Challenging Evolution

[Arikay]

Wow, you completly missed the point, or dodged it, im not sure which. I wasn't "hurling insults at God." I would use a different analogy but I don't know anymore about you.

Basically the point is, just as you would think I didn't have a clue about christianity because I didn't understand it. Right now it appears you don't have a clue about evolution because it doesn't seem like you understand it.

No.. I don't know you at all other than you seem to have no problems casting insults at others utilizing the same amount of knowledge of them.
I know that Jesus Christ died for my sins. I know that I am a creature, created in the image of God. I know that I despertly need the Grace and Mercy of God.
What I don't know is what you are talking about while hurling insults at God.

 

[Gracchus]

No.. I don't know you at all other than you seem to have no problems casting insults at others utilizing the same amount of knowledge of them.
I know that Jesus Christ died for my sins. I know that I am a creature, created in the image of God. I know that I despertly need the Grace and Mercy of God.
What I don't know is what you are talking about while hurling insults at God.

He wasn't isulting God. He wasn't even insulting you. You make the accusation because you have been backed into a corner and have begun spewing like a skunk.

 

[Jet Black]

The reason why it isn’t part of the theory is because it would falsify the theory. Therefore it is always excluded from any definition.

actually no, it is exclused from evolution because evolution is a biogenic theory, not a chemical one. abiogenesis is a chemical theory.

 

[Mistermystery]

No.. I don't know you at all other than you seem to have no problems casting insults at others utilizing the same amount of knowledge of them.
I know that Jesus Christ died for my sins. I know that I am a creature, created in the image of God. I know that I despertly need the Grace and Mercy of God.
What I don't know is what you are talking about while hurling insults at God.

You seem to say that somehow evolution equals to atheism, right?

 

[1Trinity3]

Basically the point is, just as you would think I didn't have a clue about christianity because I didn't understand it. Right now it appears you don't have a clue about evolution because it doesn't seem like you understand it.

What is it with you people? You start making things up, and then start arguing about the material you just made up. I never even implied that I thought you didn't have clue about Christianity. You're the one that made that up... only to set up a baseless claim. Just because the conclusions I draw from the evidence TOE provides is different from yours, does not mean I don't understand your theory, it means I don’t agree with conclusions and am able recognize some of the failures of the theory.

Trinity

 

[1Trinity3]

He wasn't isulting God. He wasn't even insulting you. You make the accusation because you have been backed into a corner and have begun spewing like a skunk.

Gracchus... please follow the entire thread before stepping in and making incorrect assertions. What he calls me is irrelavant... however, if Ak.. is going to call God a Vampire... then I would take that as an insult.
What corner? What spew? You folks are amazing
Trinty

 

[1Trinity3]

You seem to say that somehow evolution equals to atheism, right?

NO!!!!

Where did I say that? Where did I imply that?

Is this how discussions are held on this board? Change a post to set up your own straw man, then accuse the other guy of doing what you just did, continue to pile on other implications.... ALL THE WHILE AVOIDING THE ISSUE. And then, declare the other is ignorant.

Where did I say evolution equals atheism? If you are unable to respond… then please examine your tactics here and try to communicate in a rational manner.

Trinity

 

[Jet Black]

NO!!!!

Where did I say that? Where did I imply that?

Is this how discussions are held on this board? Change a post to set up your own straw man, then accuse the other guy of doing what you just did, continue to pile on other implications.... ALL THE WHILE AVOIDING THE ISSUE. And then, declare the other is ignorant.

Where did I say evolution equals atheism? If you are unable to respond… then please examine your tactics here and try to communicate in a rational manner.

Trinity

pesonally I wouldn't have jumped to that conclusion. so lets make it clear, do you think it is possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution?

 

[Jet Black]

however, if Ak.. is going to call God a Vampire... then I would take that as an insult.

he wasn't actually calling God a vampire, he was parodying creationists, by pretending to tell you something about Christianity which was totally wrong. creationists often do this, they start talking about aspects of what they think is evolution, when often those aspects are fundamentally different to evolution. for example saying that abiogenesis is part of evolution is equivalent (in knowledge terms) to saying God is a vampire.

