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.
Thats all cool. The thing is, the mere thought of evolution being true, creates so much cognitive dissonance in certain types of christians, you end up getting the behaviors and crude defense mechanisms you see displayed in this thread. For some, it is far too painful to acknowledge well evidenced reaility, so they need to manufacture their own reality.Even if evolution is true, that doesn't mean that God is non-existent.
God simply would be the force guiding evolution.
And this also would mean that the book of Genesis is allegorical, which isn't a problem, because there are other books in the Bible, which are full of symbolism, such as Revelation.
Honestly, I find the idea of the universe being billions of years old to be more divine and awesome, than a young universe, only 7 thousands years old. Something about the universe being so old, so many countless, innumerable years - I find it to be very profound and sublime. It makes me realize just how beautiful and amazing God is - that throughout all that time, He has been there and even way before, for eternity.
No problem. As soon as you come through with what you are supposed to do first.
You are a long long way behind. Before you can expect an answer from your demands you need to do your homework.
There hasn't been any debate here. Heck, there's barely been a discussion. You flat out refuse to engage anyone on any topic, even on things you post yourself.
Other than blatantly trolling, I can't figure out why you're even here.
Who's debating here? All you have done in this thread so far is making claims that you don't back up.
You don't understand what the term "quote mining" means, you don't understand what "peer review" actually means and you also don't get what the word "evidence" entails.
Either you're the best troll I've seen in a long time or you're the worst debater I've ever came across.
No, that's not how a quote-mine works. I cannot quote-mine myself. To quote-mine someone, you have to take out something that has been said by someone that, by itself, means the opposite of what that person was saying.
xianghua gave a perfect example in post #582, and then there is also the brilliant example of quote-mining the Bible: "... there is no God."
Who's debating here? All you have done in this thread so far is making claims that you don't back up.
You don't understand what the term "quote mining" means, you don't understand what "peer review" actually means and you also don't get what the word "evidence" entails.
Either you're the best troll I've seen in a long time or you're the worst debater I've ever came across.
Personally when I see the use of quotes out of context to dishonestly misrepresent their source (colloquially "a quote mine") used on this board, I like the phrase: bearing false witness against your neighbour.
Personally when I see the use of quotes out of context to dishonestly misrepresent their source (colloquially "a quote mine") used on this board, I like the phrase: bearing false witness against your neighbour.
"Macroevolution" really isn't a thing. At least not in the way dishonest creationists use it.
And I explained to you that you don't get to make such demands. I will gladly help you learn but I will not lecture you. Creationists tend to simply deny instead of learning.then I asked for you to define "evidence" once again, and you did not. apparently from your posts you neither know what evidence is and what peer review is, you are a troll. You never state posts about your own beliefs and when asked you refuse to answer. That is the definition of trolling, and it's against the rules.
What insults?sorry bro, I see you have nothing else to do other than insult, putting you on ignore.
oh yeah and you forgot, one thing.....I asked a basic and simple question about macrevolution that no one can answer. Not a single evolutionist in 10 years has answered it. I wasn't going to ask it because most of the time evolutionists separate themselves afterward. But if you wish to actually discuss evolution, then try macroevolution. Microevolution I agree with anyway.
every issue I have addressed, name one I havent'
What is this supposed stumper of a question that you've not had satisfactorily answered in a decade?
When you think about it, when you are in that deep, you really have no choice but to deny well evidenced reality. Too painful to do otherwise.He asked where the "missing links" are that show evolution from one taxa to another. He was repeatedly given answers or websites but he just handwaves them away or otherwise refuses to look at sources.
He asked where the "missing links" are that show evolution from one taxa to another. He was repeatedly given answers or websites but he just handwaves them away or otherwise refuses to look at sources.
And put those on ignore that are actually willing to help you to learn. At least that was his last threat towards me.When you think about it, when you are in that deep, you really have no choice but to deny well evidenced reality. Too painful to do otherwise.
A Peer review proves you wrong, macro evolution is not at the species level:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."
Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x
Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution
although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:
Evolution & Development - Wikipedia
So I comment that dishonest creationists deliberately misuse "macroevolution" to mean something it's not, and you link a study proving my point.A Peer review proves you wrong, macro evolution is not at the species level:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."
Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x
Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution
although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:
Evolution & Development - Wikipedia
He asked where the "missing links" are that show evolution from one taxa to another. He was repeatedly given answers or websites but he just handwaves them away or otherwise refuses to look at sources.
So I comment that dishonest creationists deliberately misuse "macroevolution" to mean something it's not, and you link a study proving my point.
LOL.
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?