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.
I'll pass.
We do.
You don't have that luxury.
You're obligated to the scientific method.
I don't subscribe to such concepts.Else you'll commit your own unpardonable sin.
Don';t accuse ME of actions or words, either directly or indirectly in a sneaky disingenuous manner of something you have NO KNOWLEDGE I have employed.And I suppose for all those years you have been using the same disingenuous, passive-aggessive, unscientific, sneaky rhetoric of trying to associate abiogenesis with evolution. And then the OP wonders why evolutionists wind up attacking the Creationist. It's because of reprehensible, dishonest, in-your-face prevarication of this type.
The sad thing is that I think most (if not all) of the 'professional' creationists do know how scientists use these words. But they lie for the benefit of the people who trust them to provide a method of 'slaying' evolution. And then who will the laymen believe? The person who confirms their biases, or the person trying to explain how science really works (even if they are themselves Christian). These persistent deceptions make it harder for the truth to take hold.
As I have stated in another post, Darwin himself in some writings linked abiogenesis to evolution. After all, isn't non living chemicals combining to produce live an evolutionary process in itself ?Another fine example of what the OP is talking, but then in terms of "scope" instead of terminology.
The continued insistence that abiogenesis is somehow an essential part of evolution theory while it really isn't and while it has been pointed out thousands of times that it isn't.
Yet, creationists stubbornly insist on getting it wrong.
"forced" to admit...
Lol.
Intellectually honest people don't have any issues with acknowledging ignorance on subjects they are ignorant about, you know...
Except of the part where you think it's relevant to evolution theory, that is.
Don';t accuse ME of actions or words, either directly or indirectly in a sneaky disingenuous manner of something you have NO KNOWLEDGE I have employed.
Darwin himself in some of his letters and essay's stated that the evolutionary process had to be linked to abiogenesis.
Nevertheless, since macro evolutionists
want to present their theory as fact
, and they know abiogenesis is indefensible
That way their hysteria is minimized, that way THEIR facade is maintained, and they can ignore the gorilla in the room and I can look at him and his funny clothes, and laugh.
I think you simply need to calm down, if your post is representative of your mind processes, your health is in danger.
You employed it in the post I responded to. You boasted about doing so. The evidence is there.Don';t accuse ME of actions or words, either directly or indirectly in a sneaky disingenuous manner of something you have NO KNOWLEDGE I have employed.
Clearly without a lifeform to act upon the evolutionary process cannot occur and therefore there is link. However, as I am sure you are fully aware, if it was demonstrated tomorrow that the first lifeform was created it would not require any adjustment to evolutionary theory.Darwin himself in some of his letters and essay's stated that the evolutionary process had to be linked to abiogenesis.
Ludicrous, unsubstantiated, self-delusional nonsense.Nevertheless, since macro evolutionists want to present their theory as fact, and they know abiogenesis is indefensible, they stridently bifurcate the two. Macro evolution is shaky, add abiogenesis and it is dead.
And there again is your snide, passive-aggessive, disrespectful, unscientific distasteful game playing. Shame on you.So, I play the wink,wink game with them, I discuss abiogenesis and macro evolution separately. That way their hysteria is minimized, that way THEIR facade is maintained, and they can ignore the gorilla in the room and I can look at him and his funny clothes, and laugh.
If your post is representative of your mind processes your moral fibre is in danger.I think you simply need to calm down, if your post is representative of your mind processes, your health is in danger.
Your point about manipulation of the language and it's historical usage is an excellent point. I am sure that you have read Orwell's "1984" and you know that big brother loved this methodology. Nothing means anything but what you are told it means. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, et.al. used the method, as do their current acolytes, the so called "progressives".Does it ever. to the point of redefining the meanings of the words marriage, minority, he, she, right, etc. Political discussion far outstrips anything within the debate over evolution vs creation when it comes to insisting that a personally preferred, previously unknown definition must be accepted by the opposing side as the authoritative one.