 

[1Trinity3]

actually no, it is exclused from evolution because evolution is a biogenic theory, not a chemical one. abiogenesis is a chemical theory.

Abiogenesis. Distionary.com

A = Without; not: amoral.

Bio =1) Life; living organism: biome. 2) Biology; biological: biophysics.

Genesis = The coming into being of something; the origin.
No matter how you want to frame the discussion... it is not going to change the meaning of a word. If abiogenesis was part of TOE... the theory would be falsified.
Trinity

 

[revolutio]

If abiogenesis was part of TOE... the theory would be falsified.

Abiogensis was falsified? Methinks I have been away from the forums too long.

 

[1Trinity3]

pesonally I wouldn't have jumped to that conclusion. so lets make it clear, do you think it is possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution?

Yes. Thanks for asking before making any implications though.

I believe the two contradict each other to an extent... but if one is able to keep the main thing - the main thing... then yes, you can be a practicing Christian, and endorse TOE. However, it does present several problems to your faith.

Trinity

 

[Ishmael Borg]

You can think of yourself as an ape if you want too. However, other apes have been know to pick up their own waste and throw it at you. So I guess that would be a different type of behavior… maybe there is some validity to your argument after all.

As I said, different apes behave differently. I don't 'want' to think of myself as an ape, it's just the way it is. When I look around at the world today, I don't always 'want' to acknowledge that I'm a member of the single extant species of human ape that we all belong to either.

Sir Borg, I believe you are incapable of presenting your posiiton without copying it from a textbook. Please cite the transitional forms that demonstrate how evolution "selected" a leg and transformed it into a "flipper". Then dicuss the processes that were utilized to make this huge lead. Thanks ahead of time.

I have not been knighted, so the title "Sir" is unnecessary. Your belief is unfounded. I've just learned a thing or two about evolution over the years. You should try it- learning, that is. If I copied from a textbook, I would cite the source. Look up whale evolution for yourself. There are threads about it on this very forum.

Read the books Icons of Evolution and Bones of Contention and I’ll do your search… deal?

No deal, but thanks for the suggestion. I'll stick with the majority views of the experts in the field of biology. I don't really care if you learn about homo erectus, or not.

What exactly is it about science that I need to learn again?

Well, you should realize that science doesn't really rely on dogma. You failed to learn that.

No sir... Only God is omniscient. Any allusion otherwise is arguing from a point of ignorance.

Of what am I ignorant? You have faith that God is omniscient; I don't believe in gods or omniscience. Ignorance means lack of knowledge, not lack of faith. There is no empirical knowledge of God, or His omniscience, so you are wrong. You need to think harder about your claims before you make them.

 

[1Trinity3]

he wasn't actually calling God a vampire, he was parodying creationists, by pretending to tell you something about Christianity which was totally wrong. creationists often do this, they start talking about aspects of what they think is evolution, when often those aspects are fundamentally different to evolution. for example saying that abiogenesis is part of evolution is equivalent (in knowledge terms) to saying God is a vampire.

He was making implications that were not true. If he was setting up an analogy... then I didn't catch it.

Please see my post concerning the actual definition of abiogenesis.

Here is a further definition of the term:

Abiogenesis = The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

I recalled being derided for having the audacity to call it "spontaneous generation". Just making a point here.

Trinity

 

[1Trinity3]

As I said, different apes behave differently. I don't 'want' to think of myself as an ape, it's just the way it is. When I look around at the world today, I don't always 'want' to acknowledge that I'm a member of the single extant species of human ape that we all belong to either.

You were created in the image of God. You are not a monkey. Although some of us would like to act like it… you are not.

I have not been knighted, so the title "Sir" is unnecessary. Your belief is unfounded. I've just learned a thing or two about evolution over the years. You should try it- learning, that is. If I copied from a textbook, I would cite the source. Look up whale evolution for yourself. There are threads about it on this very forum.

