Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That science is giving answers to questions that happened billions of years ago or millions of light years away - absolutely ridiculous. You could probably give good educated guesses but lets admit it, you weren't there to see it firsthand.

And that's a pointless comeback because events leave evidence! We have that evidence, but you refuse to accept it.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

But you are admitting it is a pride thing. You going "If I see something that I don't agree with (theory of evolution) I'm going to point out what I can and use whatever evidence I have." Ignoring the latter (which you have done nothing of sort, just making baseless claims with no real evidence behind it apart from wishful thinking on your part), your entire thing is that YOU don't agree with it. Not that science is wrong, not that it's a religious thing: just that YOU don't agree with it.
How is that not prideful?

I'm not even going to engage in this one because it's just too tiring and then you guys will start your "nicely laid out" teachings, forcing me to respond and then you'll respond to my response. Finally, I still won't agree with your side of the argument and someone will come along (like larniavc or riverjordan, whoops, did I say those names out loud) and drag me through the mud (and I just washed my clothes). That okay I'm passing on this one.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

forcing me to respond and then you'll respond to my response.

I just need to respond to this part because... that's how these forums work. That's how any forum works. If you don't want people responding to you, then why stay here?

 

[River Jordan]

Because you all have been asking me to "prove it" my reason for why I believe what I believe when all along I just solidly didn't believe in the theory of evolution.

Honestly I don't believe you, because whenever I've asked you to show where people have said the things you claim they say you've not even bothered to reply.

Unfortunately, you couldn't accept that as an answer.

You already gave your answer. You said you won't believe it no matter what.

The stuff that the Barbarian and Warden of the Storm passed onto me was informative but it really once again just showed me how flimsy the theory of evolution is.

Since your stance is that you won't believe any of it no matter what, your evaluation of the material isn't meaningful.

Look, I'm a staunch practicing Catholic. If you ask me about why I believe in God, I'll tell you but you can take my response however you want (accept, believe, stay neutral or reject). I'm not going to push it on you. If God wants you to see, He'll help open your eyes.

I don't think most people really care whether or not you accept any of the science (I don't). The issue is how you asked and/or challenged people to show and explain parts of the science to you without first informing them that you would never believe any of it anyway.

 

[River Jordan]

but lets admit it, you weren't there to see it firsthand.

I have to ask, do you really think that's a valid argument?

 

[Hvizsgyak]

2 Timothy 4:3 "For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

Some of you guys really believe you are the "Guardians of Scientific Proof".

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not even going to engage in this one because it's just too tiring and then you guys will start your "nicely laid out" teachings, forcing me to respond and then you'll respond to my response. Finally, I still won't agree with your side of the argument and someone will come along (like larniavc or riverjordan, whoops, did I say those names out loud) and drag me through the mud (and I just washed my clothes). That okay I'm passing on this one.

Paul says it best ...

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies [evolution], which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

This is exactly what discussions on evolution does.

1. Ministers more questions than answers.
2. Does not edify God.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Paul says it best ...

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies [evolution], which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

This is exactly what discussions on evolution does.

1. Ministers more questions than answers.
2. Does not edify God.

That's not what's being said in 1 Timothy at all, otherwise you wouldn't need to add 'evolution' in brackets.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Some of you guys really believe you are the "Guardians of Scientific Proof".

Now that's a compliment if I ever saw one. Even if the terminology is still 100% wrong: science deals in evidence, not proof, as has been said to you before.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some of you guys really believe you are the "Guardians of Scientific Proof".

It's a Biblical principle in action.

Jesus said,

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Some of these people have invested their treasure in learning evolution.

They go to college, graduate deeply in debt, get a job in a laboratory or out in the field, and pour blood, sweat, and tears into their work all their lives.

And they're not about to let some uneducated nobody (like me) come along and criticize their treasure.

And Jesus says it's a heart problem, not a head problem.

That's why they get so emotional about it; even taking it personally.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's a Biblical principle in action.

Jesus said,

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Some of these people have invested their treasure in learning evolution.

They go to college, graduate deeply in debt, get a job in a laboratory or out in the field, and pour blood, sweat, and tears into their work all their lives.

And they're not about to let some uneducated nobody (like me) come along and criticize their treasure.

And Jesus says it's a heart problem, not a head problem.

That's why they get so emotional about it; even taking it personally.

Wow.

Just... wow.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not what's being said in 1 Timothy at all, otherwise you wouldn't need to add 'evolution' in brackets.

I believe both apply.

Back then he was saying don't give heed to endless genealogies, probably just pertaining to people.

But Paul says the Bible is "quick" ...

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Meaning It goes with the flow and is just as up to date today as It was yesterday.

Just like the Internet being mentioned in the book of Job.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

And that's a pointless comeback because events leave evidence! We have that evidence, but you refuse to accept it.

I just don't accept the evidence as openly as you do. I'm a skeptic.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I believe both apply.

Back then he was saying don't give heed to endless genealogies, probably just pertaining to people.

But Paul says the Bible is "quick" ...

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Meaning It goes with the flow and is just as up to date today as It was yesterday.

Just like the Internet being mentioned in the book of Job.

But the Bible DOESN'T mention the internet, which is just you and your ilk adding to the Bible so you can pretend it does.

And for someone who gets annoyed at 'arab-phoning' (how's that for a blast from the past?) 'unborn child' to 'fetus', you ignore the fact that in Jacobean English, 'quick' didn't mean speedy but alive, as in the quickening of a child in the womb.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I just don't accept the evidence as openly as you do. I'm a skeptic.

But you're not though. A skeptic doesn't dismiss any evidence presented out of hand as you have done, nor refuse to actually learn anything. Skeptics want to learn, to be shown things. You do none of these things.

 

[AV1611VET]

I just don't accept the evidence as openly as you do. I'm a skeptic.

By downplaying miracles to "events," it allows one to demand physical evidence of something another is taking by faith.

Essentially, it's challenging one to walk by sight, not by faith.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Zabina (spelled faux-a-net-ih-kah-lee) herself is no longer trustworthy. I regret that I must write that, but write it I must.

She has turned her u-tube into a series of whinges about how science is broken and other such nonsense. The nicest thing I can say about her heel turn is that she noticed that her anti-science posts got more views and made her more money than regular science communication videos. It is also possible that she is being paid by anti-science groups or individuals.

They used to say some similar things about Lee Smolin, but he had some points to make about the science establishment that are still relevant, even if a little less relevant or problematic than what maybe he or Sabine have asserted about them.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

I have to ask, do you really think that's a valid argument?

I'm really starting to wonder about your mindset. It seems very illogical at times in some of the questions you ask me. Here are objects (in space) millions of light years away and science is making statements about them as if the are very intimate with the objects. And what makes me question sciences assumptions about these object? JWST goes online and alot of the stuff science was making assumptions about are thrown out the window. Why? Because with JWST, they got a better look at the objects. So, imagine if they were standing right beside the object the more reliable assumptions they could make. So, they should stop making these far reaching assumptions from Earth and making them sound like they are really sure what they are talking about. They should be a little bit more cautious as to how they state things.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm really starting to wonder about your mindset. It seems very illogical at times in some of the questions you ask me. Here are objects (in space) millions of light years away and science is making statements about them as if the are very intimate with the objects. And what makes me question sciences assumptions about these object? JWST goes online and alot of the stuff science was making assumptions about are thrown out the window. Why? Because with JWST, they got a better look at the objects. So, imagine if they were standing right beside the object the more reliable assumptions they could make. So, they should stop making these far reaching assumptions from Earth and making them sound like they are really sure what they are talking about. They should be a little bit more cautious as to how they state things.

... what? That's such a nonsensical argument. Scientists can't imagine they're right next to an object in deep space because it's in deep space and we can only view them from earth so... scientists shouldn't make statements they've gathered from investigating and studying these objects?

Forget River Jordan's midset, I'm wondering about your mindset since it's so... so strange.

 

[AV1611VET]

But the Bible DOESN'T mention the internet, which is just you and your ilk adding to the Bible so you can pretend it does.

And for someone who gets annoyed at 'arab-phoning' (how's that for a blast from the past?) 'unborn child' to 'fetus', you ignore the fact that in Jacobean English, 'quick' didn't mean speedy but alive, as in the quickening of a child in the womb.

Now you know why I had to put "evolution" in brackets.