The Dover trial

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I was clear there. I have issues with others as well as your claim, and I still have no reason to believe you have proof of evolution. Again, I've been there and don't want to wast time on repeats.

Then let's discuss my Claim then. What is it you have a problem with? The example I gave you isn't the evidence, it's required learning so you can understand why the evidence I'll present is irrefutable for any rational person. Did you understand the Examples?

Pretending this is pride or any more than common sense in not discussing the same non proof over and over is not going to draw me in. Proof of evolution, as I asked for fro the start, will.

If you can demonstrate that you understand the principles I provided, then I'll give you the evidence that you've so far not understood, and we can discuss your issues with that evidence from there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are many different creationism theories and TE is one of them.

If you say so.
Doesn't change the fact that whenever someone identifies as a "creationist", it almost always means that they oppose evolution (theistic or otherwise).

There is no conflict between true science and true Bible interpretation.

The problem is that one can independently verify science. One cannot do so with an "interpretation" of some 2000-year old unverifiable text. Such interpretations are by definition, personal.

They both keep each other honest

I don't see how any religion has any kind of influence on science.

You really can not have one without the other.

The many atheist scientists, and the fact that theistic scientists come in all theistic flavors, proves otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution is much broader than biology.

It's not. Evolution theory is a model that explains how biological life develops over generations.

It's influenced fields a variety of fields, including computer science and economics.

Sure. In the sense of practical application of the mechanism.
But evolution theory itself, is an explanation of the development of biological life.

The fact that we can use that knowledge in practical applications elsewhere, only goes to show how solid a model it is.

In short, it is the mechanism of "specialised optimisation" that is extracted from the model and applied elsewhere, through things like genetic algoritms.

None of this changes the fact that evolution theory is a theory of biology.

That a person of with a doctorate in any field could disbelieve evolution counters the secular notion that only the unwashed masses could believe in creation according to the Bible.

I don't think anyone here has said that the lack of education is the only reason someone could be a creationist.

In fact, clearly that isn't true. Michael Behe comes to mind.

 

[driewerf]

Creationists are anti-science.
Of course they will not say it that way. But seeing through their rhetoric the anti-science attitude is clear. They have concocted a word "evolutionism" in which they lump together everything they don't like. So they can play the "we love science" attitude while attacking nearly all the sciences nonetheless. Especially Kent Hovind uses/ used that phrase a lot.
Under "evolutionism" falls.

• cosmology, with the age of the Universe and the Big Bang
• astrophysics -- the age of the stars and the formation of stars
• nuclear physics: nuclear fusion is labelled as "never observed", atoms "evolving", not withstanding that we have fused atoms.
• nuclear physics: radio active decay with it's radio metric dating methods
• glaciology: ages of glaciers are rejected out of hand
• geology: every geologiocal formation is attributed to the Flood, ages are rejected out of hand
• dendrochronolgy: year rings can form weekly according to creationists
• thermodynamics, with it's open systems. For a creationist only the 2LoT counts
• genetics, with his fused human chromosome nr 2
• genetics, again with pseudogenes and ERV's
• geophysics: plate tectonics gives a too old age for all the features on Earth
• planetary sciences

So, I don't see which science has not been under attack from creationists.

And for being anti-evolution (without any scientific evidence on their side) creationists are ready to throw out of the window geology, geophysics, plate tectonics, genetics, comparative anatomy, the theory of relativity, nuclear physics, thermodynamics, sedimentology, dendrochronology, astrophysics, spectroscopy, climatology, glaciology.

But anti science they aren't.

There ya' go again, you are indicating all kinds of evidence, as you name off a multitude of nothings.
And that my friends is your proof evolution is a fact beyond any doubt.

No. I am not indicating these things as evidence for evolution. I'm listing a serie of sciences that creationists are ready to throw out of the window, just for maintaining their anti-evolution attitude. Our discussion was intiated by this post of yours
Kenny'sID, post: 71322034

What anti-science? Are you actually saying because a creationists science doesn't agree with yours/evolutionary, then they must be against science period?​

The fact that you indicate all these sciences as a "multitude of nothings" illustrates your anti science attitude the better.

Either tell me how any one of those things prove evolution,

I have never claimed such. I have always claimed that these are all sciences that creationists are 1) lumping together under the term "evolutionism", and 2) that creationists are ready to throw out of the window.

or admit to others here that is just another clear and obvious deception,

The one who is deceptive here is you. By suggesting that I have presented these sciences -- sorry multitude of nothings -- as evidence of evolution is false.

and then take some me time to think about what you keep doing here to pull the wool over the eyes of yourself and others.

Unbelievable.

Let me answer with Matthew 7:3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye,
but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Then let's discuss my Claim then. What is it you have a problem with? The example I gave you isn't the evidence, it's required learning so you can understand why the evidence I'll present is irrefutable for any rational person. Did you understand the Examples?

If you can demonstrate that you understand the principles I provided, then I'll give you the evidence that you've so far not understood, and we can discuss your issues with that evidence from there.

