As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

inquiring mind said:

Beware! More speculation with heapings of scientific verbiage

Click to expand...

The poor thing - unwittingly admits that she is ignorant of science - all of them thar big sciency words are just too much!

USincognito said:

I will post a bunch of photos of fossils and he'll either hand wave them or claim they don't show a "change in kind" (whatever that means) or claim that fossils don't tell us anything other than that something has died - though he clearly thinks fossils would tell us about evolution when he said "there is nothing in the fossil record to back it up". Let's see how my prediction goes...
View attachment 249018
View attachment 249019
View attachment 249020

Click to expand...

No fair! That is a not a real prediction, seeing as how this one does this EVERY TIME evidence is presented!

SinoBen said:

How about you explain to us using which ever theory of evolution you are defending to explain the origin of life.

Click to expand...

How about you stop using the Strawman fallacy, and explain how dust was turned into a man?

inquiring mind said:

Evidence that only satisfies 'you' doesn't count.

Click to expand...

So is that why you never present evidence for Yahweh or the bible miracles? Because you know no sensible, educated person will accept it as valid?

The evidence we present satisfies everyone with the relevant understanding of the material.

Who are you that we should even care whether YOU will accept it or not?

inquiring mind said:

Yes, I understand... evolutionists continually misinterpret the former and come up empty on the latter.

Click to expand...

I understand why children and the deluded lie about things, but why would an adult who pretends to be intelligent and "inquiring"? Fear?

xianghua said:

but any person has bacially the same chance to get born.

Click to expand...

LOL!

Yes, any born person has the same chance of having been borne. So insightful...

this is not the case with a functional s equence. only a tiny fraction of the sequence space is functional. so the chance to get a functional protein is very low.

Click to expand...

Good thing that the number of trials was very, very, very, very, very, very high.

Higher even than the chances of a robot penguin being relevant to an argument.

xianghua said:

so a sonar system or a spinning motor are not evidence for design? good to know.

Click to expand...

That is right - metaphorical analogies to human contrivances is not evidence of supernatural design of living things.

xianghua said:

but the chance of that is very low. if the chance to evolve a single part is say 1 in a billion mutations, then the chance to get about 3 parts at once is 10^27. if we are talking about mammals we will need more then the age of the universe for a single new system.

Click to expand...

Please show you actual math - and be sure to explain where you got your variables from.

Speedwell said:

Of course. That is why the functional parts of a system have to evolve together. They can't evolve separately as individually useless components until they are "ready" to join together to form a functional system.

Click to expand...

Actually, there are many examples of the co-option of proteins. Enolase 1 is one example.

xianghua said:

say that i want to made a motion system to close a car door. how many parts i will need to such a system?
right. what about 3 parts that working together?

Click to expand...

How about instead of your tedious and repetitive beating around the bush, you present the EVIDENCE for design in nature, and no, analogies and robot penguins and thought experiments are NOT evidence.

tas8831 said:

How about you stop using the Strawman fallacy, and explain how dust was turned into a man?

Click to expand...

I can't help you there unless you can understand this:

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:14

xianghua said:

we actually do have evidence for design in nature (see my signature link for instance).

Click to expand...

Hey hey xing

I agree with you and like your work. Lets be friends

the iconoclast said:

I agree with you and like your work.

Click to expand...

Uh oh. Does this mean we're going to have someone else talking about self-replicating cars now?

pitabread said:

Uh oh. Does this mean we're going to have someone else talking about self-replicating cars now?

Click to expand...

Hey hey my dear

It does mean you will have someone new to talk to and i always hoped i finally get to speak with you. Looks like you came to me.

Whats your beef with a self replicating car?

46AND2 said:

Seriously, it is no surprise you can't understand your own Bible. I speak modern English, and you miss the point entirely.

Click to expand...

Hey hey my dear an assumption has been detected.

What happens if english is my second language? This comment seems a bit intolerant and disingenuous but im not going to let it spoil the fun we can have together.

I will be replying to our delicious conversation soon. Do you shiver with anticipation?

Cheers

the iconoclast said:

Whats your beef with a self replicating car?

Click to expand...

Have you seen what it's being used to argue for on these forums?

It's become a bit of a running joke, tbh...

pitabread said:

Have you seen what it's being used to argue for on these forums?

It's become a big of a running joke, tbh...

