Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

[Sayre]

Not true. There are plenty of non-believers and people of different religions that challenge the theory of evolution.

Who?

 

[Jro]

Not true. There are plenty of non-believers and people of different religions that challenge the theory of evolution.

Not within the sciences.

 

[Black Akuma]

There are plenty of non-believers and people of different religions that challenge the theory of evolution

Now, now - you know it's not 'plenty'.

Once you get away from Islam and Christianity, the number increases significantly. Among religions with absolutely no truck to a literal interpretation of the Bible, it's close to 4 out 5. And keep in mind, this is in America, where rejection of evolution is about as strong as you get.

There are a handful of organizations and people non-religious and people from different religions that reject evolution, but they're few and far between. Another graph to consider, of people who were asked if humans are the result of evolution.

I'm sorry, ED, but pretending 'plenty' of people are on your side doesn't make it so.

 

[Black Akuma]

Who?

There are a few, but not many. I only know of one 'major' evolution-denying organization within Hinduism, and none at all in Buddhism. The resistance outside of Christianity and Islam is nothing compared to the major organizations within them, and that's quite telling.

 

[Sayre]

There are a few, but not many. I only know of one 'major' evolution-denying organization within Hinduism, and none at all in Buddhism. The resistance outside of Christianity and Islam is nothing compared to the major organizations within them, and that's quite telling.

Thanks.

I only know of Jerry Fodor, but his objection was about calling natural selection causal. He still believes in a UCA and evolution.

 

[Black Akuma]

Thanks.

I only know of Jerry Fodor, but his objection was about calling natural selection causal. He still believes in a UCA and evolution.

I'm starting to find that some creationists have this strange habit of overstating their level of support. You'll sometimes hear them say 'some scientists say this, others say that', or 'evolution is the belief small minority of scientists'. As if they genuinely believe that they're not the achingly small minority that they are.

It's kind of sad, in a way, and I don't think it's any coincidence that many of the creationists I've encountered are, to some extent or another, conspiracy theorists. You see the same tactics from people like 9/11 Truthers and anti-vaccers all the time.

 

[Sayre]

Ugh the anti vaccers drive me up the wall. Mor0ns.

 

[EternalDragon]

Not within the sciences.

Yes, within the sciences. Ever heard of evolution...news...org?

Michael J. Behe? Granville Sewell? Jonathan Wells?
Fazale Rana? Michael Denton? Or Stephen C. Meyer? (Meyer is not really
a scientist). Just to name a few that wrote books about it.

 

[Black Akuma]

Yes, within the sciences. Ever heard of evolution...news...org?

Michael J. Behe? Granville Sewell? Jonathan Wells?
Fazale Rana? Michael Denton? Or Stephen C. Meyer? (Meyer is not really
a scientist). Just to name a few that wrote books about it.

At best, the number of scientists who reject evolution are about 5%. And that's before we start only including ones that actual have expertise in the field.

So, no...not within the sciences.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ugh the anti vaccers drive me up the wall. Mor0ns.

Yeah, I respect people who don't take the bible word for word. I wish there were more people like you on here who were willing to challenge the extremist anti evolutionists.

 

[HitchSlap]

If I made such logic statement, I will go and hang myself.

Then, good sir, I challenge you to a "such logic statement" debate. The winner does not hang.

 

[46AND2]

Yes, within the sciences. Ever heard of evolution...news...org?

Michael J. Behe? Granville Sewell? Jonathan Wells?
Fazale Rana? Michael Denton? Or Stephen C. Meyer? (Meyer is not really
a scientist). Just to name a few that wrote books about it.

Behe accepts a universal common ancestor. Wells is a Moonie. Do you agree with them on those things?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

No. Every is a subset of All.

You keep insisting on this, but you backed down (for obvious reasons) from the challenge to provide a single source that makes the distinction between "every" and "all" you pretend exists. Unless you qualify them they mean exactly the same thing. I guarantee that you will be unable to find a single source that supports your linguistic contortions. Are you going to keep backing down from this challenge?

Exactly. We do not see the qualifier in Genesis 1. So, the subset could be equal to the set, or could be smaller than the set.

