• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Why Evolution is True (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
And yet another bucketful.

How so?

It looks to me like you are afraid. In fact if you weren't afraid you would take me up on my offer so that you could make your claims legitimately. From the start I told you that you had to learn what evidence is before you could demand any or even ask for any from me.

The only one piling up buckets is you.

 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

You've dug a Grand Canyon of nothing.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
no, you have been posting numerous, one liners and not doing research into the posts. As can be evidenced by your lack of citation to any official works or papers.

I have been working too. I will need to do it when I have some free time and also when I feel like it. You have not been too forthcoming when reasonable demands were made of you. Give me time.

Or pick out your one favorite quote.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
<Sigh>

I have being shown to be right. When I offer to look at gradyll's best quote he runs away. When I offer to help justlookinla with his inability to understand what evidence is, he runs away too.

I am not interested in putting anyone down. I merely want a good honest debate.

Of course we all know the Catch-22 that creationists work under.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Your request will take some time. I have time for quick response.

Plus you ran away when I offered to work on your one best quote when I had time. Why did you do that?

because for one, you say you are too busy in your last post. Yet you post here every three seconds. So your too busy for somethings and not others, we can all see it.

If I give you another quote it will fall on deaf ears, just pick two or three out of the list. You say you have time for a quick response. (but you are posting here every few minutes). Why not just decide to forfeit two or three posts, and give yourself 10 minutes to study?
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
apparently you forgot that random variation happens through mutation, already addressed in the dissent doc:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/sign_the_list.php

again, these are the only two mechanisms or engines of so called darwinian evolutionary (macro evolution). And at this point you have failed to address your point, and yourself are being "incredibly ignorant" of your said theory.

see this link for enlightening:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml

anyway there are in fact other types of variation other than mutation, outbreeding, genetic drift etc. However all variation happens within an animal kind, in no way has variation crossed from one genus into another genus. And this is what they refer to .
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Then how can man know if God's word is right or wrong? You are saying that we are nothing more than amoral robots who are forced to follow instructions.
We have plenty of proofs all through the ages. We can know it is right. That is the way God communicated with mankind. There is no other way to know right from wrong, good from bad. Nothing to do with robots.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Your so called God's word is a terrible source for morality.
Your opinion is noted. God's word happens to be of more value.

You can legally own slaves.

Jesus did that?? He set us free actually. You are slinging poop.
The penalty for many petty crimes was death.
That beats modern society, they kill literally hundreds of millions of innocent babies for no crimes. God had to have a people, and He wanted to make them as pure as possible.

Even a smart mouthed kid was supposed to be stoned to death by his parents.

You are outside looking in on God's family of long ago, and pretending the house rules are supposed to apply everywhere. No.
None of that sounds to moral to me.
That is a good sign. Blessed is the man that walks the opposite way of the ungodly.

 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single


You have no patience. That may be why you have such a huge learning problem. Two it will be. Maybe even three.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single

I was responding to your dishonest post where you left off random variation (mutation is not the only source of variation and that shows another error from the writers of that petition). The fault was yours, it was not my fault or even the fault of the D.I. for once.

Wow!

Double if not triple fail on your part. You were the one that ignorantly left off random variation. I pointed that out to you. Second as I said your site was in error when it said "random mutation" instead of "random variation". Third you messed up again by thinking your source supported your errant claim. Your source was only describing one of the mechanism of random variation, not the only source of random variation. You even alluded to the others in your post while trying to correct me, I guess that could be called error number four. From the link you provided:

Evolution 101: Genetic Variation

"Genetic Variation

Without genetic variation, some of the basic mechanisms of evolutionary change cannot operate.

There are three primary sources of genetic variation, which we will learn more about:

Mutations are changes in the DNA. A single mutation can have a large effect, but in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations.

Gene flow is any movement of genes from one population to another and is an important source of genetic variation.

Sex can introduce new gene combinations into a population. This genetic shuffling is another important source of genetic variation."
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
We have plenty of proofs all through the ages. We can know it is right. That is the way God communicated with mankind. There is no other way to know right from wrong, good from bad. Nothing to do with robots.


Wrong. If you had any "proof" you would have posted them. In fact there is no "proof" for the Bible. People have been realizing that now that information flows so much more easily thanks to the internet. That is why atheism has been growing at such a rapid pace recently.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Your opinion is noted. God's word happens to be of more value.

Perhaps. Too bad you don't have it. All you have is a book written by men that is full of value. Please don't make the Bible a false idol.


Jesus did that?? He set us free actually. You are slinging poop.
That beats modern society, they kill literally hundreds of millions of innocent babies for no crimes. God had to have a people, and He wanted to make them as pure as possible.

No, not Jesus. According to your Bible your God did that. And there was no changing of the law. Even in the New Testament slaves are told to obey their masters


You are outside looking in on God's family of long ago, and pretending the house rules are supposed to apply everywhere. No.
That is a good sign. Blessed is the man that walks the opposite way of the ungodly.

But I am not walking opposite of the way of the godly. I knew that slavery was wrong when I was a Christian and I still know it is wrong.

Or wait, since the ungodly thing that slavery is wrong are you saying that slavery is correct?