When people argue issues based upon completely different sets of basic assumptions they not only waste their time but they also become frustrated and can reach the erroneous conclusion that those opposing them are just evil or stupid. If one understands that the problem is not that the other side is illogical, lacking intelligence or malevolent but simply begins from a different POV and set of basic assumptions one can then have a civil debate even if one cannot come to agreement. They cannot agree because there is no way, through argumentation, to divest a person of their POV which is based upon their set of basic assumptions. For instance, if one assumes that humans are basically good, there is not train of logical argument based upon the assumption that humans are not basically good that will be convincing to that person. The only argument that will be convincing to that person is one that also assumes the basic goodness of human beings.
When the conclusion of an argument contradicts a basic assumption a person will inevitably reject the argument that comes to such a conclusion as being flawed. Two completely logically flawless arguments on a subject can reach contradictory conclusions because they start from contradictory sets of basic assumptions. So it may well be that an opposing argument is not flawed but rather that the basic assumptions cannot be reconciled.
I think its because creationists are generally smarter, and sometimes, evolutionists take a little while to catch on to the specific meanings of the terms they use. Evolutionists are really just trained to recite theories parrot-fashion, whilst true creationist debaters are trained to think critically.I've noticed a common theme when discussing things with creationists that words are often used out-of-context. This includes words like "theory", "evolution", "Darwinism", and so on.
I've also noticed the use of evolution or atheistic as an adjective to add to various other nouns describing various forms of knowledge. I think my favorite so far was "atheistic history".
What is the point of this? Having a (proper) conversation generally means using words as they apply to a specific context. Using incorrect contextual meanings and even worse, adopting private definitions of terms doesn't lead to meaningful discussion. And I've never understood the point of fighting over a definition, as I've seen more than a few times. Especially given either the contextual usage of a word or when there exists other words/terms that more accurately describe an idea.
I also wonder what other contexts this behavior occurs in. I imagine this must also come up with political discussions as well.
As I have stated in another post, Darwin himself in some writings linked abiogenesis to evolution
After all, isn't non living chemicals combining to produce live an evolutionary process in itself ?
Nevertheless, I discuss abiogenesis, as abiogenesis, and macro evolution as macro evolution.
That way, their illusion that they aren't logically linked is maintained.
Don';t extrapolate and state as fact what I do, when you don't know, at all.
Macro evolution is shaky
add abiogenesis and it is dead.
Once again, you are making ASS UMPTIONS that aren't warranted. Did I SAY that Darwins idea's are scientifically binding TODAY ? NO ! You just assumed it and stated it as fact.He was responding to what you said. It's not the first time we do this, you know.
Another thing creationists don't seem to understand, is that in science there's no such thing as "unquestionable holy scripture".
Darwin is not an infallible science saint that has to be worshipped and evolution is not a "doctrine" that needs to be upheld in its original form at all costs.
Darwin was wrong about lots of stuff.
If Darwin said what you claim he said, then Darwin was wrong about that too.
Also, it's 2018. Darwin's ideas are a tiny bit outdated.
You might want to update your knowledge of evolutionary biology. Lots of progress and discoveries have been made the past 200 years.
Ow look, another made up term.
And in fact, somewhat surprisingly, this seems to be a new one. I've heared of "macro evolution" before, but a "macro evolutionists"? That's new to me.
Theories aren't facts. Theories explain facts. Facts support theories.
Some basic science education will make that clear to you rather quickly.
Abiogenesis is a different scientific field and a work in progress.
Nobody is claiming that that puzzle has been solved.
And now, you're crossing over into that passive-aggresive arrogance that Ophiolite was talking about.
I think you need to first inform yourself on the scientific subjects before trying to argue against them.
What a silly statement. The majority of biologists have no interest in man. I know that the vast majority of palaeontologists aren't even interested in vertebrates. While microbiologists generally disregard anything that is boring enough to be multi-cellular. The microbes to man meme is a Creationist invention and reflects an anthropocentric viewpoint that any sensible scientist would promptly disown.Similar (but deliberately devious, rather than intellectually superior) behaviour is observed by evolutionists and their own definition of evolution, which they claim to be "microbes to man" when preaching to their own disciples indoctrinated into evolutionism, yet when challenged by a creationist, suddenly change the meaning to "change over time" or "change in frequency of alleles".
