Pope John Paul II: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

JohnR7 · May 16, 2006

Electric Skeptic said:
That's just a lie which you constantly repeat.

I got news for you bubba, your evolutionary dictionary is trash and it is going into the garbage. If anything is the biggest lie about evolution, it is the way they have hijacked the dictionary.

Electric Skeptic · May 16, 2006

JohnR7 said:
I got news for you bubba, your evolutionary dictionary is trash and it is going into the garbage. If anything is the biggest lie about evolution, it is the way they have hijacked the dictionary.

There is no 'evolutionary dictionary'. The only lie being discussed here is your repeated one about what evolution is.

And if you reply to this post, please, TRY to make sense.

JohnR7 · May 16, 2006

Electric Skeptic said:
There is no 'evolutionary dictionary'.

Maybe your right, because as talk origin points out, you have a difficult time getting any two evo to agree on just what the theory of evolution is. Why don't we look at some various dictionary definitions of what evolution is and we will see if they agree with each other.

How about the American Heritage Dictionay? Does evolution mean more complex or better?
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

Talk Origin dot com

volution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it. One common mistake is believing that species can be arranged on an evolutionary ladder from bacteria through "lower" animals, to "higher" animals and, finally, up to man. Mistakes permeate popular science expositions of evolutionary biology. Mistakes even filter into biology journals and texts.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Electric Skeptic · May 16, 2006

JohnR7 said:
Maybe your right, because as talk origin points out, you have a difficult time getting any two evo to agree on just what the theory of evolution is.

No, you don't. That's the same lie you keep repeating.

JohnR7 said:
Why don't we look at some various dictionary definitions of what evolution is and we will see if they agree with each other.

How about the American Heritage Dictionay? Does evolution mean more complex or better?
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

Why don't you consult a SCIENCE reference, since we're discussing a science term? What a dictionary says about a scientific term is hardly relevant.

Nathan Poe · May 16, 2006

JohnR7 said:
If this is so much a "fact" then why are there so many species that remain the same from the beginning. Crocodile have not changed, Turtles have not changed. There are ancient plants that are still the same as they were from the beginning and have not changed.

A good question -- which just so happens to be the one that Darwin himself answered all those years ago.

Alliele frequencies change randomly, through mutation. But whether or not those changes are passed on to future generations are a result of the environment.

(It's called "Natural Selection," John -- surely you've heard of it by now)

but what if a creature is already ideally suited to its environment? And what if that environment doesn't change?

Crocodiles are wetland creatures -- and wetlands environments haven't changed all that much: They're land, and they're wet. Crocs are pretty well suited to this climate.

Sometimes even a random process hits the bull's-eye on the first try.

JohnR7 · May 16, 2006

Electric Skeptic said:
That's the same lie you keep repeating.

Lie

1. To be or place oneself at rest in a flat, horizontal, or recumbent position; recline: lay under a tree to sleep.

JohnR7 · May 16, 2006

Nathan Poe said:
(It's called "Natural Selection," John -- surely you've heard of it by now)

That is the theory and there is really no defense against it. Except for one tiny little thing, it is just a theory and there is no evidence for it. The so called "fact" of change is no longer a fact when there is no change.

Electric Skeptic · May 16, 2006

JohnR7 said:
Lie

1. To be or place oneself at rest in a flat, horizontal, or recumbent position; recline: lay under a tree to sleep.

Lie

A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

JohnR7 said:
That is the theory and there is really no defense against it. Except for one tiny little thing, it is just a theory and there is no evidence for it. The so called "fact" of change is no longer a fact when there is no change.

Except that there is ample evidence for it, which has been pointed out to you any number of times. So your comment above is just another lie by you.

Nathan Poe · May 16, 2006

JohnR7 said:
That is the theory and there is really no defense against it.

Nope -- the facts as we know them so far are pretty much irrefutable.

But hey, something new might pop up tomorrow.

Except for one tiny little thing, it is just a theory and there is no evidence for it.

How sad that you have learned so little from your time on the board.

The so called "fact" of change is no longer a fact when there is no change.

The "fact" is that Darwin proposed the mechanism by which change occurs. Where that mechanism is not present, there is no change.

