-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Debate....
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
Follower of Christ
Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
I didnt get an opportunity to see what he believes in detail, thats why I said ''probably''.
I dont want to give a definite answer till I know exactly what Gish believes.
His reputation is meaningless to me. His adhering to Gods truth is all I am interested in.
If he claimed that there was a mammalian ''kind'' that would have diversified into all mammals, then I dont agree with that.
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."
I believe you should already know how I feel about this.
I reject evolution altogether (ex. rabbits becoming non-rabbits over any amount of time).
I do accept variations within the kinds due to mutation, adaptation to environment or other factors.
Upvote
0
Follower of Christ
Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Please do me a favor and stop with the games.
If you're going to bring up a point to try to show my ''dishonesty'' or something, just spit it out.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Today at 11:39 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #102
I didnt get an opportunity to see what he believes in detail, thats why I said ''probably''.
I dont want to give a definite answer till I know exactly what Gish believes.
His reputation is meaningless to me. His adhering to Gods truth is all I am interested in.
If he claimed that there was a mammalian ''kind'' that would have diversified into all mammals, then I dont agree with that.
Gish doesn't say the latter. Instead, he says that both mammals and the specific mammals he mentions are basic kinds. IOW, he contradicts himself. I haven't found one creationist who doesn't do this when it comes to kinds.
Gish believes in YEC. He is/was deputy director of the Institute for Creation Research. How can you possibly say you have studied YEC and not know Duane Gish?
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."
I believe you should already know how I feel about this.
I reject evolution altogether (ex. rabbits becoming non-rabbits over any amount of time).
I do accept variations within the kinds due to mutation, adaptation to environment or other factors.
You contradict yourself also. You obviously don't reject evolution altogether. You accept that natural selection modifies populations. If your "variations within kinds" include new species, like AiG says, then you accept evolution.
You see, this is where "kinds" becomes so important. You must be able to formulate "kind" such that it is a measurable brick wall to change due to "mutation, adaptation to environment". Take a look at the diagram at http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin_6th/origin6th_04.html and show us just where the formation of new species, as they accumulate, will not form new kinds.
I didnt get an opportunity to see what he believes in detail, thats why I said ''probably''.
I dont want to give a definite answer till I know exactly what Gish believes.
His reputation is meaningless to me. His adhering to Gods truth is all I am interested in.
If he claimed that there was a mammalian ''kind'' that would have diversified into all mammals, then I dont agree with that.
Gish doesn't say the latter. Instead, he says that both mammals and the specific mammals he mentions are basic kinds. IOW, he contradicts himself. I haven't found one creationist who doesn't do this when it comes to kinds.
Gish believes in YEC. He is/was deputy director of the Institute for Creation Research. How can you possibly say you have studied YEC and not know Duane Gish?
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."
I believe you should already know how I feel about this.
I reject evolution altogether (ex. rabbits becoming non-rabbits over any amount of time).
I do accept variations within the kinds due to mutation, adaptation to environment or other factors.
You contradict yourself also. You obviously don't reject evolution altogether. You accept that natural selection modifies populations. If your "variations within kinds" include new species, like AiG says, then you accept evolution.
You see, this is where "kinds" becomes so important. You must be able to formulate "kind" such that it is a measurable brick wall to change due to "mutation, adaptation to environment". Take a look at the diagram at http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin_6th/origin6th_04.html and show us just where the formation of new species, as they accumulate, will not form new kinds.
Upvote
0
Follower of Christ
Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Again, I ACCEPT WHAT YOU ALL CALL '' MICRO-EVOLUTION''
I really dont know how many times this will need to be repeated.
I DO NOT BELIEve (EVEN GIVEN 10,000,000,000 YEARS) THAT A RABBIT WILL EVER EVOLVE INTO A NON-RABBIT.
Lucaspa,
Your opinion of my beliefs and whether or not you thinkI contradict myself is of no concern to me.
If you're dense enough to think I believe in evolution, that is entirely your problem.
I wont play word games with you
I really dont know how many times this will need to be repeated.
I DO NOT BELIEve (EVEN GIVEN 10,000,000,000 YEARS) THAT A RABBIT WILL EVER EVOLVE INTO A NON-RABBIT.
Lucaspa,
Your opinion of my beliefs and whether or not you thinkI contradict myself is of no concern to me.
If you're dense enough to think I believe in evolution, that is entirely your problem.
I wont play word games with you
Upvote
0
The thing, FoC, "micro" evolution is STILL evolution. The mechanism for "microevolution" (that is, variation within a species) and "macroevolution" (variation between species) is exactly the same. Functionally, there's really no difference between the two.
Upvote
0
Follower of Christ
Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
And THIS is why I hate using evolutionists ''terms''
I said what YOU call microevolution.
