Study: understanding ToE = acceptance

[razzelflabben]

Have you taken the time to listen to the posters who disagree with you? Reading your responses it doesn't sound like it. The hubris of saying the only valid response to your claim is "yes this is true" is very telling

Yeah I have heard that some here think this only applies to creationists, which is verifiably falsified in this thread alone. I have also heard some argue that if I would just say what is on my mind they would listen...again, this is what is on my mind so the thread itself testifies to them speaking untruths on the matter. I have also heard that some think that my point is invalid as per the claim in the OP but they failed to show any evidence to back up the claim that there was any real listening going on.

So you see, I have no choice but to side with evidence on the matter. Oh and just for the record, I have already left the discussion once but someone else goaded me into returning so that I could once again state my stand based on the evidence at hand.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Let's refresh your memory...
here's your claim:

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.

I'll go ahead and assume that a world-reknown evolutionary biologist like Francis Collins understands evolution theory quite well. In fact, more then likely he understands it better then anyone posting here.

This man is also a christian.
So he accepts God and yet also accepts evolution.


So............. since you can't blame his acceptance of evolution on "being an atheist", your claim is clearly incorrect.


Are you going to address this clear problem with your claim or not?​

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

what about those creationists that believe God created through the process of evolution? Are you lumping them into this statement as well, or just refuse to accept that there are those out there because you have't been listening to what they are saying?

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

please note what I said....I said the commonly understood meaning not the scientific ones...you really do need to learn to read for comprehension. Not to mention I simply asked a question.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yeah I have heard that some here think this only applies to creationists, which is verifiably falsified in this thread alone. I have also heard some argue that if I would just say what is on my mind they would listen...again, this is what is on my mind so the thread itself testifies to them speaking untruths on the matter. I have also heard that some think that my point is invalid as per the claim in the OP but they failed to show any evidence to back up the claim that there was any real listening going on.

So you see, I have no choice but to side with evidence on the matter. Oh and just for the record, I have already left the discussion once but someone else goaded me into returning so that I could once again state my stand based on the evidence at hand.

Please...

If you actually cared about things being justified with evidence so much, you would understand how established science like evolution, is not up for "debate" when the ones who wish to challenge don't have ANYTHING besides:
- "i don't believe it"
- "i already believe something else"
- "this bronze age book claims differently"
- ....

or any other such trivial, faith-based nonsense.

We don't entertain, consider or even take one second to listen to Stork Theorists challenging embryology or to flat earthers challenging a round earth. We don't entertain, consider or even take one second to listen to YECs for the exact same reason.

I'll happily listen when they have something more then "this bronze age book says otherwise" and "i believe it, that settles it".

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

lol this is more evidence of what I am saying....the science is not over or we wouldn't be doing any other science on the matter. IOW's it is still being debated and explored and your claim that it isn't is just evidence that you don't want to discuss anything which is why you won't listen when anyone says anything. I have witnessed you all attack people for saying they believe God created through the use of evolutionary process. Lol...they agree with you all but because they said they believe God did it through that process you go off on them about being a creationist and some young earth non sense, etc. Yep...I was witness to it happening by many of you on this thread. LOL you are so silly you can't help but make post after post that supports what I am saying.

 

[razzelflabben]

Please...

If you actually cared about things being justified with evidence so much, you would understand how established science like evolution, is not up for "debate" when the ones who wish to challenge don't have ANYTHING besides:
- "i don't believe it"
- "i already believe something else"
- "this bronze age book claims differently"
- ....

or any other such trivial, faith-based nonsense.

We don't entertain, consider or even take one second to listen to Stork Theorists challenging embryology or to flat earthers challenging a round earth. We don't entertain, consider or even take one second to listen to YECs for the exact same reason.

I'll happily listen when they have something more then "this bronze age book says otherwise" and "i believe it, that settles it".

lol the creationists I like to talk to are more intelligent design people who have some well thought out and interesting arguments if you take time to listen.

 

[DogmaHunter]

what about those creationists that believe God created through the process of evolution?

Those are typically not referred to as "creationists" but rather as "theistic evolutionists".

The term "creationist" typically refers to a theist who denies evolution theory and insists on some type of literal genesis reading.

Generally, these are the same people who also insist on a literal Noah flood and more often then not, also tend to claim that the earth is only a couple 1000 years old.

 

[DogmaHunter]

please note what I said....I said the commonly understood meaning not the scientific ones...you really do need to learn to read for comprehension. Not to mention I simply asked a question.....

I noted what you said.

The guy you replied to was talking about the words "micro" vs "macro" in context of evolution.
You replied complaining about "process" vs "theory" instead.

 

[razzelflabben]

Those are typically not referred to as "creationists" but rather as "theistic evolutionists".

The term "creationist" typically refers to a theist who denies evolution theory and insists on some type of literal genesis reading.

