Essentially, is this the position of a large # of people?

[Doubting Thomas II]

FoC, it's pretty clear that you couldn't care less about science. There are plenty of other places at this site where your droppings might be more appropriate...unless, of course, you're finally ready to give us that definition of "natural selection" and actually discuss science.

Oh, sorry. I forgot that you're not interested in playing such "bone-headed" games. Of course, your lack of interest seems only to have come about after you were exposed as a Biblical literalist blowhard with nothing of substance to add to the discussion.

Believe me, if there really were an evil atheist conspiracy, we'd put you on the payroll.

 

[notto]

Today at 09:57 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #58


Its because he grew tired of trying to get ''christians'' to stop saying that the REAL God who says He did it in 6 days is a liar.

Understanding Genesis as a non-literal narrative and calling God a liar are two different things. This has been discussed. Theistic evolutionists do not call God a liar, they simply approach scripture with a different understanding of it revelation than you do and look to creation for clues on how God created. Nowhere do they call God a liar. Please try not to usurp others understanding of God and scripture into somthing it is not simply because you do not agree with it. I, along with many other Christians who accept evolution and mainstream science worship the REAL God, the same as you do.

 

[L'Anatra]

Yesterday at 10:57 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #58 I dont think he actually conceded.

He just got tired of presenting the truth to people who think that by overanalysing scripture with thier 482 pound egos and somewhat ''higher'' educations they think they can change the fact that God did EXACTLY what He said He did in the exact amount of days He said He did it in.

Hows THAT for a run-on sentence?

You guys kill me.

A very ignorant thing that atheists tried with me is assume that THEY win if I choose to not play their boneheaded game anymore.
If a 6 day'er gives up on presenting his arguement/debate, trust me, its NOT because he lost the issue.
Its because he grew tired of trying to get ''christians'' to stop saying that the REAL God who says He did it in 6 days is a liar.

I gave up on evolutionist atheists because they want to believe thier lie just as anyone else (if the shoe fits...) who believes that evolution is fact does.

Not to be unbelievably blunt, but I'd think a 37-year-old man such as yourself would be able to carry himself a bit better in a "debate." Firstly, simply because you are unable and/or unwilling to understand an argument (as you stated above), doesn't make it invalid. If you choose to ignore the evidence in God's creation, that's fine, but don't go attacking those who choose to learn about REALITY!

In addition, I'm curious as to who has the ego problem here?!

I mean, the readers of this thread are clearly too unworthy of your time for you to propound that definition of "natural selection."

 

[euphoric]

Today at 03:57 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #58 I dont think he actually conceded.
He just got tired of presenting the truth to people who think that by overanalysing scripture with thier 482 pound egos and somewhat ''higher'' educations they think they can change the fact that God did EXACTLY what He said He did in the exact amount of days He said He did it in.

You seem to be the one with the ego problem here.  You're a few precious years from entering your fifth decade of life.  Don't you think that's enough time to learn how to respond to a simple question without being a complete jackass?

Today at 03:57 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #58You guys kill me.

Now that would be natural selection.  See, you do understand the concept after all.

Today at 03:57 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #58A very ignorant thing that atheists tried with me is assume that THEY win if I choose to not play their boneheaded game anymore.
If a 6 day'er gives up on presenting his arguement/debate, trust me, its NOT because he lost the issue.
Its because he grew tired of trying to get ''christians'' to stop saying that the REAL God who says He did it in 6 days is a liar.

I gave up on evolutionist atheists because they want to believe thier lie just as anyone else (if the shoe fits...) who believes that evolution is fact does.

You can't compete in a debate so you try the full frontal ad hominem assault.  I expect this from the twelve-year olds, it just looks pathetic on an adult.

-brett

 

[seebs]

It's particularly interesting to note that FoC seems to feel that the best witness he can bring to this circumstance is hostility and condemnation for people who have come to believe in God, but who don't share his opinion of the Bible.

This position is interesting, because it puts God in direct opposition to the reality of the natural world; it's almost as though it were *calculated* with the intent of driving people away from the faith. Quite a victory for someone, I'd think, and it goes hand-in-hand with arrogance.

 

[Gracchus]

Follower of Christ posted 3/24/03 at 09:53 AM : "Dont let yourself get caught up in evolutions word games. They have many intelligent sounding explanations that for the most part are summed up in your post."

It would appear that you do not have any intelligent sounding explanations.

Follower of Christ posted 3/24/03 at 12:29 PM: "They can keep right on repeating all the ''intelligent'' dribble they want, and it does not change the FACT the evolution is based on NOTHING but SPECULATION."

