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

TLK Valentine said:

I've noticed. When you're ready to discuss, not dismiss, I'll be here.

Click to expand...

I think you don't know what you disagree with, to be honest..
But i don't know how to make you (and many others too) have a decent look at it either...

I guess iḿ frustrated..

Hieronymus said:

I think you don't know what you disagree with, to be honest..
But i don't know how to make you (and many others too) have a decent look at it either...

I guess iḿ frustrated..

Click to expand...

All you'd have to do is explain the meaning and substance of your objection, just like I did.

That's ok... we all get frustrated.

TLK Valentine said:

All you'd have to do is explain the meaning and substance of your objection, just like I did.

Click to expand...

I don't know where to start...
I should have refrained from commenting.

That's ok... we all get frustrated.

Click to expand...

I guess so...

ViaCrucis said:

It's like saying "gravitationism" involves giant magnets making apples fall on people's heads.
-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Just not in "real life".

I real life this is what the high-priests of evolutionism say about their own religion in the past 150 years. (Statements you never find about physics in the last 150 years)

================================================================
As 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 you don't see world class scientists saying the sorts of thing about gravity as evolutionism's 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..."

========================

A great example of what scientists do NOT say about the study of Gravity.

And yet... at no loss for large levels of glossing over details and equivocation - we could just "repeat" the suggestion for "gravitationism" as do some.

ViaCrucis said:

It's like saying "gravitationism" involves giant magnets making apples fall on people's heads.
-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Hieronymus said:

I don't know where to start...
I should have refrained from commenting.I guess so...

Click to expand...

With blind faith evolutionism - you have to go back to 'basics'

Explain why objective thinkers reject the mythology that - "a pile of dirt is sure-enough going to turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt over a sufficiently talented and long period of time - filled with improbable just-so-stories”

Because the response to that will always be of the form "that is true - but can we just ignore the glaring details - and focus on one of our just-so-stories instead?"

BobRyan said:

Bible reading make me believe that the Bible gives two distinct scenarios where healing took place -- in some cases it says it is disease and sickness... in other places it says that demons are involved -- depending on cases.

of course your eye-witness diagnosis as to which was which is presumably better than the Bible since you are 2000 years removed from the event.

Do you see a problem with your argument?

Click to expand...

The main problem is that it isn't based on a shred of evidence.

BobRyan said:

Just not in "real life".

I real life this is what the high-priests of evolutionism say about their own religion in the past 150 years. (Statements you never find about physics in the last 150 years)

Click to expand...

The priests of Bible idol worship keep hiding the truth that God does not exist, as told to them by the very authors of the Bible.

"God does not exist"--Psalm 14:1

Loudmouth said:

The priests of Bible idol worship keep hiding the truth that God does not exist, as told to them by the very authors of the Bible.

"God does not exist"--Psalm 14:1

Click to expand...

I hear a lot on here about "quote mining". Many times however the complete thought, paragraph or statement is given in whole. A quote mine would be to take the small part of a statement that you need to get your point across while leaving off another portion that would give clear light on what the quote was actually communicating.

The quotes that are shown by BobRyan are complete quotes that stand alone. No preface or follow up statement is going to change the statement made from communicating a strong point.

Your example is a true quote mine as the whole passage is shown below...

Psalm 14

1 The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

JacksBratt said:

I hear a lot on here about "quote mining". Many times however the complete thought, paragraph or statement is given in whole.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. That's why it is a quote mine.

JacksBratt said:

I hear a lot on here about "quote mining". Many times however the complete thought, paragraph or statement is given in whole. A quote mine would be to take the small part of a statement that you need to get your point across while leaving off another portion that would give clear light on what the quote was actually communicating.

The quotes that are shown by BobRyan are complete quotes that stand alone. No preface or follow up statement is going to change the statement made from communicating a strong point.

Your example is a true quote mine as the whole passage is shown below...

Psalm 14

1 The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

Click to expand...

That's actually wrong, I've checked his quote mines. Not everyone is so concise that the immediate statement preceding or following a sentence is going to be the one that changes the overall meaning of a paragraph. Some people dedicate pages to the opposing position before getting to refuting those points.

BobRyan said:

With blind faith evolutionism - you have to go back to 'basics'

Explain why objective thinkers reject the mythology that - "a pile of dirt is sure-enough going to turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt over a sufficiently talented and long period of time - filled with improbable just-so-stories”

Because the response to that will always be of the form "that is true - but can we just ignore the glaring details - and focus on one of our just-so-stories instead?"

Click to expand...

You didn't even give a name for that quote. For all I know, you are quoting yourself, someone ignorant of abiogenesis or evolution, or someone mentioning a bad argument against evolution and abiogenesis.

PsychoSarah said:

You didn't even give a name for that quote. For all I know, you are quoting yourself, someone ignorant of abiogenesis or evolution, or someone mentioning a bad argument against evolution and abiogenesis.

Click to expand...

Or most likely, all of the above.

PsychoSarah said:

That's actually wrong, I've checked his quote mines. Not everyone is so concise that the immediate statement preceding or following a sentence is going to be the one that changes the overall meaning of a paragraph.

