Study: understanding ToE = acceptance

[pitabread]

To those who understand evolution, they know holes of the theory are EVERYWHERE.

What holes?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What holes?

The holes he's pointed out many times before. Duh!

And before you ask for him to repost them, you're just a bad student who doesn't listen so the problem is yours and he doesn't have to do any such thing.

 

[juvenissun]

The ToE, air tight buddy. Maybe you’re unaware?

If you have a question, you should ask.

You give me a research article of ToE, I will show you the holes in it.

 

[Gene2memE]

Here's one:

Phylogenomic evidence of adaptive evolution in the ancestry of humans

 

[DogmaHunter]

and evolution lack any evidence to support the claim that one creature can evolve into another one.

At least, when we ignore all the evidence that exactly that happened, as well as ignore all the times that we've actually observed it happening....

its like saying that a car with small changes over time will evolve into a space shuttle.

It is not, because cars aren't biological organisms subject to biological processes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

yep. the point is that they didnt evolved from each other.

Because cars and plains, as non-biological mechanical devices, aren't subject to biological evolution.


Derp.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If one was told that alchemy was established science throughout high school, he would accept it as fact. If he went on to study alchemy in college he may come up with some pomposity like, "Those who reject alchemy do not understand alchemy." It would be the same with those who study any false paradigm.

Except, off course, for the fact that once the alchemist starts actually doing experiments and thereby testing the theories of alchemy, it would become clear rather fast that it's a bunch of hocus-pocus pseudo-science.


Which, incidently, is exactly why it isn't being taught as science.

See? That's how that works.
There's actually a reason why things like alchemy and astrology aren't taught as proper scientific fields or theories.

Anyone who studies the Scriptures would likely agree that Jesus was a creationist. As evidence of this, He made multiple references to the early chapters of Genesis, and never refuted a word of it. So the question then is where do you put your faith; on the word of God or the theories of man?

I don't put "faith" in anything.
Instead, I'll just accept those claims that can be supported by verifiable evidence.

Realize, of course, that evolution cannot account for the origination of anything,

It accounts for the origins of species. It accounts for the origins of bio-diversity.

And that's the only scope within wich it operates. It doesn't address anything else.

only changes which occurred after life originated

Indeed. It is a theory that deals with processes that existing life is subject to. Scope: it matters.

The Bible not only details the how of creation, but the why as well.

And it flies in the face of the evidence of reality.

Any who believes in evolution and the Scriptures has a complete understanding of neither.

So, the pope along with the rest of the vatican, and some of the brightest biologists around, have no understanding of the bible?

I wonder how arrogant one has to be, to say such things.

They are mutually exclusive.

If you read the bible literally, I absolutely agree with that.
Indeed. A literaly reading of the bible contradicts the actual evidence of reality.

So either the literal bronze-age tale is wrong, or reality is wrong.
Why would anyone assume that reality is what's wrong?

The Bible teaches us that sin and death came into the world through one man; Adam.

Which is demonstrably false.

The more pompous among us consider the belief in creation as ignorance.

Indeed. I have yet to meet a creationist who actually properly understands evolution theory, for example. They are all "certain" that evolution is wrong, but yet - they barely even grasp the basics of the basics.

Science tells us that Jesus could not have been resurrected. If you believe science in that regard you are not enlightened, only condemned.

Haaaa.... the "divine justice" threat.
Awesome.

When you have an argument that is actually based in evidence instead of threats, call me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Faith is the belief in things unproven.

Uhu. The excuse people give to believe things without evidence.

It's also how people can "believe" in astrology, alchemy, voodoo, etc.

If you reject God when He is unproven He will reject you when He is proven.
Who, then, is the fool; the one who resides with God in Heaven or the lost soul in Hell?

The fool, is the one who believes things without evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Therefore, 93 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are fools.

LOL!

Yep, sure..... 93% of the members of an organization of which the members are actually the brightest of the brightest... all fools!

And those YEC's... all geniuses!
Uhu.

So I guess that is the new metric then to identify "fools" and "geniuses". Just ask if they believe in a god. Uhu.

You can't make this stuff up...................

 

[DogmaHunter]

i just use evolutionery logic. if according to evolution small steps+time= big step.

You don't agree with that?
You don't agree that the continued accumulation of small changes inevitably ends up in big changes?

So if you move one inch every second, you will not eventually end up moving fo miles after some time?

This really is something that I just can't get... how can you not understand that accumulation of small things ends up being a big thing?

If your bank account accumulates 1 penny every second and that process is allowed to continue for a long time, will you not inevitably end up being a billionaire?

It sounds like you have a bit of trouble with the concept of accumulation.

then small steps in a car (something that we can observe like a rust or color change because the sun)+time= airplane.

Cars aren't biological organisms so they are not subject to biological processes.

You're trolling again.

the same logic, the same (wrong) conclusion.

Anything but the same logic. It's not even comparing apples with oranges. It's comparing organic apples with plastic oranges.

actually, even if we assume that we have a car that is able to reproduce like a living thing, it will not evolve into an airplane even by a trillion years.

In my imagination, it can.
If you get to imagine a "car animal" that can't evolve, then I get to imagine a "car animal" that can.