You, on the other hand, keep repeating unintelligent drivel. It does seem however that you cannot conceive of anything not based on speculation. Reason and observation are not in your repertoire.

On 3/24/03 at 03:45 PM Doubting Thomas said this in Post #34 to Follower of Christ: "Great. What is your definition of natural selection and how does it relate to the concept of randomness? "

To which Follower of Christ, replied 3/24/03 at 12:54 PM : "I am rather confused by your question.
What would my understanding of Gods creation and His eternal plan for it have to do with YOUR ''concept of randomness"?

I am not surprised that you are easily confused.

Follower of Christ continued: "Is this where you are about to break out your overly-intelligent, scientific sounding vocabulary to pound me into a smouldering pool of quivering, brainless primordial goo?"

No, this was where you broke out your unintelligent, deficient vocabulary, in a feeble attempt at witticism. Get a clue Follower (I hope I may call you "Follower"). In the first place it should be "The Christ". It is not his name, it simply means "the annointed", understood to mean "the king" ("ho christos" in Greek) . And to make a witticism, wit is required.

Smolder you may in times to come, but there is no need for any one to pound you "into a … pool of quivering, brainless primordial goo".

Follower posted 3/24/03 at 07:57 PM: "I dont think he actually conceded."

It was not I believe, anything so gracious as a concession.


Follower follows up with : "A very ignorant thing that atheists tried with me is assume that THEY win if I choose to not play their boneheaded game anymore."

An ignorant THING?   What did you and he come here to see, "A reed shaken with the wind?" After choosing his field and nailing his thesis to the door, he left snarling, with his tail between his legs, behind him the sound of laughter. 

It is not the game that is boneheaded. You and "True Believer" sat on the torch of truth, and now say you did not want to play.

Follower segues: "If a 6 day'er gives up on presenting his arguement/debate, trust me, its NOT because he lost the issue."

I see no reason to trust you.

More folly from the Follower: "Its because he grew tired of trying to get ''christians'' to stop saying that the REAL God who says He did it in 6 days is a liar."

God never said He did it in six days. Your holy book says that, but that is not God.

Folly continues: "I gave up on evolutionist atheists because they want to believe thier lie just as anyone else (if the shoe fits...) who believes that evolution is fact does."

Well, one thing is sure. Your Nikes don't fit, as you limp off stage left, slobbering slantwise.

 

[seebs]

The holy book says it was 6 days the way the holy book says the earth doesn't move; it says it in metaphor, poetry, and mythical context.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 10:52 AM Truth in Faith said this in Post #1

That our universe, not in it's entirety of course, but at it's origin, came from, essentially, nothing. And that life came from non-life. And that not only life came from non-life, but that a single-celled organism, is responsible, as it is the supposed origin, of all forms of life on the planet, Earth. And that from this meager single cell came, eventually, a human, as we know it. And that somewhere along the way the laws of physics and chemistry somehow accounted for human emotion, a concept of good and evil, and the ability to reason, or to deny reason.

That's pretty much a list of the material causes.  Now, is there supernatural involved in this/ deity behind it? Science can't tell you. All science can study is the material causes. 

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 03:19 PM Bruno said this in Post #25


So this is how you came up with NOTHING=EVERYTHING? I humbly apologize, but I am still VERY confused.

Let's see if we can clear up some of your confusion. 

Christian theology says there was nothing before the creation of the universe, so that shouldn't be a problem for you.  In case you hadn't heard the term before, in theological circles creation is creatio ex nihilo.  Where ex nihilo  is "from nothing". 

Now, there are at least 5 hypotheses for the origin of the Big Bang, or the ultimate source of the matter/energy/spacetime that appeared there.  One of these hypothesis is that God created ex nihilo.

However, another hypothesis is what is called quantum fluctuation.  At the quantum level, particles pop into and out of existence all the time in the vacuum where there are no particles.  These particles "borrow" energy from the vacuum for their existence. So they only last about 10^-20 seconds or so. But they are "real" all the same and do exert effects.

What this means is that the net energy used by the particles is zero, since it is only "borrowed".  It is like going to the bank, borrowing $20,000 and then buying a car with it.  You don't really have $20,000 in your pocket, do you?  You don't really "have" the car, either, since the bank owns it; they merely let you drive it while paying back the loan.

Or look at a business.  A bookstore brings in $5,000 in a week. That's its gross profit.  But its expenses -- paying the help, rent, electricity, taxes, etc. -- equal $5,000 per week.  So the bookstore has no net profit.  The positive equals the negative.

