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.
I have a idea, how about if I only post on things that you approve of and agree with. Is it ok if I check with you first to get your permission before I post anything on the board here. I would not want to upset you or offend you in any way.Ishmael Borg said:I'd say that you should refrain from mentioning it all from now on.
Sounds like a plan.JohnR7 said:I have a idea, how about if I only post on things that you approve of and agree with. Is it ok if I check with you first to get your permission before I post anything on the board here. I would not want to upset you or offend you in any way.
Then your interpretations are in trouble. They break several of the rules. 2-5 and 7 in particular.JohnR7 said:
I was going to say comparison to the data. And, of course, the data is in peer-reviewed journals.Now, you tell me, how do we seperate "good" evolutionary theory from the pop science nonsense that there is a abundance of. Oh, let me guess, peer review journals.
John, please list for us what you consider the 'nonsense'. I have a strong feeling that what you consider 'nonsense' is not.Does this really protest the average Joe from nonsense that is being passed off as evolutionary theory?
The reviews go to the author and editor. They are not available to the public. This is so the reviewers can be as critical as they want. I have shown you reviews of one of my papers.Also a peer review is only as good as the review. How often do you show us the reviews as compared to the articals?
One rule: does the claims of the author correspond to the data?Do you have seven rules we can follow to know what is true evolutionary theory as compared to the pop nonsense that is out there?
John, new theories do not invalidate old. The only thing that can invalidate a theory is data.JohnR7 said:The new theory invalidate the old theory.
LOL! In general, they did. But that does not mean it was a straight line linear evolution from small to large. There were branches of the bush that locally went from larger to smaller, but those branches went extinct.Yet I have had people on this very board argue the old theory that horses evolved from small to large.
John, DArwin answered this. Sometimes the environment changes faster than the population can adapt. Variations are not produced on demand. They are random with respect to the needs of the individual or the population. If the necessary variations are not present or appear when the environment changes, too bad.JohnR7 said:My question is: If evolution is like a bush then why do we have extinctions. Why can't the "bush" just produce some new branches or new species?
Sounds a lot like JohnR7, doesn't it? None of us can give him one good reason to consider evolution.Aron-Ra said:Of course, as I have already stated many times. I however am not a theist, and the reason I am not is because no one can give me one good reason to consider that option.
And you answer a claim of arrogance with more arrogance. It's still about you and not about truth or science.And it isn't arrogance. The last time someone accepted my challenge, two years ago, he dropped out of the debate after the first round, and explained to his friends on thier discussion board that he couldn't continue because I made too much sense.
You are confusing your atheism with evolution again. Evolutionists do NOT "BELIEVE" evolution. Scientific theories are not "believed". They are accepted as (provisionally) correct based on the current data and they are discarded if and when data to falsify them shows up. The "belief" is atheism.because I took him at least far enough to understand why evolutionists believe what they do.
And I don't. You are not relying on the data, but on your skills as a debator. What happens when you run up against a better debator? You are also playing on the ignorance of the lay creationist. Again, beating a person does not have anything to do with the idea. Ideas are separate from the people who advocate them.I've had enough of the zealots evoking the laymen's definition of theory while at the same time adhering to the scientist's definition of proof, so that evolution comes out being "just a theory that will never be proven". I'm also tired of the constant accusations that scientists are supposedly losing confidence in the evolutionary model. I am challenging that in the most appropriate manner, I think.
Back to your ego again. I don't like you putting the truth of evolution on your ability to debate. Truth doesn't depend on your debating ability, but that is what you are saying.I am demonstrating my confidence in that
In that case, discuss the subject, don't debate. Debate is an inherently hostile environnment. If you want to convince people, you don't pick an adversarial format.I am hoping to reach the innocent who may be an honest person, but who had been deceived by their system of indoctrination.
DUH! YECers have learned, like evolutionists learned in the 1970s and 80s about verbal debates. THat's not due to you, however.I have answered challenges from a handful of professional creationists boldly announcing that they would debate "any evolutionist anytime anywhere". However, when I stipulate that the debate be in writing, suddenly I am refused.