Recent genetic research has created a significant problem for macro evolution ( a term first used by an evolutionary biologist in 1926). A group of well respected geneticists (not creationist geneticists) in a long term recently published study, has concluded that all taxa extremely quickly came unto existence at about the same time. Further, they concluded that the genetic record does not support the "millions and millions of years" concept of evolution.
Another study found that within the genetic record there are simply not enough readily changeable genes to support the idea of an organism classed in one family evolving into an organism of another family. The potential for that massive change isn't in the genetic makeup of organisms.
Really ?, ludicrous, unsubstantiated, self delusional nonsense. Really ? You made the statements, that don't mean much without evidence, provide it. What did I employ ? I made it clear I debate evolutionists on their own ground, I made it clear I debate those who believe in abiogenesis on their own ground. My view is irrelevant as long as I stay within the confines the evolutionists demand,. I do this in deference to their sensitivities.You employed it in the post I responded to. You boasted about doing so. The evidence is there.
Clearly without a lifeform to act upon the evolutionary process cannot occur and therefore there is link. However, as I am sure you are fully aware, if it was demonstrated tomorrow that the first lifeform was created it would not require any adjustment to evolutionary theory.
Ludicrous, unsubstantiated, self-delusional nonsense.
And there again is your snide, passive-aggessive, disrespectful, unscientific distasteful game playing. Shame on you.
If your post is representative of your mind processes your moral fibre is in danger.
Discussion ended.
Because this is the best they have...I've noticed a common theme when discussing things with creationists that words are often used out-of-context. This includes words like "theory", "evolution", "Darwinism", and so on.
I've also noticed the use of evolution or atheistic as an adjective to add to various other nouns describing various forms of knowledge. I think my favorite so far was "atheistic history".
What is the point of this? Having a (proper) conversation generally means using words as they apply to a specific context. Using incorrect contextual meanings and even worse, adopting private definitions of terms doesn't lead to meaningful discussion. And I've never understood the point of fighting over a definition, as I've seen more than a few times. Especially given either the contextual usage of a word or when there exists other words/terms that more accurately describe an idea.
I also wonder what other contexts this behavior occurs in. I imagine this must also come up with political discussions as well.
A group of well respected geneticists (not creationist geneticists) in a long term recently published study, has concluded that all taxa extremely quickly came unto existence at about the same time. Further, they concluded that the genetic record does not support the "millions and millions of years" concept of evolution.
Another study found that within the genetic record there are simply not enough readily changeable genes to support the idea of an organism classed in one family evolving into an organism of another family. The potential for that massive change isn't in the genetic makeup of organisms.
Actually, the discovery of extremely complicated operational and integrated information that must be present for even the simplest organism to exist. Where did the information come from for that first organism to operate ? How could an organism self created create that complicated encoded information and itself to read to code at the same time
I read the paper in "human evolution". in it, the authors state that A) 90% of all living organisms came into existence in the last 500,000 years.I know exactly what study you are referring to and neither of these claims are true. The study itself is a bit problematic for a few reasons, but some of the articles written about it have actually distorted a lot of what it stated to begin with (which seems to happen a lot with journalistic reporting of science). Your reference to that study is a perfect example of this distortion.
Either way, it's not the issue some are making it out to be and isn't overturning existing knowledge of the history of life on Earth.
Do you have a source for this?
It's also an odd claim because organisms don't evolve from one family to another family to begin with. Evolution isn't horizontal; it's vertical.
This is just a Discovery Institute talking point that unfortunately isn't actually the problem they make it out to be. The biggest problem is they play fast and loose with defining "information"; but by all applicable definitions of information as it applies to genetics, there are no issues with how said information arises via the process of evolution.
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?