Important interpretation? : does having been a monkey, help all future "evolutions" in a monkey way?

[Hans Blaster]

Asking a moral question of a theory in biological science is like asking a moral question of cheese making. Quite dumb and pointless.

Blessed are the Cheese Makers.

 

[disciple Clint]

Comment: That's from a "ministry", not a scientific organization.

So dispute the points that it makes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So dispute the points that it makes.

A ministry has as much scientific credibility as I have as a religious authority. (Not "expert", "authority" like an Imam or Pope.)

 

[disciple Clint]

A ministry has as much scientific credibility as I have as a religious authority. (Not "expert", "authority" like an Imam or Pope.)

so it should be very easy to dispute then.

 

[Hans Blaster]

so it should be very easy to dispute then.

The main creationist orgs are all notorious liars. I see no reason to wallow in their claims. I'm sure I've seen them all on this board anyway, so many of the posters on this board are clearly working from claims from sites like this one.

If you'd like to bring forward one of those claims for discussion on the board that would be far more welcome than some link to a list of claims.

 

[disciple Clint]

The main creationist orgs are all notorious liars. I see no reason to wallow in their claims. I'm sure I've seen them all on this board anyway, so many of the posters on this board are clearly working from claims from sites like this one.

If you'd like to bring forward one of those claims for discussion on the board that would be far more welcome than some link to a list of claims.

I believe that the burden of proof would require some evidence that the main creationist orgs are all notorious liars. Simply saying it does not make it so.

 

[Larniavc]

It is what they ultimately believe, though?. They are just still trying to figure out the 'missing link' which they will never find.

No. Scientists do not believe that a monkey morphed into a man. Only the ignorant think that is what ToE states.

 

[Larniavc]

QV please:


SOURCE

Translation: tomato-tomatto.

Where in you quote does it say moneys transformed in a man?

Cladistically we can be called monkeys but but a monkey never one day morphed from a small, tailed animal to a medium size biped.

 

[Shemjaza]

- A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 1 -

Okay I've started going over it and it is not coherent in it's responses.

In Prediction 1, universal common descent is discussed and then a hypothetical multiple lines of descent is suggested but not demonstrated as a counter.


In Prediction 2, a nested hierarchy is suggested, and an increased rate of change that would disguise a nested hierarchical is suggested but neither defined nor demonstrated as something that would remove a nested hierarchical structure.

This isn't true, a nested hierarchy is a necessary consequence of any population of varying descendants with anything analogous to genetics.

It ignores the more detailed explanations as to why a nested hierarchy is incompatible with special creation, ie the existence of atavisms and viral insertions in non-coding DNA.

It also repeats the common false argument that non reproducing created elements like buildings and vehicles can be fit to a nested hierarchy. (For example a separate radio and ABS breaks did not need to be developed for cars and trucks).


In Prediction 3, singular points of difference are used to imply variation between difference lineages, but this does not demonstrate a commonality of those differences that would demonstrate a break in hierarchy.

In addition a lot of time is spent on categories of animals such as types of mammals with no discussion as to why on Earth they would exist in a Creation scenario. This is a particular instance when atavisms and viral insertions are additional evidence that the standard Creation model is insufficient.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The definition of theory is a collection of IDEAS intended to explain something (the theory of evolution for example). Nothing about a theory is based on facts. A fact would be that the sun is very hot. We know this, it has been proven. Evolution has not.

Oh, you believe in God? That's awesome.

However, God does not need 'science' to prove His existence. Evidence of God is everywhere and all around us. Just look at the plants and the trees and the stars...

That is not what the definition of theory is when it comes to science. Again, this shows that you do not know what you are arguing about.

And I never said anything about God needing science to prove His existence. You seem to have deliberately misconstrued or misread what I wrote. Since what I wrote in plain and simple Queen's English was: "I do believe that God created everything we see, and I believe that He did so via what we see through the revelation of God's creation, aka through science. And theory of evolution is just a part of that revelation."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Evolution breeds hostility.

Evolution doesn't breed anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution doesn't breed anything.

It's intolerant, and fosters ill-feelings. Your post was a good example.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's intolerant, and fosters ill-feelings. Your post was a good example.

My post is no way influenced by the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution is not a belief or moral system to follow. It's just a descriptor of biological science.

Get over yourself.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

The reason why so many feel accepting theories like evolution as intolerable is because of the scientific method that disproves, not simply disagrees with, pseudoscientific beliefs like YEC.

 

[AV1611VET]

The reason why so many feel accepting theories like evolution as intolerable is because of the scientific method that disproves, not simply disagrees with, pseudoscientific beliefs like YEC.

Are you using science to defend Post 86?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Are you using science to defend Post 86?

Have I done something over the past few days to personally offend you?

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

I don’t know what post 86 is. Don’t need to. I’m responding to the comment made that evolution breeds intolerance and ect….

 

[AV1611VET]

Have I done something over the past few days to personally offend you?

Not at all.

All I said was something I've said before:

Evolution breeds hostility.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don’t know what post 86 is.

Then your point can take a hike.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not at all.

All I said was something I've said before:

Evolution breeds hostility.

Christianity breeds hostility since you're coming at me like a bull for a red flag.

I'll repeat what I said in post #113:
My post is no way influenced by the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution is not a belief or moral system to follow. It's just a descriptor of biological science.

Get over yourself.