No offense intended, but you aren't paying attention.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I think your post consists of a lot of dodging. Your quoted verse below kind of proves my point.Also, if that is the case, and we cannot disagree here, then we might as well shut the conversation down.

This is a debate, and a debate has to make allowances, that may otherwise not be allowed. My point? the scripture suggests you are throwing things at me that are not an issue at all, in order to prevail.

If what I'm doing here is going to pose a problem, please let me know, then try to pass on my comments, and I'll do the same. That's the best I can offer to keep bad feelings at a minimum.

Let me answer with Matthew 7:3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye,
but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

No offense intended, but you aren't paying attention.

You know it's dishonest to ask for evidence, then throw up any roadblock you can think of to avoid getting it, right?

It's obvious you already know that Biological Evolution is a fact, and the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation of it...

 

[Christie insb]

should have driven a stake through the heart of anti-science "education", but no, these people are determined to push America back to the Dark Ages. I'm glad I don't live there.

Revamped "Anti-Science" Education Bills in U.S. Find Success

So when Miami is underwater, the Floridians will be taken by surprise?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

So when Miami is underwater, the Floridians will be taken by surprise?

Likely...

 

[driewerf]

I think your post consists of a lot of dodging. Your quoted verse below kind of proves my point.Also, if that is the case, and we cannot disagree here, then we might as well shut the conversation down.

The one dodging the question and moving the goalposts is you my friend, as clearly shown in the post above.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The one dodging the question and moving the goalposts is you my friend, as clearly shown in the post above.

I only saw one question mark in your post, and it is possible I could have missed something, but I don't see what I was dodging. Please point it out for me if you like.

 

[driewerf]

I only saw one question mark in your post, and it is possible I could have missed something, but I don't see what I was dodging. Please point it out for me if you like.

Wat baten kaars en bril,
als de uil niet 'n zien wil...
not too literal translation:
None is so blind as the one who doesn't want to see.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wat baten kaars en bril,
als de uil niet 'n zien wil...
not too literal translation:
None is so blind as the one who doesn't want to see.

Wissenschaft ist kurzsichtig...
literal translation:
Science is myopic.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I only saw one question mark in your post, and it is possible I could have missed something, but I don't see what I was dodging. Please point it out for me if you like.

You performed miracle levels of dodge while not engaging me...

 

[mark kennedy]

I was really asking about the arithmetic, not about the historical reliability of the Bible. Mark Kennedy said,

life was created about 2000 years ago.


However, Ezra lived during the 5th century BC, or 2400-500 years ago, and therefore at least 400 years before the creation of life. The same problem arises with Biblical figures such as Sarah, Miriam, Ruth, Bathsheba, Jezebel and Vashti, and pagans such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.[/QUOTE]
Good catch, of course I meant to say life was created 6000 years ago.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You performed miracle levels of dodge while not engaging me...

Expected. People don't hold up to their claim, then feel mistreated when, for that reason, things don't go their way. Then the goading, tending to shift blame.

Actually, I think I mentioned this would happen, or something similar.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Wat baten kaars en bril,
als de uil niet 'n zien wil...
not too literal translation:
None is so blind as the one who doesn't want to see.

Bunch of non specifics when I clearly gave opportunity for otherwise. Guess there was nothing to evade/no evasion after all.

So predictable.

 

[USincognito]

Astronomy is unrelated to evolution?

Yes. Neither is chemistry, nuclear physics or dentistry.

But what about the evolutionary notion of panspermia?

No sure what an "evolutionary notion" is, but no. Panspermia is a hypothesis explaining the origin of life on earth, but that has nothing to do with evolution.

"Anyone with any type of science degree would be exposed to evolution at the college level in a way far deeper than any liberal arts grad, or the general public.

Not really. A chemist is not going to spend much time at all learning about evolution and in fact, because their basic science requirement is met by their major (chemistry) they wouldn't even necessarily have taken a biology course.

 

[USincognito]

Evolution is much broader than biology.

No, just no. The theory of evolution only explains the life on earth that we observe now and in the fossil record.

It's influenced fields a variety of fields, including computer science and economics.

The concept of things evolving (changing over time) is applicable to many things. That's a different use of the word "evolution" than that used in biology however.

That a person of with a doctorate in any field could disbelieve evolution counters the secular notion that only the unwashed masses could believe in creation according to the Bible.

You misspelled "straw man".

 

[HereIStand]

No, just no. The theory of evolution only explains the life on earth that we observe now and in the fossil record.



The concept of things evolving (changing over time) is applicable to many things. That's a different use of the word "evolution" than that used in biology however.



You misspelled "straw man".

Whatever terms are used, the ideas behind evolution have been (are being) applied to a wide variety of fields. These ideas of determinism, natural selection, and survival of fittest could even be a life-style choice. Indeed they should be for those who believe them. As for the straw man claim, it only applies if the opposing side is misrepresented. Secular attitudes against creationists are generally condescending, or worse.