I was only extending a little courtesy. I’ll make a mental note to be more careful about it in the future.

As far as whale evolution is concerned… where exactly are the intermediary and transitional forms to be found? If you are unable to cite or demonstrate, then your assertion here is unfounded.

No deal, but thanks for the suggestion. I'll stick with the majority views of the experts in the field of biology. I don't really care if you learn about homo erectus, or not.

If you didn’t care, why did you ask me too?

Also, since when does majority rules when it comes to science?

Well, you should realize that science doesn't really rely on dogma. You failed to learn that.

Really? TOE is not taught as fact in our schools today? It is presented as only a theory? Its shortcomings are fully exposed and discussed in the classroom? Opposing theories are presented?

It is dogma… if you want to admit it or not. The choice of actually learning something is in fact yours.

Of what am I ignorant? You have faith that God is omniscient; I don't believe in gods or omniscience. Ignorance means lack of knowledge, not lack of faith. There is no empirical knowledge of God, or His omniscience, so you are wrong.

You need to think harder about your claims before you make them.

You were the one who said I thought I was omniscient… If you won’t endorse the many infallible truths of God’s existence (much the same way YECs view TOE I might add), then that is your decision. Much the same way it is ours not to recognize the “dogma” when it is presented as fact. Both take faith, the only difference is one admits it, the other doesn’t.

Trinity

 

[Jet Black]

He was making implications that were not true. If he was setting up an analogy... then I didn't catch it.

no, you definitely didn't miss the analogy, because that is the analogy

 

[Jet Black]

As far as whale evolution is concerned… where exactly are the intermediary and transitional forms to be found? If you are unable to cite or demonstrate, then your assertion here is unfounded.

pakistan mostly.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html

Really? TOE is not taught as fact in our schools today? It is presented as only a theory? Its shortcomings are fully exposed and discussed in the classroom? Opposing theories are presented?

what opposing theories? as far as I am aware, there are no unfalsified opposing theories. what are the shortcomings?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You were created in the image of God. You are not a monkey. Although some of us would like to act like it… you are not.

Indeed not. The term "monkey" is not used of those primates without tails. Cladistically, we are indeed monkeys. But our classifications are not purely cladistic; cladistically, we're fish as well.

As far as whale evolution is concerned… where exactly are the intermediary and transitional forms to be found? If you are unable to cite or demonstrate, then your assertion here is unfounded.

Pakistan, I understand.

Also, since when does majority rules when it comes to science?

It doesn't. Evidence does.

Really? TOE is not taught as fact in our schools today? It is presented as only a theory?

Why do you put the word "only" near "theory" like this. You are aware that heliocentricity is "only" a theory, aren't you?

Time for a lesson:

Theory does not mean guess.

Its shortcomings are fully exposed

and discussed in the classroom?

Were when I studied it. However, the invented shortcomings of the professional creationists are not deserving of study.

Opposing theories are presented?

They were. Briefly. Along with a cogent explanation of why they do not have the evidence base or explanative power of the mainstream theories, which is why those theories are mainstream. Do you really expect science teachers to go through pages of creationist misrepresentation and dishonesty and give it the same validity as real science? How many hours should be spent on the Ascent of the Navajo? How many on the creation of the earth from the body of Ymir. What about Raelian explanations?

What you mean is you want your mythology taught. You complain about dogma, but your real complaint is that your dogma is not being given the support you want it to be. Tough. It's about evidence, not how much you believe it.

It is dogma… if you want to admit it or not. The choice of actually learning something is in fact yours.

Bull. Utter bull. It's evidence based science, open to falsification and modification. The very opposite of dogma.

You need to think harder about your claims before you make them.

Projection.

 

[1Trinity3]

what opposing theories? as far as I am aware, there are no unfalsified opposing theories. what are the shortcomings?

ID has been falsified? By whom… and how?
Trinity

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Difficult to falsify something with no evidence. Then again, lack of evidence seems to be the basis of ID.