• 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.

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,911
741
78
✟8,968.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Hello, Paul. Nice to hear from you. I am deeply interested in mysticism. However, I was largely inspired by the panpsychism or two major contemporary philosophers, Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne. I don't follow you when you contrast the mystical with the dynamic. Could you explain, please?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married

So then not "quoting you" and not "quoting the Bible" -- what are you quoting and how does it address the OP??
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married

Don't miss that last sentence -- "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."

Saying that there is the appearance of design does not mean it WAS design.

And "yet" DNA segment activation, -transcription-and-translation, error correction -- still beyond your "chemistry set"??

But of course --- "not designed -- even though it is apparently designed when you observe it"

And in this case - it is purely biochemistry -- no evolution of the molecule needs a million years for the chemical reaction to happen.

-_- you should obviously know that "appear to have been designed" is not the same as saying something was designed. .

Because in the example at hand "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."
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

You are missing the point completely.


Thank you for demonstrating that you have no idea what evolution actually IS.
 
Upvote 0

JonFromMinnesota

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2015
2,171
1,608
Minnesota
✟60,266.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single

Have you even read The Blind Watchmaker? I'm guessing you didn't. You just copy/pasted a dishonest quote mine. I grabbed the book off my shelf so we can take a look at what comes after the quote. Funny that this quote mine is taken from the first page of a 329 page book and neglects to address the rest of the book. I guess it doesn't matter when the goal is to mislead the reader.

"....Physics is the study of simple things that do not tempt us to invoke design. At first sight, man-made artefacts like computers and cars will seem to provide exceptions. They are complicated and obviously designed for a purpose, yet they are not alive, and they are made of metal and plastic rather than of flesh and blood."- Page 1

"What about our own bodies? Each one of us is a machine, like an airliner only much more complicated. Were we designed on a drawing board too, and were our parts assembled by a skilled engineer? The answer is no." Page 3

I even did you the favor of finding a PDF version of the book that is entirely free. If you're interested in learning anything at all, please read it and then come back and apologize for being dishonest.

http://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf
 
Reactions: Kylie
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Each of Bob's quote mines have been extensively discussed and addressed previously so I'd like to ignore them but I have to wonder what the point of them is anyway?

a) I haven't bothered checking them but aren't all the people quoted professional scientists and fully accept evolution?
b) Why is Bob prepared to accept one or two sentences they say which support his point,yet reject the other 99.999% of their work which disagrees with his 'opinion'?
c) Does one comment (even if it were shown to be in context) negate actual evidence. Opinions are not facts.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Why should I expect them too, they are separate species..... You just proved my point not even realizing it.

We have evidence that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, such as shared genetic markers and transitional fossils.
 
Reactions: Jadis40
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic

We aren't the ones ignoring evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Sure you do.

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

Humans share over 200,000 retroviral insertions with chimps. That's 200,000 pieces of evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,858
✟278,532.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married

Dynamic: essentially a naturalistic explanation, but taking into account active processes instead of mere passive responses such as we see in rocks and riverbeds.

Mystical: Ascribing the wonders life and/or other aspects of the universe to mysterious spiritual aspects that cannot be explained by mere naturalistic reactions.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,322
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,572.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single

The whole point behind a quote mine is that the person doing the mining has abandoned precepts of honesty, integrity, and accuracy, and instead is merely going for the appearance of honesty, integrity, and accuracy.

It's a cheap and lazy ploy, which only succeeds when the audience is as cheap and lazy as the miner... as such, it's usually only effective when preaching to the choir... not in an actual discussion or debate.
 
Reactions: poggytyke
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Each of Bob's quote

Each quote has been proven beyond all doubt - and the only complaint that has been substantiated is that the quote is "inconvenient for blind faith evolutionism" -- and that fact "alone" is the only fact presented so far for arguing 'well then it must be a quote mine' -- as if that is some sort of odd substitute for "logic" and reason.

By simply offering non-substantive posts whenever an inconvenient quote surfaces the 'true believer' in the mythology of evolutionism can add this

quotes have been extensively discussed and addressed previously so I'd like to ignore them

How sad that such nonsense passes for the excuse to take the worst-upside and the worst-downside (Combined) path - clinging to mythology that "a pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit".

but I have to wonder what the point of them is anyway?

a) I haven't bothered checking them but aren't all the people quoted professional scientists and fully accept evolution?

Interesting that after having claimed to rigorously find some flaw in the quotes we get "I haven't bothered checking them".

interesting that after my post after post claiming that these guys are atheist-diehard-true-believer-evolutionist scientists (because that is the WHOLE POINT of the post) -- this question comes up...

What then do atheists and evolutionists mean by "extensively discussed and addressed"????

Notice that in the oft-repeated wishful thinking - that claims the junk-science of evolutionism should be regarded in the same way as real sciences such as math, chemistry, physics, observable-biology etc - we find a useful "contrast" .. because the leading figures on REAL science - are not making the 'this is all junk-science religion' sorts of lament about their own fields of study - as we find among the diehard professors of junk-science evolutionism.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The whole point behind a quote mine is that the person doing the mining has abandoned precepts of honesty, integrity, and accuracy, and instead is merely going for the appearance of honesty, integrity, and accuracy. .

which is the heart and soul of junk-science evolutionism.

And the whole point in making factless and false accusations regarding quote-mining whenever an unflattering quote surfaces from your own junk-science religion of evolutionism... is that people who believe in evolutionism "care about the accusation" but not about the lack of substance in it.
 
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,428
3,005
54
the Hague NL
✟84,932.00
Country
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The flaws of...?
Just saying they exist doesn't do much. Anyone can make empty claims about anything.
O come on, please...
You're smarter than that.
I can't believe you're oblivious to the problems ToE has.
The emptiness is not in the claim.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.