Generally, these are the same people who also insist on a literal Noah flood and more often then not, also tend to claim that the earth is only a couple 1000 years old.

lol do you even hear your own posts? Maybe you should read your posts out loud before you post. Your trying to use the same "logic" to denounce what I am saying that you refuse to accept when I say it of some of your non sense. It's actually very humorous and if you read your own posts you might see the hypocrisy. I doubt it but it is funny to watch you try to hard and fail so miserably

 

[razzelflabben]

I noted what you said.

The guy you replied to was talking about the words "micro" vs "macro" in context of evolution.
You replied complaining about "process" vs "theory" instead.

lol wow, how can you get what I said so wrong if you are listening to what is being said? It's astounding really.

 

[DogmaHunter]

lol this is more evidence of what I am saying....the science is not over or we wouldn't be doing any other science on the matter.

I didn't say "biology" was over. Obviously there is more to learn.
Evolution theory, however, is an established theory which is confirmed to such ridiculous degrees that denying it (for "belief" reasons) at this point is nothing short of perverse.

Yes, the science on the core principles of evolution and the fact of common descend is very much settled. The ideas of creationism have been debunked and demolished more then a century ago and were replaced with evolution theory.

IOW's it is still being debated and explored

The core principles of evolution and common ancestry of living things are not being debated within the scientific community at all. There is nothing to debate about. It is agreed upon by consensus, based on mountains of independent lines of evidence.

As it stands today, there is ZERO rational reason to doubt it. ZERO.

Intellectual honesty, however, demands us to leave the door open for someone to come up with such a reason though - no matter how unlikely that seems to us today.

Creationists, however, do not have such reasons. They have faith-based beliefs and religious objections to the backbone theory of biology. Those are not valid objections.

I have witnessed you all attack people for saying they believe God created through the use of evolutionary process.

I have proof of the exact opposite. Right here on this forum.
For example, Speedwell is a known "theistic evolutionist". Do I think he is correct in adding the undetectable variable of "god" to the process? Off course not.

But at least, his view doesn't require him to ignore the actual science.

I don't think that I've ever seen ANY "evolutionist" on this forum get into an argument with him about that.

All "debates" on this forum on the subject of evolution have been between "evolutionists" on the one hand and "evolution-denying creationists" on the other.

And they always end up in the "evolutionists" having to explain to the creationists how evolution actually works, what evolution theory really states.... because creationists, like I already said, don't seem to have a firm grasp on even the basics.

Lol...they agree with you all but because they said they believe God did it through that process you go off on them

Find me a single post where that has happened. I don't remember any such arguments being thrown around here.

Perhaps we should just ask such a "theistic evolutionist" if he experiences such "attacks" as you say? Hey, @Speedwell , care to weigh in? Have you ever been or felt "attacked" for the "theistic" part of your "theistic evolutionism" on here?

And if yes, does it happen frequently?

Let's hear it from the horse's mouth, shall we?

LOL you are so silly you can't help but make post after post that supports what I am saying.

You keep claiming that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

lol the creationists I like to talk to are more intelligent design people

yes, yes... the very "honest" cdesign proponentsists.
Aka, creationists disguised in a lab coat.

who have some well thought out and interesting arguments if you take time to listen.

A (conservative christian) judge listened to them, while one of them was admitting under oath that he had to change the definition of "scientific theory" in order to be able to call ID a "scientific theory". And that under his altered definition, "astrology" also qualified as "scientific theory".

The court then ruled that the ID stuff was just creationism disguised in a lab-coat and pseudo-science.


And ps: I actually listened as well. Because unlike certain creationists, I actually like to learn about something before I argue against it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

lol wow, how can you get what I said so wrong if you are listening to what is being said? It's astounding really.

Is it? Let's review.....

only thing is that when talking to evolutionists it is important to explain what you mean by that because they are not able to understand the difference between what is commonly referred to as macro and micro evolution.

There is no qualitative difference. Maybe that's what confused you about our responses.

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.

​

 

[razzelflabben]

I didn't say "biology" was over. Obviously there is more to learn.
Evolution theory, however, is an established theory which is confirmed to such ridiculous degrees that denying it (for "belief" reasons) at this point is nothing short of perverse.

now you are reading into what I said what is not there....how big of you to continue to prove my point.

Yes, the science on the core principles of evolution and the fact of common descend is very much settled. The ideas of creationism have been debunked and demolished more then a century ago and were replaced with evolution theory.

well, that would depend on what view of creationism one holds to and as someone else said already in this thread there are many different versions of creation theory...opps you don't like the word creation theory and yet that is exactly what it is....

The core principles of evolution and common ancestry of living things are not being debated within the scientific community at all. There is nothing to debate about. It is agreed upon by consensus, based on mountains of independent lines of evidence.

that and close minded people like many here are which is why they don't feel like they have to listen to what others say.

As it stands today, there is ZERO rational reason to doubt it. ZERO.