That is what is present in the universe now.  If you add all the "negative" energy of matter, light, etc and all the "positive" energy of the expansion energy, you find that they are the same and there really is no net energy in the universe.  So, quantum fluctuation states that there was no "creation" of energy (and matter is energy), but merely a splitting of "nothing" into equal positive and negative amounts.

I know its a tough concept to understand, so keep asking if you are still confused.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 01:44 AM L'Anatra said this in Post #63


Not to be unbelievably blunt, but I'd think a 37-year-old man such as yourself would be able to carry himself a bit better in a "debate." Firstly, simply because you are unable and/or unwilling to understand an argument (as you stated above), doesn't make it invalid. If you choose to ignore the evidence in God's creation, that's fine, but don't go attacking those who choose to learn about REALITY!

In addition, I'm curious as to who has the ego problem here?!

I mean, the readers of this thread are clearly too unworthy of your time for you to propound that definition of "natural selection."

Thank you for your analysis.

Its obvious you have decided to ignore the entirety of my post throughout this topic and focus on the one where I refuse to play the ''game''

Heres the trick (an atheist favorite)

They ask "what is my definition of Natural Selection''

I can give them the textbook definition, in which case no matter how its presented to fit into a World created by God in 6 literal days, they claim debate victory by default because my definition may have been the same as thiers

If my definition would happen to go against the accepted definition, then they claim I dont understand it at all.

ALL the questions are loaded.
There is NO correct way for a 6 day creationist to answer and still win an issue.


Either we agree on a point and evolutionists take the trophy,
OR we disagree, and they claim we know nothing of the issue.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 10:57 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #58

A very ignorant thing that atheists tried with me is assume that THEY win if I choose to not play their boneheaded game anymore.
If a 6 day'er gives up on presenting his arguement/debate, trust me, its NOT because he lost the issue.
Its because he grew tired of trying to get ''christians'' to stop saying that the REAL God who says He did it in 6 days is a liar.

I gave up on evolutionist atheists because they want to believe thier lie just as anyone else (if the shoe fits...) who believes that evolution is fact does.

Two major mistakes:

1. That this is a debate.  It's not.  Truth is not decided by debate. The only thing a debate decides is who is the better debater. This is an examination of the physical evidence to see what happened in the past.

2. A big mistake is thinking that evolution = atheism.  It doesn't.  We are not discussing here whether God created, but how.  THe evidence God left in His Creation says that your literal interpretation is wrong. Instead, God created by evolution.

And yes, we understand that YECers don't admit that their position is refuted, but YEC is an idea independent of the people who champion it. We are looking at the idea to see if it is valid.  And science concluded that it was false by 1831.  That you refuse to admit that it is false doesn't change the status of the idea.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 09:17 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #70




Thank you for your analysis.

Its obvious you have decided to ignore the entirety of my post throughout this topic and focus on the one where I refuse to play the ''game''

Heres the trick (an atheist favorite)

They ask "what is my definition of Natural Selection''

I can give them the textbook definition, in which case no matter how its presented to fit into a World created by God in 6 literal days, they claim debate victory by default because my definition may have been the same as thiers

If my definition would happen to go against the accepted definition, then they claim I dont understand it at all.

ALL the questions are loaded.
There is NO correct way for a 6 day creationist to answer and still win an issue.


Either we agree on a point and evolutionists take the trophy,
OR we disagree, and they claim we know nothing of the issue.

Is that really how you perceive it? 

First, let me remind you that if you are debating atheism on the field of evolution, you haven't got a prayer.  Evolution isn't atheism.  If you make evolution be atheism, then you give to atheism all the validity of evolution, and evolution has overwhelming validity.  You can't win a fight against atheism if you view evolution as atheism. Because evolution is valid.

If you want to fight atheism, then separate atheism from evolution.  Atheism is logically vulnerable, but you are never going to find those with your approach.

Second, the fact is there is no way for a 6 day creationist to have a valid position.  The data in God's Creation is overwhelming that God simply didn't create that way.  This was seen by Christian scientists (most of whom were ministers) by 1820.  By then, virtually no Christian thought that creation had taken 6 days or that the earth was young. 

 

[Follower of Christ]

lucaspa: "Second, the fact is there is no way for a 6 day creationist to have a valid position. "



FOC:
And there it is in a nutshell.

I leave this part of the forum as I came in,

To all the brethren out there buying into evolution,
Please be careful.

 

[lucaspa]

Since you spammed this in two threads, I'll put my response here also.

