interpretation of the Bible. I don't.

OEC's clearly do not know the volume of which they oppose in the Bible.

Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Does this verse not completely conclude everything I have stated thus far? The vain, circular logic, scientific theory, etc.? I have made a clear rationale showing this, and on how scientific theory does not have to be included in theology and yet..
You know what, it's just a lost cause.

OEC is a fool's theology. You all can sit here with this circular arguing and lack of respect for your God's Word, but I've said all I needed to say. There's no point in continuing to drill it in vain. The circular concept is quite stupid. If you really had an interest in God, you would show more initiative then whatever this thing you call a 'theology' is.

If anyone wants to get into the real depths of theological ideology, just let me know. Otherwise, I'm done here.

 

[KerrMetric]

OEC's clearly do not know the volume of which they oppose in the Bible.

Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Does this verse not completely conclude everything I have stated thus far? The vain, circular logic, scientific theory, etc.? I have made a clear rationale showing this, and on how scientific theory does not have to be included in theology and yet..
You know what, it's just a lost cause.

OEC is a fool's theology. You all can sit here with this circular arguing and lack of respect for your God's Word, but I've said all I needed to say. There's no point in continuing to drill it in vain. The circular concept is quite stupid. If you really had an interest in God, you would show more initiative then whatever this thing you call a 'theology' is.

If anyone wants to get into the real depths of theological ideology, just let me know. Otherwise, I'm done here.

You do realise that many if not most on here are not OEC?

 

[Hisbygrace]

Mod Hat On
Ok everyone this thread has undergone a major cleanup! If you find your post(s) have been edited by staff or removed it is because they were a part of the cleanup. The thread is being reopened, but will be closed again permanently if the flaming starts again. Just as a reminder of our Sitewide Rules

Flaming and Harassment
● Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. Do not report another member out of spite.
● Do not make another member's experience on this site miserable.

Off-Topic posts
Respect and become familiar with each forum's Statement of Purpose. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose; submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion. Off Topic posts will be moved or removed.

The best discussions are those that address the topic and not the posters.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[FaithPrevails]

MOD HAT ON

Thread closed at OP's request

MOD HAT OFF​