Intellectual honesty, however, demands us to leave the door open for someone to come up with such a reason though - no matter how unlikely that seems to us today.

lol just a moment ago you tried to argue the door was closed, now you try to argue it is still open....lol this is getting beyond silly.

Creationists, however, do not have such reasons. They have faith-based beliefs and religious objections to the backbone theory of biology. Those are not valid objections.

I have heard plenty of creationist reasons, some valid some not, some faith based some scientifically based. I once pointed out that even Genesis talks about speciation so it is not in conflict with Genesis and I was attacked by people like you because it involved scripture and no other reason was given...and no, this thread is not the place for a repeat performance so don't even ask.

I have proof of the exact opposite. Right here on this forum.
For example, Speedwell is a known "theistic evolutionist". Do I think he is correct in adding the undetectable variable of "god" to the process? Off course not.

But at least, his view doesn't require him to ignore the actual science.

I don't think that I've ever seen ANY "evolutionist" on this forum get into an argument with him about that.

All "debates" on this forum on the subject of evolution have been between "evolutionists" on the one hand and "evolution-denying creationists" on the other.

I have witnessed otherwise....I was even labeled without anyone here even knowing where I stand on the issue....lol so I don't know what you think you are evidencing but it isn't that you are listening.

And they always end up in the "evolutionists" having to explain to the creationists how evolution actually works, what evolution theory really states.... because creationists, like I already said, don't seem to have a firm grasp on even the basics.

lol I would love to see an evolutionist that could hold their own against some of the creationists I know...ah well, never gonna happen.

Find me a single post where that has happened. I don't remember any such arguments being thrown around here.

Perhaps we should just ask such a "theistic evolutionist" if he experiences such "attacks" as you say? Hey, @Speedwell , care to weigh in? Have you ever been or felt "attacked" for the "theistic" part of your "theistic evolutionism" on here?

sure, deny it all you want, I have witnessed it many times over.

And if yes, does it happen frequently?

Let's hear it from the horse's mouth, shall we?



You keep claiming that.

One person isn't enough to make your case...it is as if you think that a token poster will ease your guilt.

 

[DogmaHunter]

lol do you even hear your own posts?

No, I don't "hear" text.

Maybe you should read your posts out loud before you post. Your trying to use the same "logic" to denounce what I am saying that you refuse to accept when I say it of some of your non sense.

You know how words work, right?

As I said, typically, the label "creationist" is used for those people who deny evolution and instead believe in some "deity created it all".

While those who accept evolution and believe some deity "guided" it or used evolution as a process to create bio-diversity are called "theistic evolutionists".

You were unaware of this?
You never heared of "theistic evolution" and "creationism" as two distinct ideas of origins of species?

Where have you been the past couple decades?

It's actually very humorous and if you read your own posts you might see the hypocrisy. I doubt it but it is funny to watch you try to hard and fail so miserably

Your condescending and very arrogant tone, btw, is not flattering.

 

[razzelflabben]

yes, yes... the very "honest" cdesign proponentsists.
Aka, creationists disguised in a lab coat.



A (conservative christian) judge listened to them, while one of them was admitting under oath that he had to change the definition of "scientific theory" in order to be able to call ID a "scientific theory". And that under his altered definition, "astrology" also qualified as "scientific theory".

The court then ruled that the ID stuff was just creationism disguised in a lab-coat and pseudo-science.


And ps: I actually listened as well. Because unlike certain creationists, I actually like to learn about something before I argue against it.

more reading into the post what is not there...why don't you stop trying to goad me into a flaming war and talk to someone that respects those who refuse to listen to others?

 

[razzelflabben]

Is it? Let's review.....

​

I pointed this out before...there are question marks because it is a question....it's called reading for comprehension

 

[razzelflabben]

No, I don't "hear" text.


[qutoe] Maybe you should read your posts out loud before you post. Your trying to use the same "logic" to denounce what I am saying that you refuse to accept when I say it of some of your non sense.

You know how words work, right?

As I said, typically, the label "creationist" is used for those people who deny evolution and instead believe in some "deity created it all".

While those who accept evolution and believe some deity "guided" it or used evolution as a process to create bio-diversity are called "theistic evolutionists".

You were unaware of this?
You never heared of "theistic evolution" and "creationism" as two distinct ideas of origins of species?

Where have you been the past couple decades?



Your condescending and very arrogant tone, btw, is not flattering.[/QUOTE]
lol you get siller with each post...at least as they apply to what I have really said not what you want me to say.

 

[DogmaHunter]

more reading into the post what is not there...

You talked about "intelligent design" and their arguments. So was I.

why don't you stop trying to goad me into a flaming war and talk to someone that respects those who refuse to listen to others?

I'm not goading. I'm just responding to the things you say.

This is a discussion forum, remember?
You make posts and then other people can quote that post and reply.

If you don't like responses, perhaps stop posting.