And this isn't your GAP theory. You have the GAP after the 6 days. This one has the gap between days 1 and 2 in Genesis 1.JohnR7 said:I don't know. The only thing I have seen on it is the web site Luca's pointed out from the christian geology ministry.... http://www.kjvbible.org/
er... you've got to be kidding, right?USincognito said:I hate to waste bandwidth showing how full of it you are, and I refuse to link again to your claim that wild animals won't work, while showing you a photo of an elephant working in a logging camp.
You're worthless in this debate John. Accept it.
Namaste lucaspa,lucaspa said:Sadly, I'm afraid it is. We also have a claim that apostasy in the Jerusalem Church of the disciples resulted when Nero was claimed to be a god.
Believe me, John took a turn for the worse lately.vajradhara said:er... you've got to be kidding, right?
please... say it ain't so!
It was only a suggestion. If you feel comfortable posting garbage that you can't support, who am I to stop you? Just don't be surprised at the responses.JohnR7 said:I have a idea, how about if I only post on things that you approve of and agree with. Is it ok if I check with you first to get your permission before I post anything on the board here. I would not want to upset you or offend you in any way.
It doesn't matter what Christ used. JohnR7 uses them. It is not yours to question.Dale said:JohnR7 in post #33:
<< Bible interpertation must follow the seven rules: >>
*
Never heard of them. Can you show me that Christ used these rules to interpret the Old Testament? Can you show that the Apostles utilized these rules when they quoted the OT?
What ever it is it looks like a fully formed head to me, so much for transitional form.Tomk80 said:That's easy, it's a maptile. Or is it a remmal?
That's one of the all time worst (and most laughable) creationist responses I've ever read here. I'm not even completely sure whether it's serious or not.Freedom777 said:What ever it is it looks like a fully formed head to me, so much for transitional form.
No, it doesn't. Now if at least a half-dozen theists showed me each of their reasons to believe in subsequent posts, and I ignored each of them the way JohnR7 does, then you might have a point.Aron-Ra said:I am not a theist, and the reason I am not is because no one can give me one good reason to consider that option. [QUOTE=lucaspa]Sounds a lot like JohnR7, doesn't it?
The enormous difference between him and I is that there are several people trying to give him reasons and no one even pretending they can give me one.None of us can give him one good reason to consider evolution.
My atheism bothers you a whole lot for some reason. But if I had any beliefs left to keep, I wouldn't be atheist.However, it is not your atheism that concerns me. By all means, keep your belief.
That's a strange assumption to make, and clearly indicates that you haven't been reading my posts, or that you haven't been paying attention to the ones you have read. Like all the times I cited Dr. Robert Bakker's book, Bones, Bibles, and Creation. I frequently cite Bakker because he is a Biblical scholar, and a fiery Pentecostal preacher, but he is also one of the world's more famous professional Ph.D. paleontologists and as such, is an advocate of evolutionary Theory. This, (I have repeated many times) proves you don't have to reject God to accept evolution. I don't know you managed to miss all these references in my previous posts, but I have stated flat-out several times that I am not pushing atheism, (nor want to) nor am I specifically criticizing Christianity; I am a proponent of reason over dogmatic faith, and I am attempting to find some way to reason with the faithful, if indeed they can be reasoned with, which even they often claim they cannot be.It is your tendency to equate your atheism with evolution and misuse evolution as a way to convert people to atheism.
You missed the point again. My opponent realized that my position made sense, so he refused to continue, and even admitted as much to his friends on their discussion board, but wouldn't admit so to me, proving what I alleged of him in the first place; what he wants to believe is more important than what is really true. It ain't about me. Its about the inherent dishonesty of the creationism movement and their requirment to ignore both physical and logical evidence.it isn't arrogance. The last time someone accepted my challenge, two years ago, he dropped out of the debate after the first round, and explained to his friends on thier discussion board that he couldn't continue because I made too much sense.And you answer a claim of arrogance with more arrogance. It's still about you and not about truth or science.