Today at 09:45 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #1

lucaspa:
"Second, the fact is there is no way for a 6 day creationist to have a valid position. "



FOC:
And there it is in a nutshell.

And this is why it is sometimes difficult to have respect for creationists. This is a classic out-of-context quote. The entire paragraph read:
"Second, the fact is there is no way for a 6 day creationist to have a valid position. The data in God's Creation is overwhelming that God simply didn't create that way. This was seen by Christian scientists (most of whom were ministers) by 1820. By then, virtually no Christian thought that creation had taken 6 days or that the earth was young. "

Notice that I am not ruling out YEC by "default", but because the data says it can't be true.

FOC, if the data had been different, we would have had no trouble accepting YEC. Examples of data that would have falsified an old earth and supported YEC:

1. No stars visible beyond 6,000 light years and new visible stars recorded thru history as their light first reached earth.
2. No fossils
3. All bones of all animals mixed together in the sediments, since they were all contemporaries.
4. Very little sedimentary rock since erosion would not have had time to make any.
5. No metamorphic rock because there is no time to have made it.
6. Short half-life isotopes in the earth's crust.

FOC, if all this had been found, then YEC would be the accepted theory today. BUT, the data instead is exactly opposite of what we would find if YEC were true. Since true statements can't have false consequences, YEC is false. Being false, it simply can't be a valid position to take.

 

[webboffin]

This is not an anti evolution post more of wanting answers.
Science has claimed there has been many mass extinctions of life during the Eath's bio history mainly from natural and cosmic disasters.
How does life get more complex when it has been reduced and larger more complex lifeforms having not been able to survive the altered more hostile enviroment were wiped out in mass extinctions on Earth and only the smaller simpler lifeforms being able to survive? And yet life had managed to kickstart it's own evolution process again so that a mammal like shrew creature that in less than 65 million years became into an ape then in a blink of an evolutionary eye became human and here we are today all in a few million years after our latest global catastrophe.

 

[notto]

Today at 09:20 AM webboffin said this in Post #75

This is not an anti evolution post more of wanting answers.
Science has claimed there has been many mass extinctions of life during the Eath's bio history mainly from natural and cosmic disasters.
How does life get more complex when it has been reduced and larger more complex lifeforms having not been able to survive the altered more hostile enviroment were wiped out in mass extinctions on Earth and only the smaller simpler lifeforms being able to survive? And yet life had managed to kickstart it's own evolution process again so that a mammal like shrew creature that in less than 65 million years became into an ape then in a blink of an evolutionary eye became human and here we are today all in a few million years after our latest global catastrophe.

Because natural selection favored the variations found due to mutation in the environments in which the population lived.

In every population, there will be variations from a mean due to mutation for things like size, colorings, sharpness of teeth, longness of neck, speed in running. Environmental pressure selects for traits in the population that lead to animals surviving better in the environment. This causes variation, and eventually, speciation.

Do you have any reason to believe that this couldn't happen in the 65 million years? How many generations in 65 million years? Look at what selective breeding has done to domesticated animals such as dogs in a very short time. This is the same way that natural selection works.

Give me 65 milliion years and through selective breeding, I'm sure I could turn a population of shrews into just about anything you could imagine. I'm also sure that you wouldn't identify it as something from the "shrew" kind when I was done.

 

[webboffin]

Yesterday at 08:34 PM Truth in Faith said this in Post #28



There are physicists, cosmologists, biologists, astronomers, chemists and mathematicians that will laugh at random purposelessness.

Though I can agree on intelligent design try not to lose hold with yourself instead use strong questioning and debate.

 

[webboffin]

Today at 03:40 PM notto said this in Post #76 

has done to domesticated animals such as dogs in a very short time.

Yes they are still dogs not another species.

Give me 65 milliion years and through selective breeding, I'm sure I could turn a population of shrews into just about anything you could imagine. I'm also sure that you wouldn't identify it as something from the "shrew" kind when I was done.

Different several breeds of "shrew"?

 

[webboffin]

SO far Notto your evolution has shown that you can improvise on a breed of species but where does it break away from being from one species and becoming another seperate species in it's own right?

 

[notto]

Today at 10:01 AM webboffin said this in Post #79

SO far Notto your evolution has shown that you can improvise on a breed of species but where does it break away from being from one species and becoming another seperate species in it's own right?

Speciation happens in the lab and in the wild. This is well known.
After 65 million years of shrew breeding, there would certainly be different species that could not breed with each other. Some you would not even recognize as a "shrew".

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html