Here you seem to indicate that they mean exactly the same thing unless qualified and you acknowledge that no such qualifier appears in Genesis. Therefore you have absolutely no justification for deciding that creation was continuous rather than discrete. Without that qualifier, you are being told that ALL the fish, sea creatures and birds were created on the same day and to declare otherwise is in defiance of what you believe to be the word of God. I notice you haven't addressed the proverb about adding to God's word. That is exactly what you are doing and He said not to do it.

In this thread, I am ABLE to defend another piece of puzzle in the Genesis 1. The fact that I am still able to make argument for this 4000 years old idea should impress you enough.

Being able to make an argument doesn't mean you are making a valid argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, within the sciences. Ever heard of evolution...news...org?

Yes, it is a propoganda site run by the Discovery Institute. It is not a science site.

Michael J. Behe? Granville Sewell? Jonathan Wells?
Fazale Rana? Michael Denton? Or Stephen C. Meyer? (Meyer is not really
a scientist). Just to name a few that wrote books about it.

Books are not research papers.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not true. There are plenty of non-believers and people of different religions that challenge the theory of evolution.

A lot being how many? What percentage?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The flood and other natural disasters have changed the different layers!

Like I said before too, everything was created in 1 week. Things died not in the order they were created! Everything was alive in 1 week.

So you think that the Flood jumbled everything up but have no explanation for why the fossil record is not actually jumbled up like you say it should be. Organisms are strictly stratified. There are no birds in the Devonian. There are no mammals in the Devonian. There are no trilobites in the Cenozoic era etc. etc. If the Flood just mixed everything up, there is no reason for this zonation. What is your explanation, Anya? Note that if you respond by trying to change the subject or with bald assertion it will be obvious that you have no rebuttal to this point.

 

[Oafman]

Not true. There are plenty of non-believers and people of different religions that challenge the theory of evolution.

Do you know who challenges the theory of evolution most often and most effectively?

The answer is not creationists. The answer is biologists.

To people who properly study evolution, challenging the theory is a daily undertaking. It's their job, and usually it's their passion and their purpose too.

Because that's how science works. Constantly challenging the papers of other scientists, questioning the evidence and the methodology, and looking for errors or alternatives.

Even in the face of so much challenge, over two centuries, and by the world's most distinguished experts on the subject, the theory of evolution has always been shown to be correct. Whichever aspect of it is challenged, and in whatever way, it always prevails.

This is why we know, with such a great degree of certainty, that the theory of evolution correctly explains the diversity of life on earth.

And this is why many of us see so much arrogance in armchair pundits, who believe they are in a position to do what so many experts have been unable to do, and provide evidence that the theory of evolution is not correct.

The best minds in the world have tried to pick holes in this theory, and all of them have failed. What makes you think you are in a position to do so?

 

[juvenissun]

You keep insisting on this, but you backed down (for obvious reasons) from the challenge to provide a single source that makes the distinction between "every" and "all" you pretend exists. Unless you qualify them they mean exactly the same thing. I guarantee that you will be unable to find a single source that supports your linguistic contortions. Are you going to keep backing down from this challenge?



Here you seem to indicate that they mean exactly the same thing unless qualified and you acknowledge that no such qualifier appears in Genesis. Therefore you have absolutely no justification for deciding that creation was continuous rather than discrete. Without that qualifier, you are being told that ALL the fish, sea creatures and birds were created on the same day and to declare otherwise is in defiance of what you believe to be the word of God. I notice you haven't addressed the proverb about adding to God's word. That is exactly what you are doing and He said not to do it.

Being able to make an argument doesn't mean you are making a valid argument.

No no. I mean Every and All may mean different thing if they are not qualified.

 

[juvenissun]

Then you have none, because it is the sin of pride to believe that the belief in a god gives you the wisdom of a god. It doesn't.

What pride?

 

[juvenissun]

The answer is that you CAN use all OR every, by including the qualifier "so far."

However, one does not need to actually write "so far." It can be implied.

If you want to argue that god created more fish on day 6, without mentioning it, that's fine, and a different topic. My complaint about your argument is your claim that every is a subset of all. It's not. You can use either word without changing the meaning of the text.

All you had to argue is that on day 5, the fish which were created were all (or every) that had been created AT THAT TIME, ON DAY 5. But if god created more fish on day 6, then not all (or every) fish was created on day 5 anymore, because some were also created on day 6.

So, according to your understanding, what does the Gen 1:21 mean? How can you tell God does not make more fishes on the Day 6?