I have never confused atheism with evolution before. I have been a Christian, an occultist, a pantheist proponent of intelligent design, and a materialist. But I have always been evolutionist.I took him at least far enough to understand why evolutionists believe what they do.You are confusing your atheism with evolution again.
I see that you are not familiar with any of my contributions to Talk.Origins where I have said exactly this about 100 times. I complain about the same thing with my son. He believes evolution on my word, but I tell him I don't want him to believe it, I want him to understand it, and accept his understanding rather than anything I say about it. This is what I try to stress to my opponents as well.Evolutionists do NOT "BELIEVE" evolution. Scientific theories are not "believed". They are accepted as (provisionally) correct based on the current data and they are discarded if and when data to falsify them shows up.
Atheism is a lack of belief, not a positive one. As you should have been aware by now, I remain open to any evidence of anything supernatural, so long as it isn't limited to tabloid-level authenticity.The "belief" is atheism.
It won't matter. As I have already told you, my skills as a debator are not even a factor here. If someone were to actually take me up on this, they would see that quickly enough. I present the reasons for the scientific conclusions and ask for alternative, non-evolutionist explanations of critical points. Once my opponents see these, they realize that evolutionary answers are the only applicable ones. But because they're forbidden to admit that, they drop out of the debate without answering any of those questions.I'm also tired of the constant accusations that scientists are supposedly losing confidence in the evolutionary model. I am challenging that in the most appropriate manner, I think.And I don't. You are not relying on the data, but on your skills as a debator. What happens when you run up against a better debator?
Wrong again. In each of my attempted debates, I have attempted to educate the creationist in question. That's why I said it had to be a quid-pro-quo series of questions and answers. I have to find what false impressions they've been given, and correct those. But again, many creationists believe they are not even permitted to accept the real definitions of microevolution and macroevolution (just for one example). So once they hear it, and see that their definition can't be found in any source related to biology, they drop out again, unable to be reasoned with.You are also playing on the ignorance of the lay creationist.
Understood. That's why I say that I can't win (except by default) unless my opponent actually adopts an acceptance of evolution himself. I'm not trying to win on any mere technicality. I'm trying to show that creationism is nothing more than a pack of lies, and I'm betting that if any creationist were honest enough to meet that challenge, he would soon change his world-view accordingly. Of course since apparently none of them ever will take that offer, I'll never know if I can really do it or not.Again, beating a person does not have anything to do with the idea. Ideas are separate from the people who advocate them.
Or more importantly, it is put on creationism's utter inability to explain any of the actual details seen by evolutionary biologists without resorting to those same explanations. That's what I'm trying to demonstrate.Back to your ego again. I don't like you putting the truth of evolution on your ability to debate. Truth doesn't depend on your debating ability, but that is what you are saying.
You are not at all familiar with my tactics and have badly misjudged me, as you seem inclined to do. Why do you make so many negative assumptions about me?I am hoping to reach the innocent who may be an honest person, but who had been deceived by their system of indoctrination.In that case, discuss the subject, don't debate. Debate is an inherently hostile environnment. If you want to convince people, you don't pick an adversarial format.
when I stipulate that the debate be in writing, suddenly I am refused.Nor do I take credit for it, as I have expressed so many times already. You sure like to put weird words in my mouth.DUH! YECers have learned, like evolutionists learned in the 1970s and 80s about verbal debates. THat's not due to you, however.
No, I wasn't aware of that. I wonder what their parameters are? Dr. Walt Brown also says he is willing to engage in a written debate. But his requirements for that are that he will only debate "evolutionists" with doctorate degrees, and then they need to secure three willing editors each associated with $10 million+ publishers who are somehow willing to publish the debate in book form (internet is too easy to access I guess) and these publishers must also have no strong feelings on the issue either way. That's a lot of stupid requirements that are hard to acheive, where my offer is much much easier, and proves the point much more efficiently, to a much broader audience.If you notice Johnson and Behe have engaged in written debates lately. Maybe you haven't tried them?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?