- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Histrionic hyperbole does not help make one's case.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
One can engage in scientific research without bowing at the altar of Darwinism.
These are not theoretic science; they are applied, and work in the present; can be analyzed, evaluated, repeated and tested in the present.
Physics is a mathematical description of facts.
Hearsay. I neither accept nor reject your hearsay.
This is baseless rhetoric. Finding an outcropping of fossils will not yield any data but inanimate objects. Finding inanimate objects does nothing.
My reasoning for not becoming involved with testing of the Theory of Evolution is: I do not care whether it is true or not,
Physics is a description of facts
You don't understand the difference between theory and fact.
HThe definition of an atheist is: a person who believes that God does not exist.
It has always, for several decades at least and likely for at least a couple of centuries referred to those among us who do not believe that a god exists.
So, do you or do you not believe that God exists?
Most atheists think they understand christianity better than most christians.
Friend if you don't understand about God and His salvation, then you don't know diddly about 'christianity'. You've just read the bible. No, I did not make any false statement based on my misunderstanding, but you may have given a false impression of your understanding about God. Let's get that settled right now.
As to your assertion that the Scriptures are terribly flawed, especially if taken literally, again, and I know you're not going to agree with this and that's ok with me, those without the Spirit of God have no understanding of the things of God.
In bacteria, yes. In higher life forms, no.
What beneficial information? Diet? For life forms which were designed to eat the garbage of the planet? Plllllease.
I understand the theory of evolution well enough to know that if it's true then it's an effect of biological life not an original cause. The question: 'Who or what caused biological life?' is still a valid question and God is still a valid assumption, which many reasonable people continue to make, despite those who are against that assumption.
Being brought up in a secular home, I have never assumed any gods of any kind.One way to define an atheist is to say they are someone who doesn't assume God anymore. The reasoning for this is because we all assume God at some point in our lives for countless different reasons, but an atheist is someone who stops assuming God for some reason or another. I believe God still cares about them and desires to give them a reason to assume His existence again. That's my hope anyway
The failing isn't in that I have been less than specific.I'm sure you're trying to convey something here, but I have no idea what.
Hey, newsflash. Evolution proponents ignore that their ladder has no first rung before proceeding to the second.Hey, newsflash, the origins of life aren't within the scope of explanation of evolution theory.
So Tibetans adapt to living in higher altitudes because they adapt.A simple example that comes to mind are the unique gene sequences that we only find in Tibetans. Thanks to those unique gene sequences, they are able to live at high altitudes without passing out on day 2.
Your statement "like it did at the end of the Cretaceous with the dinosaurs" is an example of bias. There is no way for you to verify this claim (it is even disputed in theoretic science) yet you seem to regard it as "fact": this is generally one of the problems, many like you in the field, consumed with bias, and speaking theoretic as fact. This is a prime example of why I do not accept the Theory of Evolution. There is no way to determine how deep this bias runs, and as such the entire enterprise is contaminated causing all theory to become highly questionable.
However, I would regard your hypothesis as "possible" in the same way I would regard "aliens crashed a saucer" as "possible" or "the cosmos is 6,000 years old" as "possible" or "elves carry raindrops down in magic handkerchiefs" as "possible": yet all without meaningful support, as are all untested hypotheses.
I do not accept the models of the structure of molecules; nor of any atomic or subatomic particles.
I don't go to the doctor, pay no taxes and repair my own car. But you are confusing hypotheses with facts. Gravity is a fact and a theory. I accept the fact, as I witness it myself; I do not accept the theory. The periodic table is a categorizing which is true by self-definition much like any categorizing is done. A hypothesis is not the same as these things; but is a speculation without verifiable evidence to be evaluated with a specific procedure.
It's not possible for me to evaluate the hypothesis; I don't have access to the resources required. I trust my own abilities to reason correctly, but not others, unless demonstrated to be reliable in a meaningful manner. Even then, I would always evaluate their hypotheses and evidences before accepting any legitimacy of model.
Self-experience.
Source information for?
The veracity of the map is able to be verified. It is a representation of the present, and not the distant past. I accept that men are able to competently see what is in front of their eyes in the present. No reasoning is involved, and bias is impossible. It is not man's ability to use his senses in the present that I call into question; it is man's ability to competently reason (and without bias) concerning things that cannot be reproduced and which happen/ed outside of common experience.
As well, I draw a clear distinction between theoretic science, and, applied science. Rigorous repetition in a laboratory environment is a good way to strip away incompetent reasoning and emotional bias which are free to run rampant outside of the ability to rigorously repeat; as someone once said, "Science without contact with the laboratory is an enterprise likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture" (though my acceptance of even this rigorous pursuit will be on a case by case basis but has a chance of acceptance)
It is the only scientific explanation, and the only explanation that attempts to explain the observed data.Evolution is a theoretical model to explain the origins of all living things. It is not the only explanation.
I'm not pretending anything. Young earth creationism is a catastrophic failure as an explanation of anything in the real world. In particular, it is a catastrophic failure at explaining the data I work with all the time. This is presumably why creationists simply ignore the data.You're pretending that one has to worship at the altar of Darwinism to practice science. That is simply not the case.
And thus we get back to where we were before. The people who actually do science for a living, who fund science, who study scientists, who award prizes for science, who teach science and who publish science, all disagree with you. If everyone who is actually involved in science agrees that evolution is part of science and you don't, then you are simply wrong. When you reject evolution, you are rejecting part of science. If you want to do that, fine, but don't try to fool yourself into thinking you're doing something else.So no, evolution is not science. Alchemy is not science. Scientology is not science.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Tibetans adapted to living at higher altitudes because the ones who carried a specific genetic change fared better and left more offspring. That process is called evolution.So Tibetans adapt to living in higher altitudes because they adapt.
No kidding?
I don't know why anyone would say either of those things.Next you'll be saying that Africans have larger noses so that they can better process the hot air.
Next you'll be telling me that Intuits eat fatty foods to provide an extra layer of fat as protection from the elements.
Well, yeah, I imagine they have adapted (evolutionarily) to their environment. Again, what's your point?I suppose you'll even tell me that mountain goats adapt to be able to traverse the mountains without falling.
The cases of actual adaptation? No, they're not possible without Darwinism, as far as I know. Why do you think Tibetans are better suited genetically to survive at high altitudes?None of this is possible without Darwinism, is it?
Hey, newsflash. Evolution proponents ignore that their ladder has no first rung before proceeding to the second.
So Tibetans adapt to living in higher altitudes because they adapt.
No kidding?
Next you'll be saying that Africans have larger noses so that they can better process the hot air.
Next you'll be telling me that Intuits eat fatty foods to provide an extra layer of fat as protection from the elements.
None of this is possible without Darwinism, is it?
False.It is the only scientific explanation, and the only explanation that attempts to explain the observed data.
Not at all.I'm not pretending anything. Young earth creationism is a catastrophic failure as an explanation of anything in the real world.
You know, the people who actually do alchemy for a living, who fund alchemy, who study alchemists, who award prizes for alchemy, who teach alchemy and who publish alchemy, all disagree with me too. Actually, since many grants come from the government which is supported by taxpayers, people who disagree with you also fund science.And thus we get back to where we were before. The people who actually do science for a living, who fund science, who study scientists, who award prizes for science, who teach science and who publish science, all disagree with you.
You said evolution IS science, not a field of study in science and not a part of science.If everyone who is actually involved in science agrees that evolution is part of science and you don't,
No, I'm rejecting an unprovable theory or origins.When you reject evolution, you are rejecting part of science.
Wait, are you denying that Tibetans have these unique gene sequences, which allow for living at high altitude without gaining so-called altitutde sickness?
Wow! Magic? Last Thursdayism?Sure, when you allow for magic, I guess "all things are possible". Including that the universe and all that it contains was created last thursday.
Yes, I know that's what creationists claim. They are lying. Big, bold, flat-out lies -- probably to themselves, too. Creation science does not exist. I know this because I've been trying to get creationists, including professional creationist organizations, to explain genetic data for the last fifteen years. Not only are they unable to do so, they aren't even interested in trying. To me, this proves conclusively that they aren't doing science of any kind. If you aren't interested in explaining data, you're not doing science.False.
cre·a·tion sci·ence
noun
- the interpretation of scientific knowledge in accord with belief in the literal truth of the Bible, especially regarding the creation of matter, life, and humankind in six days.
Since none of those people actually exist, what is your point?You know, the people who actually do alchemy for a living, who fund alchemy, who study alchemists, who award prizes for alchemy, who teach alchemy and who publish alchemy, all disagree with me too.
Once again, you state things that are simply false. As I said before, this is what I do for a living. A very large part of what I study makes no sense at all under a model of rapid adaptation post-Flood. Unlike almost all creationists, I've actually tried to come up with a Flood model that is consistent with real genetics. I failed completely.The reality is that nothing in biology would be any different using the model of rapid adaptation post-flood that claiming molecules-to-man.
I have never seen anyone make that "lame argument". I certainly haven't made it.Why is it that so many of you make the same lame argument that disagreeing with evolution means disagreeing with all of science?
Hi dude,
No, my understanding of the scientific theory of evolution is from the works of science. What I believe to be the truth is God's word.
Those who belong to the Lord can make bold claims. They know the truth.
You claim to be an atheist. Friend, God's word says that it is a fool who says in his heart that there is no God. Now, you can believe that or not, but that is what God says about you. You are a fool according to God. Now, you want to carry on a discussion about evolution, but I agree with God.
So, let's start this discussion with you understanding that I believe that God has told me the truth about you.
Have you ever studied the Scriptures? I was once like you. I believed in evolution. It's what most school districts teach these days so it's hard to get out of high school without having some knowledge about the science. However, at the age of forty, I was born again. Born of the Spirit of the living God. My entire worldview changed. Yes, I've kept abreast of a lot of the 'new and improved' scientific findings regarding evolution, but unfortunately, God already has my heart and has given me some of the wisdom, knowledge and discernment that is his to give.He merely spoke and things that were not, became. Now, let me encourage you, if you are so inclined to really know the truth or would even just entertain ideas that oppose your own, to read Chapter one in Genesis and then turn all the way to the back of the Scriptures to chapter 21 in the Revelation. Merely ten minutes of reading for most people. Surely you wouldn't begrudge an old man ten minutes of your precious lifetime.
Genesis 1 tells us that God created all things in this realm and Revelation 21 tells us why God created all things in this realm. Between those two pieces of Scripture is life upon the earth and all that God has done to make Himself known to you so that you will be a part of God's ultimate purpose.
The Scriptures tell us that God raised up a man by the name of Abraham, through whom He would raise up a nation of people who would do His bidding upon the earth. Yes, they failed miserably and often, but they were mere humans in the hand of a loving God and despite their often failing, they did accomplish God's task for them. They brought into the world the Scriptures. Paul confirms this for us in his letter to the Romans. He begins chapter 3 in telling us that the greatest value in being a Jew was that they were entrusted with the very words of God.
Throughout those same Scriptures can be found a plethora of prophecies, but the most important are the ones that speak about a Savior or Messiah to come. Someone that God is going to send, whose death would atone for our personal sins. The first and greatest law that we all break is the one about loving God with all that we are.
You, friend, have broken that law. I have also. However, God's justice says that if we will repent of our sin and turn back to Him, then we can be a part of those who God is speaking to in Revelation chapter 21.
However, God has also been quite clear that the things of God are foolishness to those who are perishing. How does all that I've written above sound to you?
God bless you,
In Christ, ted
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?