Thread to collect Evolutionist Lies.

[Jamin4422]

You are of course aware that Darwin lost his faith largely as a result of the death of his daughter

He lost his faith after spending 5 years on the ship with all of those sailors. He lost his health also.

 

[Jamin4422]

Or the third option: he's just dead.

I tend to be an anilationist. I believe people will be punished for their sin. But in the end I believe like you do the unsaved and unredeemed will perish and there will not even be a memory of them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not much point having a God if we can do it ourselves.

No one gets to Heaven without the precious Blood of Jesus Christ applied to their account.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

No one gets to Heaven without the precious Blood of Jesus Christ applied to their account.

That's as maybe, but God's in charge of the bank and can apply it at will. Never understood why human religionists want to tie him down. Or string him up, of course.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's as maybe, but God's in charge of the bank and can apply it at will. Never understood why human religionists want to tie him down. Or string him up, of course.

He gave us His Word that ...

Hebrews 9:22b and without shedding of blood is no remission.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

He gave us His Word that ...

Hebrews 9:22b and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Yeah, yeah, but the blood has been shed. I do not want to place limits on to whom God can apply it.

 

[Metal Minister]

Yeah, yeah, but the blood has been shed. I do not want to place limits on to whom God can apply it.

You can't, God already did place the limit. Just one limit.

 

[USincognito]

Hey, way to put words in my mouth! Science cannot explain origins, right?

Define "origins".

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

And for the record, maybe you need to get out more;

What a strange thing to say. 'Get out more' so that I'm more likely to encounter fringe beliefs like yours? Isn't that exactly what I'm doing right now?

our asst. pastor preached a message a couple of months ago and mentioned in his sermon that creationism has nothing to do with science.

I agree with your pastor, creationism has nothing to do with science. Science is predicated on a sound methodology, for gleaning facts about reality. Creationism is predicated on a fairy tale, and gleans no facts about anything. They are plainly unrelated.

The point, though, is that every creationist individual and organization I've ever encountered would not agree with his statement. I should not be expected to defer to your definition of 'creationism' (unless I happen to be speaking to you specifically in the future), because it is nowhere near the norm.

 

[Metal Minister]

What a strange thing to say. 'Get out more' so that I'm more likely to encounter fringe beliefs like yours? Isn't that exactly what I'm doing right now?

When did Christianity become a fringe belief?

I agree with your pastor, creationism has nothing to do with science. Science is predicated on a sound methodology, for gleaning facts about reality. Creationism is predicated on a fairy tale, and gleans no facts about anything. They are plainly unrelated.

And if you think for a second that scientists worldviews don't heavily influence their interpretation of the evidence you're the one neck deep in a fairy tale.

The point, though, is that every creationist individual and organization I've ever encountered would not agree with his statement. I should not be expected to defer to your definition of 'creationism' (unless I happen to be speaking to you specifically in the future), because it is nowhere near the norm.

You mean like how the definition of evolution changes from person to person, depending on the argument they're trying to win?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

When did Christianity become a fringe belief?

Never. I didn't say that.

And if you think for a second that scientists worldviews don't heavily influence their interpretation of the evidence you're the one neck deep in a fairy tale.

Good thing science isn't a 'worldview'. It's a methodology, with mechanisms in place specifically designed to neutralize corrupting factors like personal conviction.

Meanwhile, creationism has nothing but personal conviction.

You mean like how the definition of evolution changes from person to person, depending on the argument they're trying to win?

I dare you to substantiate this assertion.

The only time I've ever seen the definition of the ToE change from person to person is with creationists, because none of them have a clue what it actually says.

 

[CabVet]

The definition of evolution changes from person to person, depending on the argument they're trying to win?

I really think you meant "kind" in the sentence above, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. How about before I paste this into the creationist lies thread you give me a single example of anybody, here or anywhere else, changing the definition of evolution.

 

[Metal Minister]

I really think you meant "kind" in the sentence above, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. How about before I paste this into the creationist lies thread you give me a single example of anybody, here or anywhere else, changing the definition of evolution.

Every time historical evolution is conflated with operational evolution. Every time evolution to one person means a change in alleles over time but means Darwinian evolution by means of natural selection to another, and still another may hold the the overarching general theory which includes origins. You can see it here constantly when one evolutionist on one thread uses one definition, and then a different version is used in another thread. I'd hardly call it a lie to point out the obvious.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Perhaps he's referring to people using the word 'evolution' in a broad sense - 'change over time' - and also as a shorthand for the ToE.

In which case I say 'well, duh'. Plenty of word have multiple meanings. The context in which they are used should clue you in.

However, the implicit claim - that we change the definition of 'evolution' to suit a line of defense - is a naked assertion that needs to be substantiated.

EDIT: Speak of the devil.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Every time historical evolution is conflated with operational evolution. Every time evolution to one person means a change in alleles over time but means Darwinian evolution by means of natural selection to another,

You're talking about multiple mechanisms that are encompassed in one theory, not multiple theories. This is a basic category error.

and still another may hold the the overarching general theory which includes origins.

I've never heard of this 'general theory which includes origins'. Cite me some scientific literature on it, because the only time I've ever seen origins shoe-horned into evolution is by creationists who don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Metal Minister]

Good thing science isn't a 'worldview'. It's a methodology, with mechanisms in place specifically designed to neutralize corrupting factors like personal conviction.

Meanwhile the recent events in the UN climate panel showing peer review to be very lacking puts the lie to this statement.

Meanwhile, creationism has nothing but personal conviction.

As does abiogenesis, yet most atheists will stick to it dogmatically.

I dare you to substantiate this assertion.

The only time I've ever seen the definition of the ToE change from person to person is with creationists, because none of them have a clue what it actually says.

theory of evolution

Web definitions (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals. wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

evolution /evo·lu·tion/ (ev?ah-loo´shun) a developmental process in which an organ or organism becomes more and more complex by differentiation of its parts; a continuous and progressive change according to certain laws and by means of resident forces.

evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. (atheism.about.com)
There are more but I'm sure you get the idea...

 

[Metal Minister]

You're talking about multiple mechanisms that are encompassed in one theory, not multiple theories. This is a basic category error.

I've never heard of this 'general theory which includes origins'. Cite me some scientific literature on it.

Ever heard of Gerald Kerkut?

 

[CabVet]

theory of evolution

Web definitions (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals. wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

evolution /evo·lu·tion/ (ev?ah-loo´shun) a developmental process in which an organ or organism becomes more and more complex by differentiation of its parts; a continuous and progressive change according to certain laws and by means of resident forces.

evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. (atheism.about.com)
There are more but I'm sure you get the idea...

Really, you want to go there? Posting synonyms of evolution? That is just precious. Did you know that the word "creation" has many meanings too?

 

[CabVet]

Every time historical evolution is conflated with operational evolution. Every time evolution to one person means a change in alleles over time but means Darwinian evolution by means of natural selection to another, and still another may hold the the overarching general theory which includes origins. You can see it here constantly when one evolutionist on one thread uses one definition, and then a different version is used in another thread. I'd hardly call it a lie to point out the obvious.

Evolution has one and only one meaning: descent with modification. Creationists (apparently yourself included) are the ones that use different definitions for it.

 

[Metal Minister]

Evolution has one and only one meaning: descent with modification. Creationists (apparently yourself included) are the ones that use different definitions for it.

Oh boy, you better get with loudmouth then because you guys are using different playbooks...his definition is a change in allele frequency within a population over time...not the same.