STILL no evidence FOR creation/ID

[Doctor.Sphinx]

What makes you think it's an "historical account" and why should we care what you think about it anyway?

Well, history is more reliable than theory, and evolutionary theory has no evidence. In light of these two facts, I'm not going to become an adherent to your religion anytime soon.

 

[Skreeper]

Well, history is more reliable than theory, and evolutionary theory has no evidence. In light of these two facts, I'm not going to become an adherent to your religion anytime soon.

No one is forcing you to accept evolution. You're not the first to refuse to accept reality and you won't be the last.

Fortunately there aren't many people like you around anymore.

 

[Brightmoon]

Well, history is more reliable than theory, and evolutionary theory has no evidence. In light of these two facts, I'm not going to become an adherent to your religion anytime soon.

3 nonsense lies in one post . You’re scraping the bottom of the barrel today

. Theories are brief explanations for a lot of related facts .
I just gave 2 species that underwent macroevolutionary change to “give birth” to another species within one generation. They’re Triticum species if you really want the scientific names.
Facts don’t become religious dogmas as dogmas cant be confirmed

 

[AV1611VET]

And lizards never became birds.

Then why is a bird considered an "avian dinosaur"?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

3 nonsense lies in one post . You’re scraping the bottom of the barrel today

. Theories are brief explanations for a lot of related facts .
I just gave 2 species that underwent macroevolutionary change to “give birth” to another species within one generation. They’re Triticum species if you really want the scientific names.
Facts don’t become religious dogmas as dogmas cant be confirmed

A species can't undergo a macroevolutionary change by definition, because a species is not a kind.

Furthermore, the species you referred to were strains of wheat from what I could understand, so probably didn't undergo the same rigour of scrutiny for classification in the first place as animals, even were this an example of macroevolutionary change (i.e. at the genus level as a minimum, although genus and kind do not have identical meanings).

 

[AV1611VET]

Fortunately there aren't many people like you around anymore.

Reportable offense, if you ask me.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Reportable offense, if you ask me.

I'm sure its nothing personal. These people are having their religion challenged, so I can understand their frustration and concern. Fortunately, the solid Rock who is the foundation of our faith is firm and unmoving.

 

[Skreeper]

Reportable offense, if you ask me.

You better make sure to call the cyber police. I am a handsome rogue after all.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

You better make sure to call the cyber police. I am a handsome rogue after all.

I'll tell them the perpetrator is someone "scruffy looking".

 

[Skreeper]

I'm sure its nothing personal. These people are having their religion challenged, so I can understand their frustration and concern. Fortunately, the solid Rock who is the foundation of our faith is firm and unmoving.

I am an atheist, I don't have a religion. But you are right on one thing, it is indeed frustrating when you have to deal with people that criticize scientific theories when these people obviously don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

I am an atheist, I don't have a religion. But you are right on one thing, it is indeed frustrating when you have to deal with people that criticize scientific theories when these people obviously don't know what they're talking about.

But didn't you and your fellow atheists just agree that one can only debate the merits of the evolutionism religion when one has learned a bunch of obscure, largely useless techno-jargain? Sort of like $cientology but without the $.

 

[Skreeper]

But didn't you and your fellow atheists just agree that one can only debate the merits of the evolutionism religion when one has learned a bunch of obscure, largely useless techno-jargain? Sort of like $cientology but without the $.

It's not useless techno-jargain. Do you also complain when your local mechanic uses some technical vocabulary when discussion problems with your car?

Science requires some "techno-jargain" to avoid misunderstandings when discussing details.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Science requires some "techno-jargain" to avoid misunderstandings when discussing details.

I have nothing against words required to avoid misunderstanding when discussing details, but the specific species of wheat are not such words.

 

[AV1611VET]

... it is indeed frustrating when you have to deal with people that criticize scientific theories when these people obviously don't know what they're talking about.

I don't need to know what I'm talking about.

I believe its antithesis.

I may not be qualified to fight fire with fire, but I am qualified to fight fire with water.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not useless techno-jargain. Do you also complain when your local mechanic uses some technical vocabulary when discussion problems with your car?

Science requires some "techno-jargain" to avoid misunderstandings when discussing details.

What goes through your mind (besides nothing) when you see a fellow atheist railing against God, when said atheist doesn't know a thing about Him?

Not His name, not His adversary's name, not His documentation, doctrine, family … nothing.

Does he have the right to be an atheist?

If so, is it okay with you if I rail against something I don't know diddly about … but believe its antithesis?

 

[AV1611VET]

I have nothing against words required to avoid misunderstanding when discussing details, but the specific species of wheat are not such words.

Heaven forbid educatees would "stoop" to using a working definition of something … at least for Occam's Razor.

But they won't accept "kind" as a synonym for "genus" for some reason I'll never understand … yet science is the thing that plutoed "kind" to "genus" in the first place!

This is why I believe that one of science's [unspoken] goals is to pluto every word, jot and tittle in the Bible.

As Paul puts it:

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

 

[pitabread]

If so, is it okay with you if I rail against something I don't know diddly about

Shouldn't you be trying to do better?

 

[AV1611VET]

Shouldn't you be trying to do better?

No.

 

[pitabread]

No.

That's sad.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's sad.

I try to salt my beliefs with Scripture; and Scripture is perfect.

You can't improve on perfection.

I have a feeling that what you mean by "try to do better" is "embrace evolution."

Evolution is like a fly in a glass of milk.