I am getting to the point of just not responding to those presenting games.
You both know exactly what I mean.
RABBITS ARE RABBITS AND THEY WILL REMAIN RABBITS.
Upvote
0
So, you reject speciation. Gotcha.
The thing is, when you claim to reject evolution "altogether", then turn around and say you accept some of evolution, it gets really confusing.
Quite frankly, I'm not even sure if you know what you mean, let alone anyone else.
I was at a web site that listed over 50 species of different rabbits. If they were all created independently, that would mean Noah had to have over 100 rabbits on the Ark. And considering how fast rabbits breed, I'm surprised the Ark wasn't full of them by the time the Flood was over. Although, maybe he used them as food for the predators...
Upvote
0
Follower of Christ
Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
I ACCEPT VARIATION WITHIN THE ''KIND''
God created kind with the ability to vary.
My mutt rabbits can produce quite a variety of sizes, shapes and colors of young.
I can very easily select attributes I like and narrow these down in less than 5 generations.
I could take a mutt rabbit and create literally hundreds of different breeds within just a couple years and they would all still be rabbits.
God created kind with the ability to vary.
My mutt rabbits can produce quite a variety of sizes, shapes and colors of young.
I can very easily select attributes I like and narrow these down in less than 5 generations.
I could take a mutt rabbit and create literally hundreds of different breeds within just a couple years and they would all still be rabbits.
Upvote
0
Shhh, no reason to shout, I can hear you just fine.
What are you saying? That the 50+ different rabbit species could have shared a common ancestor?
Upvote
0
Follower of Christ
Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Holy Cow, did someone finally get it?Today at 12:34 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #114
Shhh, no reason to shout, I can hear you just fine.
What are you saying? That the 50+ different rabbit species could have shared a common ancestor?
A common ''rabbit'' kind.
Upvote
0
So... you accept macroevolution....
But earlier you implied you didn't....
I'm so confused!
Upvote
0
Follower of Christ
Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
I know your hedge, games over.
This is getting boring and old.
'Night gents, see ya tomorrow.
Maybe we can play a different game then.....
This is getting boring and old.
'Night gents, see ya tomorrow.
Maybe we can play a different game then.....
Upvote
0
Okay then. Maybe you can think over your position and clarify it tomorrow. Because, while you say you reject evolution, I'm not actually sure what part of evolution you are actually rejecting. I mean, you even just said you accept the idea of macroevolution (a species diversifying into multiple species).
So, when you say you reject evolution, well, can you really blame us for being confused?
Upvote
0
L'Anatra
Contributor
- Dec 29, 2002
- 678
- 27
- 41
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Unbelievable!
I honestly don't believe FoC realizes the implications of what he's just said. That, however, does not surprise me...
To FoC -- Get it through your head: 50 different rabbit "species" means 50 different "kinds" of rabbit! Now, either there were 100 rabbits on the ark, or there has been some type of macro-evolutionary event in rabbits some time in the past.
I submit that you have lied about studying both sides of this "debate." You don't seem to know too much (if anything) about the Theory of Evolution. Most importantly, (and it has already been said in this thread) there is no boundary between the so-called macro- and micro-evolution. Their mechanisms are identical. That's right, there is nothing preventing what you call (but won't define) macro-evolution. What utter nonsense.
Before you continue to spout off, it'd do you well to show us the evidence you apparently have that this supposed boundary exists. Something tells me that won't be happening in the near future, if ever...
You seem to think that the "evolutionists" here have a "hedge" (if you will), but I say that it is you who is hiding behind his words. You haven't given one direct answer to any question that's been asked since you showed up at this board.
EDIT: added a few points...
I honestly don't believe FoC realizes the implications of what he's just said. That, however, does not surprise me...
To FoC -- Get it through your head: 50 different rabbit "species" means 50 different "kinds" of rabbit! Now, either there were 100 rabbits on the ark, or there has been some type of macro-evolutionary event in rabbits some time in the past.
I submit that you have lied about studying both sides of this "debate." You don't seem to know too much (if anything) about the Theory of Evolution. Most importantly, (and it has already been said in this thread) there is no boundary between the so-called macro- and micro-evolution. Their mechanisms are identical. That's right, there is nothing preventing what you call (but won't define) macro-evolution. What utter nonsense.
Before you continue to spout off, it'd do you well to show us the evidence you apparently have that this supposed boundary exists. Something tells me that won't be happening in the near future, if ever...
You seem to think that the "evolutionists" here have a "hedge" (if you will), but I say that it is you who is hiding behind his words. You haven't given one direct answer to any question that's been asked since you showed up at this board.
EDIT: added a few points...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
