Killer Whales Are Evolving Into Two Different Species

[sandwiches]

There are enough outright lies on this "predictions" page, that I just couldn't read anymore. If your not too far gone, you can spot the overzealous claims. Sadly, a lot it is valid research on natural selection and the environment. But the maggots spoil the soup.

Care to present those lies?

 

[SkyWriting]

I think you need to review how DNA works, because you don't seem to understand how meiosis works.

Wrong. Not all mutations lead to death. Sometimes they lead to things like adult lactose tolerance.

That is because you are actually resorting to the absolutely pathetic tactic of pretending that Evolution in X-men equals real life Evolution.

Lol wrong. You realize that white skin is a mutation, right? Also, lactose tolerance.

Actually, that is factually incorrect, and I think it is funny that you imagine you could ever get away with such a ridiculous claim.

So basically, you have no support for anything you say, but you will dismiss modern research on the basis of Ad hominem?

Certainly telling as to the strength of your position.

Sorry, each of your responses are too easy to dismiss.

 

[sandwiches]

Do you therefore ignore evidence that goes against your worldview?

They don't necessarily ignore evidence but when they see it, they think they know that the evidence is either false or incorrectly interpreted.

In fact, I'll wager that AV and Skywriting would not change their minds or admit that their beliefs are incorrect no matter the level, amount, or kind of evidence. You could have them travel back in time, find out that Jesus didn't do the things that the Bible claims he did, and they still would not believe it. They'd hand-wave it away it as either a hoax, some miscalculation, a case of mistaken identity or some other logic acrobatics. You could satisfy every single kind of ridiculous request of evidence such as crocaducks, dogs being born to cats, and they would still not believe. It does not matter what they see, hear, touch, or sense with any of their senses, their worldview is already frozen and therefore stagnant. And most curious of all, they see all these descriptions of their worldview as desirable traits. It's surreal.

 

[SithDoughnut]

They don't necessarily ignore evidence but when they see it, they think they know that the evidence is either false or incorrectly interpreted.

In fact, I'll wager that AV and Skywriting would not change their minds or admit that their beliefs are incorrect no matter the level, amount, or kind of evidence. You could have them travel back in time, find out that Jesus didn't do the things that the Bible claims he did, and they still would not believe it. They'd hand-wave it away it as either a hoax, some miscalculation, a case of mistaken identity or some other logic acrobatics. You could satisfy every single kind of ridiculous request of evidence such as crocaducks, dogs being born to cats, and they would still not believe. It does not matter what they see, hear, touch, or sense with any of their senses, their worldview is already frozen and therefore stagnant. And most curious of all, they see all these descriptions of their worldview as valued and treasured wisdom. It's surreal.

It's fundamentalism...

 

[SithDoughnut]

Sorry, each of your responses are too easy to dismiss.

Then I'd advise you do it. Just saying 'it's too easy so I won't bother' makes it look suspiciously like you can't. I'm not saying you can't, I haven't read the whole debate you've been having yet, but replies like that never do your argument any good.

 

[SkyWriting]

Care to present those lies?

This one stands out the best because I really don't want to spend time on Natural Selection.
"It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features."
I happen to know this was the position of ICR. ICR would not have taken this position if it agreed with any other (mainstream) researchers conclusions. In fact it was one of their strongest harping points. That the idiots in "Science" couldn't figure out that this was a bird. And I followed every news item on it over the years.

 

[Eucharisted]

Saw this on Diggs, Reading it now, but thought I'd still share it.

Killer Whales Are Evolving Into Two Different Species : Planetsave

Glory be to God, who works in wondrous ways
His creation sings a hymn of praise and thanks
For He brought forth all things by His Holy One
For He creates new things and perfects all things
Glory be to the All-Wise and All-Loving Creator

 

[sandwiches]

This one stands out the best because I really don't want to spend time on Natural Selection.
"It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features."
I happen to know this was the position of ICR. ICR would not have taken this position if it agreed with any other (mainstream) researchers conclusions. In fact it was one of their strongest harping points. That the idiots in "Science" couldn't figure out that this was a bird. And I followed every news item on it over the years.

I think what you're referring to is that you think, like the ICR, that archaeopteryx is a bird but not a transitional fossil. Scientists do think it is a bird, however. If you think otherwise, you're simply wrong. That's all.

From the wikipedia:

Archaeopteryx was a primitive bird that lived during the Tithonian stage of the Jurassic Period, around 150–145 million years ago.

Edit: That wasn't the point of that specific part of the page I posted anyway. The point was that it was predicted that if a more complete fossil of archaeopteryx was found, it would have teeth. They did. It did. Just as predicted since it is a transitional fossil.

 

[AV1611VET]

In fact, I'll wager that AV and Skywriting would not change their minds or admit that their beliefs are incorrect no matter the level, amount, or kind of evidence.