Click to expand...

Indeed there is much "evolutionist devotee" motivated fiction/myth/hope that one sentence away the author says "I don't mean a word of what I am saying - I am just saying this to give BobRyan some material against evolution that looks good on the surface".

These "happy fictions" that evolutionists tell themselves - not unlike the "long list of improbable just-so stories"

JacksBratt said:

I hear a lot on here about "quote mining". Many times however the complete thought, paragraph or statement is given in whole. A quote mine would be to take the small part of a statement that you need to get your point across while leaving off another portion that would give clear light on what the quote was actually communicating.

The quotes that are shown by BobRyan are complete quotes that stand alone. No preface or follow up statement is going to change the statement made from communicating a strong point.

Click to expand...

Hence the complaints against it - are not at all focused on "actual details" rather they are based on the guiding rule of the faithful devotee to evolutionism - which is that "anything that does not appear to flatter faith in evolutionism - must be by that fact alone - a quote mine".

And they never tire of that transparent level of "wishful thinking" as the only "substance" the long stream of false and factless accusations that they make.

And somehow we are just "not supposed to notice"???

Hieronymus said:

I don't know where to start...
I should have refrained from commenting.I guess so...

Click to expand...

With blind faith evolutionism - you have to go back to 'basics'

Explain why objective thinkers reject the mythology that - "a pile of dirt is sure-enough going to turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt over a sufficiently talented and long period of time - filled with improbable just-so-stories”

Because the response to that will always be of the form "that is true - but can we just ignore the glaring details - and focus on one of our just-so-stories instead?"

PsychoSarah said:

You didn't even give a name for that quote. For all I know, you are quoting yourself, someone ignorant of abiogenesis or evolution, or someone mentioning a bad argument against evolution and abiogenesis.

Click to expand...

It is "utter nonsense" to claim that the entire line of just-so-stories going from pile-of-dirt to "hopeful rabbit" are all just "abiogenesis stories" and we all know it. Why play those games?

BobRyan said:

It is "utter nonsense" to claim that the entire line of just-so-stories going from pile-of-dirt to "hopeful rabbit" are all just "abiogenesis stories" and we all know it. Why play those games?

Click to expand...

Bob, can you describe what you think evolution is? It seems you don't have even the most basic understanding of it. You keep repeating this "dirt to rabbit" strawman. You know this is wrong as you've been told by multiple posters.

In your own words, please tell us what you think evolution is. Thanks.

PsychoSarah said:

That's actually wrong, I've checked his quote mines. Not everyone is so concise that the immediate statement preceding or following a sentence is going to be the one that changes the overall meaning of a paragraph. Some people dedicate pages to the opposing position before getting to refuting those points.

Click to expand...

Sarah, I have shown two quotes below. They are both from Dr. Patterson, an accredited biologist who studied biology for a couple of decades. He authored books on the subject as well.

Can you tell me what he may have stated before or after these two quotes that would negate the points that are seeming to be made here? To me they seem to be complete statements. I don't see how including any more of the mans words that lead up to these statements or those that followed could alter the view presented.

In cases like this, must the poster include the entire text in his or her post? Is in not sufficient to present these portions?

I think it is quite clear that the man once followed the belief of evolution and then while studying it, realized that the TOE doesn't make sense.

"...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...

One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a non- evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought 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 for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.

Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school."

JacksBratt said:

Sarah, I have shown two quotes below. They are both from Dr. Patterson, an accredited biologist who studied biology for a couple of decades. He authored books on the subject as well.

Click to expand...

Dr. Patterson is not a creationist and has stated that his quotes have been taken out of context. Let's take a look at what he says about fossils in his book "Evolution" on page 131-133

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."

JacksBratt said:

Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, that is true?

Click to expand...

Take a genome of two species and compare them. They fall into a perfect nested hierarchy, exactly what evolution predicts.
Of the 208,000 ERVs found in the human genome, only 84 aren't shared with chimps.
Human chromosome #2 is a fused chromosome, which was predicted for what we'd find because of the anomaly of having one less chromosomes than chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas and bonobos.

JacksBratt said:

I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school."

Click to expand...

Which members? Did you discuss this with a professional? What can you provide here that demonstrates that any of this took place. I'm skeptical of your claims. It would be helpful if you could demonstrate you had any discussion with any of the attendees. There is a nice contact list on this site. Perhaps you could contact one of them asking the questions you ask here and then report back with the responses.
http://evbio.uchicago.edu/events/

JonFromMinnesota said:

Which members? Did you discuss this with a professional? What can you provide here that demonstrates that any of this took place. I'm skeptical of your claims.

Click to expand...

That was part of the quotemine from Dr. Patterson...jacksbratt did not pose that question at the seminar.

Are we still on Patterson?! I left this thread like 50 pages ago after pointing out that Patterson is either being misrepresented (as he himself claims), or is simply incredibly wrong about evolution (and by pointing out I mean explaining at length for several pages). And here we are, 50 pages later, still rehashing this turd?! Give it a rest!