Click to expand...

Hey hey my dear

Well thats a shame you feel it neccessary to make a joke out of @xianghua. To be honest with you i am not familiar with your arguement. What is your beef with this self replicating car? What is your arguement?

Cheere

xianghua said:

so what you will say in the case of convergent eovlution? remember that in this case we know what is the chance to get a specific function (again; about 10^77). so the chance to get again the same function is 10^77 by convergent evolution.

Click to expand...

More ignorance.

Convergent evolution is about similar function.
Like the wings of a bat and the wings of a bird.

The underlying genetics/mechanisms are not the same.

Convergent evolution - Wikipedia

46AND2 said:

You understand that this is an analogy, right?

Click to expand...

Hey hey Thank you for helping me understand.

You intend to draw comparison between a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) - who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry - and God.

You do so for the purpose of explanation or clarification? What do you wish to clarify or explain by using a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) - who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry - and God?

46AND2 said:

I mean, I suspect English is not your first language,

Click to expand...

Lets say - for fun - english is not my first language, does that justify prejudicial treatment? What does that justify?

Say you do infact have an idea or impression of my person (without certain proof). How does that effect your feelings?

46AND2 said:

but...I'm essentially asking YOU to put forward god as fact or basis for argument...and I'm doing so by way of metaphor.

Click to expand...

No you did not my dear. You are now suggesting you used a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable. What was the intention to apply it to a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) - who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry?

Or you used it as a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else? What were you representing? What is symbolic when we consider a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) - who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry?

46AND2 said:

A sarcastic question deserves a sarcastic answer. Please re-read what your request was.

Click to expand...

Please excuse me my dear. My question here was not meant as contempt. Icon - "Would you preach this leprechaun entity to me?". I will explain why im interested in your conversation.

Lets consider the substance of what is being debated.

We have a situation where Daniel believes A is true and Samuel believes B is fiction.

Lets imagine a beautiful countryside and 2 unlikely friends on a journey of a life time. Daniel and Samuel were enjoying each others company and decided to park up somewhere to take in the sunset.

Daniel reflects on the beauty and majesty of his surroundings and declares "he does in fact exist. And by God, I mean Self-Existent First Cause With Intent, the One and Only such being. Omnipotence is by no means absurd for such a being. Our stance and comprehension and evidences for such are irrelevance as to his existence. If we find evidences, so much the better, but the facts remain regardless of our view of them. As such the facts are of value (again, IF it is a fact he exists), and so is apprehension to them, regardless of the reasons."

Samuel replies "But that is a tautological argument, and thus an epistemological hindrance."

Daniel looked into samuels eyes and said "I insist omnipotence is a necessary attribute of God", Samuel replies "I can also posit (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?"





Have i got the below context right?

Samuel has suggested that A and B are not real and there is as much evidence for B compared to A? Samuel assumes A and B are in the same category?

46AND2 said:

If you were reading the entire conversation, you would know that my issue is this: Daniel believes A. Daniel says that if A is true, then everything sub-A is true. Samuel says: Ok, I believe B is true. If B is true, then everything sub-B is true.

Click to expand...

Please excuse me. It seems i have an issue understanding modern english. What is meant by sub-A. And Sub-B.

46AND2 said:

How do you determine who is correct?

Click to expand...

Well lets examine your 'analogy' and - methaphor?!? - some more.

Daniel believes A is true. Samuel believes B is fiction.

Samuel says "I can also posit (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)".

At that moment an old but very cool gentleman walked by named iconoclast who was curious about the conversation and what he observed.

Samuel continues "I CAN (posit that B is real) ....and IF I DID, it would be no different from somebody claiming that there exists a supernatural being who created the entire universe."

So do it?

Lets see if you can and if it would be no different?

Put your money where your mouth is and prove what you are saying?

Your argument is a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry) can be reasoned just as much as The Christian God, well dont be shy show me how you do so?

46AND2 said:

In the above scenario, I represent neither Daniel nor Samuel.

Click to expand...

In this scenario you are Samuel. If you do not like the name samuel i can change it to Jack Coolman or prehaps Eugene Schneider?

Cheers lets continue. Things are getting interesting my dear

TagliatelliMonster said:

More ignorance.

Click to expand...

Hey hey my new friend

Do you still want to know what im up to?