I give science 95% --- if that's not good enough --- too bad.

In one area, I even go with what science says over what my pastor preaches.

And in fact, I hold science up to a Standard that you guys won't even acknowledge.

Thing is, you guys want 100% from me --- absolute, total agreement, based on current software.

And it's not going to happen; so if that means I'm adamant and close-minded, then I plead 'guilty'.

 

[sandwiches]

I give science 95% --- if that's not good enough --- too bad.

In one area, I even go with what science says over what my pastor preaches.

And in fact, I hold science up to a Standard that you guys won't even acknowledge.

Thing is, you guys want 100% from me --- absolute, total agreement, based on current software.

And it's not going to happen; so if that means I'm adamant and close-minded, then I plead 'guilty'.

All I got is one question: Are you open to the possibility that the Bible could be wrong partially or completely? I think I've asked you this before and I believe you answered that if I was trying to make you say that the Bible is wrong, I could stop right then because you'd never admit it or something to that effect.

 

[AV1611VET]

All I got is one question: Are you open to the possibility that the Bible could be wrong partially or completely?

Absolutely not.

I even have what I call my Prime Directive.

In no case and under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Absolutely not.

I even have what I call my Prime Directive.

In no case and under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.

Which means that you'll go with scientific conclusions only if they match what the Bible says.

I wouldn't call that giving science 95%, I'd call that completely ignoring it. If you already have your conclusions, science is made redundant for you.

 

[sandwiches]

Absolutely not.

I even have what I call my Prime Directive.

In no case and under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.

Then, my point stands.

In fact, I'll wager that AV and Skywriting would not change their minds or admit that their beliefs are incorrect no matter the level, amount, or kind of evidence.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Absolutely not.

I even have what I call my Prime Directive.

In no case and under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.

So the truth is not that you hold science to a higher standard, but that you hold the Bible to a lower one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which means that you'll go with scientific conclusions only if they match what the Bible says.

That is correct --- but more appropriately --- I'll go with what science says, as long as it does not contradict the Bible.

Have you seen my Boolean Standards?

I wouldn't call that giving science 95%, I'd call that completely ignoring it.

I couldn't disagree more.

If you already have your conclusions, science is made redundant for you.

Science has its place in this dispensation; after that, it's gone.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then, my point stands.

That is correct --- your point stands.

 

[Skavau]

Absolutely not.

I even have what I call my Prime Directive.

In no case and under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.

This thread appears to now be way off-topic, so I'll ask this.

If you were to say, perceive a contradiction in the Bible - would you dismiss it, perhaps blaming poor judgment on your behalf, or something that you or any others can't understand?

Are you saying that the Bible cannot be contradicted, or that if we perceive it to be - we should consider ourselves in error?

 

[AV1611VET]

This thread appears to now be way off-topic, so I'll ask this.

Threads are like distance.

If you aim a laser at a target on the moon, and you're off by even one second of arc, you're going to miss the target by [?].

If you were to say, perceive a contradiction in the Bible - would you dismiss it, perhaps blaming poor judgment on your behalf, or something that you or any others can't understand?

The first thing that comes to mind when I perceive a contradiction is to suspend judgment until further investigation.

That investigation consists of asking myself a series of questions:

1. What's the context?
2. What does the entire Bible have to say about it?
3. What dispensation is being addressed?
4. What do others say about it?
5. What do we not know that could help us?
6. How can I raise this from a contradiction to a paradox?

Remember the Syrian ten-man chariot: 130?

Are you saying that the Bible cannot be contradicted, or that if we perceive it to be - we should consider ourselves in error?

If we perceive the Bible to be in contradiction, it is we who are in error.

 

[Skavau]

If we perceive the Bible to be in contradiction, it is we who are in error.

Okay - this is what I thought. Now do you think that this position of yours can convince an atheist? What reasons would you give me to accept the idea that the Bible is unquestionable, or rather non-contradictory?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now do you think that this position of yours can convince an atheist?

I don't know --- I don't think like an atheist; nor have I ever thought like one.

My guess is that atheists respond to different things in different ways.

As far as convincing goes, it would take the convicting power of the Holy Ghost to knock an atheist off his perch.

If I read my Bible right, atheism is the second to last step (behind reprobate) before the judgment.

What reasons would you give me to accept the idea that the Bible is unquestionable, or rather non-contradictory?

I don't know you that well, but you come across as rather intelligent.

I would have to study your verbal choices (i.e. both oral and written), as I'm big on studying a person's word choices, which gives that person away more than anything.

What words do they capitalize? What words do they misspell? How accurately do they quote the Bible?

But my favorite area of study is synonyms.

What does a person use in place of the word the Bible uses?

Did God "speak" the universe into existence; or did God "poof" the universe into existence?

Did God work a "miracle"; or did God work "magic"?

Things like that.