I suggest you actually stick to reality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

really? You honestly believe there is no qualitative difference between evolution the process and evolution the theory? Interesting, you need to learn something about the theory of evolution before responding to me.

He was talking about the alledged difference between "micro" vs "macro". Not about "process" vs "theory".

Maybe you should learn to read comprehensively before replying to anyone.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You give me a research article of ToE, I will show you the holes in it.

Aren't you a geology teacher, not a biology teacher?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The weekend is over and I am tired of your games so I am on to something worthwhile. My point from the beginning to this point in time is and has been that people who are zealous about a topic do not take the time to listen to others that they deem wrong no matter what they believe. The discussion is so emotionally charged that no real communication can happen. In fact, that is why I refuse to speak about what I believe on the topic. My refusal to express what I know and believe is one reason I know you all are not listening because a couple of the posts on this thread presume to know what I believe when I refuse to speak about what I believe because of the emotionally charged non listening nature of many here.

The truly funny thing is that this lack of listening thus lack of communication goes for everyone who is zealous about a topic, iow's it's human nature. Many of the people here who have been doing this to me and others are the same people who accuse creationists of doing similar things....lol. Both groups do it which insures no communication or at least meaningful communication will ever happen. You all see it in others but refuse to open your eyes to you doing it yourselves.

Now to further illustrate my point, one post on this topic commented about not being able to understand my posts because there was nothing in it to argue about. See, zealots seek to argue and disagree rather than listen and exchange ideas and opinions in a meaningful way. So now you have been given two direct examples of what I am talking about being evidenced in this thread. I tried years ago to communicate on the topic of origins and it went very much like this thread has. I say something painfully benign only to be insulted and attacked for beliefs that I never said I had and quite frankly most of the "invented" beliefs are insulting to what I really do believe. Today, I will occasionally go to a thread like this with a benign comment and test the waters so to speak and see if anything has changed, see if it is possible to have meaningful communication. As you all have demonstrated, that still isn't possible on this topic which is why I am taking my leave.

So now, the floor is yours to prove me right once again by attacking me, insulting me, telling me you can't follow what I said, etc. If nothing else it has been entertaining to see you trip over yourselves to prove me right about how zealots argue on these boards. Enjoy your bashing of one another and your prideful displays of arrogance and disrespect for others.

Established science like evolution isn't really "open for discussion" in the manner you are implying it should be.

We don't seriously entertain / consider the ideas of flat earthers or proponents of Stork Theory either.... For exactly the same reason.

The science is settled on this issue. The work has been done. The conclusion has been obtained.

Evolution happened. The world is not 6000 years old. Humans share ancestry with other species.

It's just the way it is. It is fact.

People "demand" a debate about it. In reality, that debate has been done a long time ago. It is over already. It's been over for more then 150 years.

Some people just need to get up to speed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The study is irrelevant. The basis of proving a point is the logic behind it. That's what I am addressing. So:

"So if the evolutionist had a better understanding of the bible/God/Creation they would be more likely to accept it."

Must be true as well for the initial logic to be correct.

A kind of important part of "logic", are that the premises must be valid and supported.
The OP has the study as supporting it.

You.... you just have an "argument" made up of mere words, with nothing to back it up.
Rendering it nothing more then a bare assertion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Can you prove He does not?

Can you prove that my undetectable 7-headed dragon is NOT about to eat you?

 

[DogmaHunter]

To those who understand evolution, they know holes of the theory are EVERYWHERE. They accepted it by faith, because there is no alternative if they do not accept God.

Except people like Francis Collins, who's a world reknown evolutionary biologist and devout christian.

It seems your claims to not match the evidence of reality. If your claim is correct, then people like Francis Collins should not exist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We know these dates from Josephus, most notably. Did it occur to you that Josephus may be in error about the dates? I don't recall any mention of calendars in the Gospels.

Also, the Bible was written in a different language in a different time. The insects and animals that were known in the region and would be applicable to the instructions given may not be what is in existence now. It is clear that their word for foul meant winged creatures.

Every atheist posts the same apparent "contradictions" from the same websites. Nothing new here.

In other words.... When the bible says X and reality says Y, then it's reality that is incorrect.

 

[juvenissun]

Except people like Francis Collins, who's a world reknown evolutionary biologist and devout christian.

It seems your claims to not match the evidence of reality. If your claim is correct, then people like Francis Collins should not exist.

And, you should add the Pop into the list.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And, you should add the Pop into the list.

And you should rephrase your claim, since clearly your claim does not match the evidence of reality.

I repeat: if your claim is correct, then people like Francis Collins (and the pope, and the rest of the vatican and the majority of christians) should not exist.

So, are you going to address this point?
Or will you rather, as usual, ignore it and simply repeat your claim in a couple of posts?

 

[juvenissun]

And you should rephrase your claim, since clearly your claim does not match the evidence of reality.

I repeat: if your claim is correct, then people like Francis Collins (and the pope, and the rest of the vatican and the majority of christians) should not exist.

So, are you going to address this point?
Or will you rather, as usual, ignore it and simply repeat your claim in a couple of posts?

There are all kinds of people, for variety of reasons. Human is intelligent.
You work with machine too much.