Bible-Creation-Evolution (2)

[Tiberius]

Oh, really?

Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

The Quran says the same thing about Muslims, but you think that means very little, doncha?

Now, AV, if you could describe how time fullfills the requirements for this hypothetical barrier to macroevolution that you have proposed? I mean, even if we grant your embedded age idea, then the Earth looks like it has been around for billions of years, right? So then we should see the evidence of macro evolution, shouldn't we?

 

[AV1611VET]

Honestly, your circular reasoning is no better than a childs.

Here's your proof: 22

 

[AV1611VET]

So then we should see the evidence of macro evolution, shouldn't we?

No -- there is no such a thing as macroevolution.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Are we Christians adopted children of God?

(Just a YES or NO will suffice please; it's a binary question.)

No. You only think you are.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Oh, really?

Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

There you have it -- you only think you are.

 

[TheReasoner]

No -- there is no such a thing as macroevolution.

Says you. And that argument is about as good as they come from your camp. There is no macroevolution because there is no microevolution.

I give you an
F-
AV.

Try again.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no macroevolution because there is no microevolution.

Is that what I say?

 

[Tiberius]

No -- there is no such a thing as macroevolution.

Ah, because there hasn't been enough time for it to have occured, right? Isn't that what you said in the previous thread?

 

[TheReasoner]

Is that what I say?

Pretty much. In more words, but you have not presented a non-circular argument orbiting around your assumption that you are right. You neglect all evidence against your position, you ignore all examples of others claiming infallible biblical interpretation messing up, and you answer empirically derived knowledge with semantics and a referral in one way or another to your own supposedly infallible biblical interpretation

That to say, your arguments boil down to "I'm right cause I'm right"

 

[mzungu]

Let me put it this way: A magician is performing various tricks; Some in the audience (mainly children) will believe what they see as true magic. Most know it is an illusion but do not know how it is done. Some will try to find clues as to how it is done, and possibly a very few will know how it is done.

Many people still believe that Yuri Geller can bend spoons with supernatural powers, even though he was proved to be a fraud.

Creationists are like the above example of people. They insist on believing on a 6000 year old earth even though it has been proven that they are wrong.

They will insist and turn a blind eye and a deaf ear and insist that they are right.

Debating with creationists is like knocking on a deaf man's door.

They use on a daily basis the very fruits of science that they dismiss!

This is wanton disregard of reality and one cannot argue with pink unicorns and cartoon physics!

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, because there hasn't been enough time for it to have occured, right? Isn't that what you said in the previous thread?

Did I?

 

[AV1611VET]

Pretty much. In more words, but you have not presented a non-circular argument orbiting around your assumption that you are right. You neglect all evidence against your position, you ignore all examples of others claiming infallible biblical interpretation messing up, and you answer empirically derived knowledge with semantics and a referral in one way or another to your own supposedly infallible biblical interpretation

That to say, your arguments boil down to "I'm right cause I'm right"

Do I claim microevolution doesn't work?

YES or NO please?

 

[TheReasoner]

Do I claim microevolution doesn't work?

YES or NO please?

To claim we have one and not the other is like claiming you cab take single steps, but not walking. Or gatherings of any number of trees, but no forests.

 

[AV1611VET]

To claim we have one and not the other is like claiming you cab take single steps, but not walking. Or gatherings of any number of trees, but no forests.

Second time -- do I claim microevolution doesn't work?

 

[Delphiki]

Second time -- do I claim microevolution doesn't work?

No, because for some reason you don't think microevolution is evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, because for some reason you don't think microevolution is evolution.

I'll take post 26 with a grain of sand then -- and yes, I don't think microevolution is evolution for some reason.

When I claim "evolution can take a hike" -- I'm talking about macroevolution.

When I claim "I believe in evolution" -- I'm talking about microevolution.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Is that what I say?

Nobody cares what you say, AV -- there is no "macro" or "micro" evolution. There is only evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody cares what you say, AV -- there is no "macro" or "micro" evolution. There is only evolution.

I believe Split Rock disagrees -- and since your expertise is in literature ... well ...

 

[Nathan Poe]

Split Rock disagrees.

Split Rock thinks you're worth the effort to try to educate. The feeling will pass.

 

[AV1611VET]

Split Rock thinks you're worth the effort to try to educate.

Perhaps you could learn from him as well?