Now, you were saying something about "no evidence," but I'm sure by now you've forgotten...

JohnR7 · May 17, 2006

Electric Skeptic said:
Lie

A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood

That sounds like the theory of evolution to me. As usual, you accuse me of the very thing your guilty of. Do you have anything new or just the same old, same old?

JohnR7 · May 17, 2006

Nathan Poe said:
Nope -- the facts as we know them so far are pretty much irrefutable.

But hey, something new might pop up tomorrow.

Lets say this is true, that no one can refute your "facts". Does this in and of itself make your "facts" true?

Nathan Poe · May 17, 2006

JohnR7 said:
Lets say this is true, that no one can refute your "facts". Does this in and of itself make your "facts" true?

Of course not. But it's as true as we can know, being that humans are fallible and don't have all the info.

Science doesn't deal in absolutes -- the best it gets is sort of a "provisionally" true, as in "We'll call it true until we observe something that proves it false."

So far, this hasn't happened to evolution on any kind of grand scale. In the150 years since Darwin, we've corrected a few details about how it happened, but nobody's yet refuted that it does happen.

JohnR7 · May 17, 2006

Nathan Poe said:
Science doesn't deal in absolutes -- the best it gets is sort of a "provisionally" true, as in "We'll call it true until we observe something that proves it false."

If science deals in the truth, then why are there so many people on this board that claim to be a connoisseur of the truth and yet they do not see any truth in the Bible. Does that not pretty much undermine their creditability?

Nathan Poe · May 17, 2006

JohnR7 said:
If science deals in the truth, then why are there so many people on this board that claim to be a connoisseur of the truth and yet they do not see any truth in the Bible. Does that not pretty much undermine their creditability?

Because we deal in observed and observable facts, not mythology.

notto · May 17, 2006

JohnR7 said:
That sounds like the theory of evolution to me. As usual, you accuse me of the very thing your guilty of. Do you have anything new or just the same old, same old?

This just made me laugh. John, using his same old same old school yard taunts and then accusing another of doing the same old, same old.

John, why are you accusing someone of the very thing your guilty of? Do you have anything new or just the same old same old of claiming that someone is accusing you of the very thing they are guilty of?

JohnR7 · May 17, 2006

Nathan Poe said:
Because we deal in observed and observable facts, not mythology.

There are plenty of observed facts in the Bible. Why do people deny that. For example, Moses says to use pure oil in your lamp.

Exodus 27:20
"And you shall command the children of Israel that they bring you pure oil of pressed olives for the light, to cause the lamp to burn continually.

Now there is no doubt that there is some sort of symbolic meaning to this passage, about our purity before God. But there is also no doubt that pure oil will burn cleaner and you will not have to clean the lamp as often.

This is a simple truth that science can verify and the Bible is FILLED with them. Why do people deny this and then expect me to believe that they know the truth?

JohnR7 · May 17, 2006

notto said:
This just made me laugh. John, using his same old same old school yard taunts

I guess you do not know anything about science and how people project out on others. Even your Dr Fraud wrote about this. This is basic psychology 101 stuff.

If you people can not demonstrate that you know anything about science, how can we believe you when you try to tell us that you do know something?

fromdownunder · May 17, 2006

JohnR7 said:
I guess you do not know anything about science and how people project out on others. Even your Dr Fraud wrote about this. This is basic psychology 101 stuff.

Freud was a charlatan, and most people who do basic studies now know this. So who is "your" Dr Fraud? Only in your version of other people's minds.

Norm

JohnR7 · May 17, 2006

fromdownunder said:
Freud was a charlatan, and most people who do basic studies now know this.

So the "Father of Psychology" was a "charlatan". What does this say for science that they do not police their ranks so as to get rid of the "charlatans"?

It does not change the fact that basic projection is taught in 101 psychology. Anyone that does not know this does not understand the basics of science.

fromdownunder · May 17, 2006

JohnR7 said:
So the "Father of Psychology" was a "charlatan". What does this say for science that they do not police their ranks so as to get rid of the "charlatans"?.

They do. Freud's psychological theories continue to be disputed today. Leading academic and research psychiatrists regard him as a charlatan.

Norm

Pope John Paul II: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency