Study: understanding ToE = acceptance

[Jimmy D]

ah...it's a concept...a theory...an explanation of how we get from speciation to what we see today....you know the THEORY OF EVOLUTION vs. evolution...wait..I thought you all were educated on the theory of evolution and you don't know what it is? How is that possible?

So you just made up that stuff about “evolutionists” not understanding the difference between micro and macro evolution?

 

[razzelflabben]

So you just made up that stuff about “evolutionists” not understanding the difference between micro and macro evolution?

your the one who claimed to not know what I was talking about.

 

[Jimmy D]

your the one who claimed to not know what I was talking about.

Really? Where was that?

No examples then, quelle surprise! Bit of a dishonest claim wasn’t it?

 

[razzelflabben]

Really? Where was that?

No examples then, quelle surprise! Bit of a dishonest claim wasn’t it?

huh? Your post isn't making any sense....you might want to work on your communication skills so that I can follow what you want to communicate since your posts aren't doing the job for you.

 

[Jimmy D]

huh? Your post isn't making any sense....you might want to work on your communication skills so that I can follow what you want to communicate since your posts aren't doing the job for you.

Lol.

You claimed “evolutionists” didn’t know the difference between macro and micro evolution, I was asking for evidence of this bizarre claim, it’s not that difficult a conversation to keep up with.

I admit if I called creationists out on all the garbage they post I’d be here all day but hey ho, in for a penny.

 

[Larniavc]

I am officially asking everyone here to stop responding to me if it is not directly related to the original point I was making about so many people not listening well enough or long enough to know how much knowledge a creationist might have before passing judgment...you just might be surprised on occasion.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say.

 

[KWCrazy]

I expect they're right. An ordinary human man will likely not come back to life after three days dead.

Was Lazarus an ordinary human man?
Did his resurrection conform to or violate natural law?
Is natural law superior or subservient to the Creator?

 

[Larniavc]

Well, SAAB started as an airplane, and the original SAAB car was modelled on the cockpit of the airplane SAAB. The link was that they both had the same designer.

(SAAB no longer makes cars, though SAAB 9,3 is still produced in China. But SAAB still makes airplanes.)

Oh yeah?

Well if SAAB make cars how come there are still aeroplanes?

Checkmate!

 

[KWCrazy]

Do you have evidence to back that up, any statistics?

93 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most elite scientific organizations in the United States, do not believe in God.
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good. (Psalms 14:1)
Therefore, 93 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are fools.

The figures are more marked in the British Royal Society, where 96.8% identify themselves as having no belief in God. Therefore, 96.8 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are fools.

 

[KWCrazy]

Why would God expect anyone to believe he exists on no sufficient evidence?

God has provided abundant evidence.
Even the Godless must admit that that everything could not come from nothing; that there had to be some form of creation which no theory of science can identify.
You forget how God proved Himself over the false gods of Egypt and others.
You ignore the personal testimony of millions who have known the presence of God and who have experienced His miracles.
You are as one who binds his eyes in the daylight and proclaims it to be night.

 

[xianghua]

We started with a wolf and ended out with hundreds of breeds of dogs, ok humans speeded the process up by acting replacing natural selection. It is estimated that we have been doing this for around 16,000 to 32,000 years - and look at the changes. Is it so hard to extend that and see that another 16,000 years and the Dog will be unable to mate with a Wolf and thus be a new species.

sure. but its still basically the same creature. so no evolution of new kind here but just a variation in the family.

Fossil evidence mapping the evolution of different animals, found in the regions of the world you'd expect and in the time frames you'd expect.

first: we found many fossils out of place. second: even if those fossils in the correct time frame they cant peove evolution since we can arrange many designed objects in hierarchy too. but they dont prove any evolution.

Patterns of animal moves link in with evolution, you don't find a Kangaroo ancestor in the UK otherwise evolution would have an issue explaining it.

actually we do find something similar too and evolutionists solve it by a theory called "the raft theory" (or oceanic dispersal):

Monkey teeth tell tale of ancient migration

“We never would've predicted they would've been here” .“The discovery is absolutely astounding”.

or this one:

Forum : A hostile land – Could one tiny fossil overthrow Australia’s orthodoxy, asks Tim Flannery

so a kangaroo fossil in uk will not be a problem for evolution.

There is more, much more, what shocks me though is that whilst you will not accept that evolution has met its burden of proof you require NO verifiable proof for God.

who said we dont have evidence for god? check my signanture link for instance. by the way (as a general note) english isnt my native so i may not undenrstand some words here and there.

Do you have evidence to back that up, any statistics?

sure:

Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia

"Other studies on scientific organizations like the AAAS show that 51% of their scientists believe in either God or a higher power"


and the data about National Academy of Sciences is actually incorrect:

"Other studies show that among members of the National Academy of Sciences, concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer, 7% expressed belief, 72% expressed disbelief, and 21% were agnostic,[189] however Eugenie Scott argued that there are methodological issues in the study, including ambiguity in the questions. A study with simplified wording to include impersonal or non-interventionist ideas of God concluded that 40% of leading scientists in the US scientists believe in a god"

 

[durangodawood]

Well that's my point, nothing of substance or value is ever said by creationists. Instead, all we get is 'i believe my bible to be literally true, therefore whatever facts you may think you have are subservient to my interpretation of the bible.'

This is basically a five year old telling a cardiothoracic surgeon he's doing it wrong because he watched an episode of Scrubs. Creationists never put in the time it takes to fully understand the theory - and I mean really understand. All we ever get is regurgitated PRATT's from the 3 or 4 creo sites out there.

Protect the personal theological commitment at all costs!

 

[durangodawood]

....Therefore, 96.8 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are fools.

Perhaps.

But they are still almost certainly correct about evolution generally.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

 

[Monna]

SAAB no longer makes cars,

Well if SAAB make cars how come there are still aeroplanes?

SAAB no longer makes cars. It still makes planes. It never stopped making them. The full name of the SAAB that makes planes is Saab Defence and Security. As the name implies it makes more than planes.

SAAB 9,3 is still produced in China.

These cars were produced under license by a Chinese company, a license given before SAAB automobile company went into liquidation. Actually, NEVS has lost the licence to use the SAAB badge but is soon going to start production of an all-electric car on the same platform, and will look remarkably like the older SAAB 9-3. I believe it will be marketed as the NEVS 9-3.

This is all rather off-topic and is given to clarify earlier posts. Moderators, feel free to remove it if you wish.

 

[xianghua]

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.

i just use evolutionery logic. if according to evolution small steps+time= big step. then small steps in a car (something that we can observe like a rust or color change because the sun)+time= airplane. the same logic, the same (wrong) conclusion. 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.

 

[Speedwell]

Was Lazarus an ordinary human man?

As far as I know, yes. I don't know what creationists believe about him.

Did his resurrection conform to or violate natural law?

Not possible to determine at this remove. It was a miracle, is all we know. Whether miracles always require the suspension of natural laws is unknown. No doubt you creationists have a detailed answer to that question and I'll go straight to hell if I don't agree with it.

Is natural law superior or subservient to the Creator?

Natural law, as a creation of His, would be subservient to Him. But that's just my opinion, and that of my Sunday Morning Christ-denying Bible Haters club. I have seen creationists like you argue in this very forum that unless God's will is bound by two-value propositional logic He cannot exist.

 

[HitchSlap]

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.

You mean like a crocoduck?

This is exactly why I don’t believe creationists who try to tell me they understand ToE.

 

[Ophiolite]

God has provided abundant evidence.

In one sense there is a whole universe of evidence. Unfortunately, alternative interpretations exist that are generally more plausible and subject to testing. Such tests have progressively supported those alternative interpretations.

Even the Godless must admit that that everything could not come from nothing;

1. It is not claimed that the Universe came from nothing, so this is irrelevant.(I'm sure you've been told that before, so I am puzzled that you would bring it up again.)
2. That said it has been postulated that such an event is entirely plausible, so it would be inappropriate for anyone to make such a flawed admission.

Even the Godless must admit that that . . . . that there had to be some form of creation which no theory of science can identify.

That depends, in part, upon how you define creation.

But before we come to definitions, since the universe may have existed eternally, there would be no need for a creation event. To admit to something we know may not be the case would be deceitful.

Now, as to definitions, if by creation you mean an event from which things started, independent of any agent, then yes - if the universe is not eternal a creation event would have occured. Science has identified the most recent such event as the Big Bang.
If by creation you mean an event initiated by an conscious agency, then no, one would not be inclined to admit to that. (Though, as an agnostic, I wouldn't rule it out.)

You forget how God proved Himself over the false gods of Egypt and others.

I remember that there is no archaeological or independent historical evidence for the exodus from Egypt. I remember that dozens, scores, perhaps hundreds of other religions have stories of how their Gods triumphed over others.

You ignore the personal testimony of millions who have known the presence of God and who have experienced His miracles.

Of course I do. Respect for reality demands it. If I do not consider my own spiritual experiences or eye witness observations reliable, why on Earth would I ever contemplate taking seriously those of others. That would be just silly.

You are as one who binds his eyes in the daylight and proclaims it to be night.

No, I'm the one who says, "It's seems very dark. Why is that? Perhaps my eyes are closed. Perhaps I am in a room without windows , or the windows are shuttered, perhaps there is a total eclipse in progress, perhaps I have gone blind, perhaps it is night, etc. Let me investigate and determine the facts of the matter, enquiring of others if I require any hypothesis to be independently validated."

 

[Larniavc]

ah...it's a concept...a theory...an explanation of how we get from speciation to what we see today....you know the THEORY OF EVOLUTION vs. evolution...wait..I thought you all were educated on the theory of evolution and you don't know what it is? How is that possible?

Don’t you mean a desperate attempt by creos to say that evolution does not happen?

After all, none have yet been able to show a barrier to prevent many small changes having a cumulative effect.