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.
The point of what? That people on one side of a debate won't usually present evidence against their own side? Well, gee, would you present evidence against creationism intentionally? Also, I have gone against standard debate protocol and have presented some of the weaker points of evolution. I haven't presented anything that would disprove it, because I don't know of any evidence found that does, and if I did, then I wouldn't support the theory.Why should I expect them too, they are separate species..... You just proved my point not even realizing it.
Do you know what quote mining means, Bob?
Nobody is intimidated by threats, Bob. To me, it's morally reprehensible to threaten someone
Evolution has been repeatedly tested and confirmed for over 150 years.
IN certain more academic contexts it has "real meaning" and "substance.
But on this thread it means "you found something in convenient to true believers in blind-faith-evolultionism. We can't refute it , we can't deny it - so we will try out a few false accusations where we don't think we need to support any accusation that we make against that quote".
I never threaten anyone. I never claim to be "in charge" of the Bible or "in charge of Rev 20". Rather I offer the escape plan, the solution that we find in the Bible.
Just not in "real life" -- hence that statements from your own professor "Patterson".
And 'hence' the fact that NOTHING like that is found in actual hard - solid - confirmed sciences like Math, chemistry, Physics, Engineering over the past 150 years ... as we all know. (here again -- 'irrefutable' --)
IN certain more academic contexts it has "real meaning" and "substance. But on this thread it means "you found something inconvenient to true believers in blind-faith-evolultionism. We can't refute it , we can't deny it - so we will try out a few false accusations where we don't think we need to support any accusation that we make against that quote".
Which is transparently "fluff" for most of us to see -- but a few blind-faith-evolutionists here love to pretend that "nobody notices".
And that is a bit of a fantasy on their part which I am happy to indulge since it is so transparently flawed.
No, Bob. You don't understand. You got caught dishonestly quote mining.
Quote mining means taking a quote out of context
No evidence at all to support their much-repeated high-fiction and false accusations
And so "again" you repeat your 'high-fiction and false accusation' - without any proof at all for it.
Bob
But much expected in the methods of blind faith evolutionism.
I myself would rather see them choosing life - over the Rev 20 "alternative"
Did you forget that these links were provided to you to show you the many dishonest quote mines that creationists use?
You have not provided any facts.
Dawkins admits to the design observed in nature.
"“biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.
A few more "details" totally missed in the "non-discussion" at the links you provide.
And we saw that again in the case of the fraudulent horse series
"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.
"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.
============================
The sorts of things world class scientists were not saying about gravity and thermodynamics in the 1980's and 1950's
Here is a fact already in evidence.
After the bold equivocation between junk-science evolutionism and actual science like the law of Gravity and the laws of thermodynamics - I pointed out the blunder - showing that in real life even you don't see world class scientists saying the sorts of thing about gravity as your own atheist scientists say about evolutionism.
Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:
Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians
"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"
Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"
"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...
"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."
========================
Now on this thread we are being "told" to equivocate between blind faith evolutionism - and ... 'Gravity' and 'the law of thermodynamics'. AS IF our top scientists today ALSO come out saying "the law of thermodynamics conveys no knowledge.. in fact it seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge. apparent knowledge that is harmful to physics".
AS IF our top scientists today would say "Gravity --and the gravitational constant so near and dear to science text books today - NEVER HAPPENED in nature".
REALLY?? That is what you see happening???
========================================================
Thus the perfect contrast was given - exposing that sort of "equivocation" as was attempted trying to get evolutionism in the "legit box" of science - that has Gravity and Thermodynamics in it.
Correction - there is "no evidence at all" that a pile of "dirt" - well EVER "turn into a rabbit" - no matter how much "dirt" no matter how much time.
It is only blind faith evolutionism - that simply "hopes and believes" that some day dirt will be found to have in it - the inherent properties to "be a rabbit".
Here is evidence from one of your own atheist scientists - a high priest in the religion of evolutionism.
=====================================================
Agnostics may not think much of the OP - but in the OP the question is asked by a Christian regarding the conflict between the Bible and blind-faith-evolutionism.
Patterson noted this --
Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:
Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians
"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"
Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"
"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...
"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."
================================================
Patterson (the diehard evolutionist right to the end ) -- at that same meeting -
"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.
"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff fortwenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...
It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...
about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."
====================================== end quote
-_- you should obviously know that "appear to have been designed" is not the same as saying something was designed. Many people that say statements like that follow it up with paragraphs as to how looks can be deceiving, etc. If these people actually thought the universe was designed, they'd probably be theists, not agnostics. What would Dawkins have to gain from calling himself an agnostic if he thought the universe was actually designed? Nothing, which is how I know this is not only a quote mine, but not even a good one, because saying something appears designed is just commenting on a detail that has no bearing as to whether or not the universe is actually designed. Tons of things in nature that aren't faces look like faces, so obviously, appearing like a face doesn't mean an object is a face.Dawkins admits to the design observed in nature.
"“biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.
Dawkins illustrates the point that a sufficiently talented “story teller” can spin a story to convince himself to ignore the observations in nature even though he can see complicated biological systems that appear to have been designed for a purpose.
Dawkins admits to the design observed in nature.
"“biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.
Dawkins illustrates the point that a sufficiently talented “story teller” can spin a story to convince himself to ignore the observations in nature even though he can see complicated biological systems that appear to have been designed for a purpose.
Good question, Paul. I'll try and be brief. As I believe I did mention in previous posts addressed to you, the mind-body dualism has never really worked. Descartes, for example, really pushed it and then never really could explain how the two interact. A better solution, I and many others think, is to simply assume that mind and matter are one reality, not two separate worlds. This also seems realistic, as we never encounter a bunch immaterial minds running around. OK, what about matter? As I believe I mentioned I see no hard-and-fast dividing line between he living and the nonliving or the inorganic and the inorganic, or anything like that. I also hold with evolution. Therefore, I believe that what is the case at the top of the scale is also the case at the bottom, though to a significantly lesser extent. It, on fair, then, that we extend psychological principles down the scale, to explain things. Also, as I said in an earlier post, all perceived characteristics of the external, material world are qualities of feelings. Unless there are feelings out there, I haven't got an inkling what's going on. I'm perceiving what isn't there. Now, I'm still puzzled where you stand. Are you what's called an idealist? Are you holding the eternal world is nothing more than a figment of our imaginations, doesn't really exist, time, space, etc., exist no place else than in the mind of the perceiver, and if not there, then in the mind of God? Are you into Berkeley or Kant, for example? I ask because more than one hardcore scientists today is, in fact, an idealist. Actually, Einstein argued time is just a figment of our imaginations, exists no place else, isn't really out there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?