Since the Bible only supports and does not oppose slavery I suppose that could be your claim


As usual I can support my claims by using the Bible. Can you support your claim with proper support from the Bible? That means no insane unjustified interpretation of verses after the fact.
 
Upvote 0

Dizredux

Newbie
Dec 20, 2013
2,465
69
✟18,021.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
The statement under discussion: "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" from the Discovery Institute

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
Dizredux Grady
okay then lets start with this: what are three skeptical items regarding natural selection's inability to provide genetic variablity of modern organisms?
You do understand that natural selection does not provide genetic variability, it reduces variability. If you do not understand this that I can see where some of your problems are. You are fighting against a TOE that does not exist in reality.

I await your response. And note, this should not take too long seeing that "anybody who knows anything about evolution....would agree" with this skepticism.
Diz Grady
but they don't examine the evidence, they presuppose it exists based on microevolutionary proof, and carry that truth on to macroevolution which has yet to be observed.
That concept only exists in you mind, not in reality. Macroevolution has been shown to you a number of times but you reject all that does not agree with you.
What they are saying is that the evidence should be reinvestigated. Thats the context IMO.
No, they are saying that "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged". Do you really think that the evidence has not and is not being carefully examined and reexamined?

Diz
Neither does any other knowledgeable person.
Grady
explain evolution and how it works in your mind, because the typical evolutionist believes from the goo-to you- via the zoo. with natural selection and mutation as the only engines pushing the train.
Are you really and truly unaware that mutation and natural selection are not the only mechanisms involved with evolution? You couldn't possibly be so the only thing I can think of is strongly selective willful denial.

Diz
Because that is what the evidence shows. What on earth is your problem with this?
Grady
I adressed this above
Diz And you did just what I predicted. At least you didn't disappoint.

Grady
then you reject darwinian evolution, and one what basis? Speculation. Because I doubt as with the other posters that you will not address the facts of the matter but dodge, once again, my request to back up what you say with examples.
You have been given examples of macroevolution over and over and you, with great determination, find ways of rejecting them all.

Sigh, Grady continues to be often wrong but never in doubt.
Grady
addressing the post to me, and then talking to me in the third person is a bit rude, for a christian, that is. So please refrain.
What on earth does this have to do with Christianity?

Grady
On the other hand, creating a post for the general public and labeling someone in the third person is fine, and I do that all the time. But not like what you did here.
OK, I don't see much of a problem here but since you do I will try hard not to do it in responses to you in the future.

Dizredux
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
All right gradyll, I have pulled up a copy of "The Evolution Handbook" and I see that quite a few of his quote are of other creationists. The problem is that those are bogus quotes on the face of them. Always go to the source. The fact that your lying sources openly quotes other liars only buries the ultimate sources of their misquoted works another layer deeper.

But here is a start. On page 16 he claims:

Stellar evolution is based on the concept that nothing can explode and produce all of the stars and worlds.

This is a freebie for you. Obviously this is a reference to the Big Bang. The problem is that it was not nothing, and there was no explosion. Second more properly that should be called the beginning of the universe as we know it. Stellar evolution covers the formation and growth of stars. It is simply an idiotic mistake by the author.

He starts with that lie and builds upon it. Do you need links to sites that accurately describe the Big Bang or are you willing to admit that the author of that work has already been shown to be a liar?

What is amazing as I scan down the pdf is that the writer got almost everything about science wrong. Second, he loves to use the appeal to emotion fallacy also known as "poisoning the well". As you know you falsely tried to tie evolution with Nazism, even though Hitler banned the work of Darwin. You went out found invalid sources that supported you. In fact you went out of your way to use invalid rather than valid sources, or did you forget how you linked to an author who was paid by the D.I.? That could not have been a coincidence.

And when I looked back at your post that was what you mainly had. I got so used to you quote mining that when ever I see a quote of yours I assume that is what you have. But in the post in question you did much worse:

""He [Haeckel] convinced masses of his countrymen they must accept their evolutionary destiny as a ‘master race’ and ‘outcompete’ inferior peoples, since it was right and natural that only the ‘fittest’ should survive. His version of Darwinism was incorporated in Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1925), which means ‘My Struggle,’ taken from Haeckel’s German translation of Darwin’s phrase, ‘the struggle for existence.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 207 [also 312-313].
"In 1918, Darwin’s apostle Ernst Haeckel became a member of the Thule Gesellschaft, a secret, radically right-wing organization that played a key role in the establishment of the Nazi movement. Rudolf Hess and Hitler attended the meeting as guests (Phelps, 1963)."—Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men (1987), p. 488."

This is an unsupported claim by your post that was based upon Haeckel joining a conservative German party in 1918. In that post your hero quoted another bogus work, the "Encyclopedia of Evolution". You can't support a bogus work by quoting from another bogus work. That is a false appeal to authority. The writer of that pieced of garbage had no authority either.

So that's one, unless you want to go into it more. Here is the link to your extremely messed up post:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-84/#post66197513

I am ending this one here since it may get too long if I continue.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I just got back from a rather long Google search. I was wondering about the claims of gradyll through his sources about Haeckel. I could find only two possible sources for the claim that Haeckel had ever joined the Thule society. They were both from anti-evolution history professors. Not the best of sources. One has been totally discredited since he took money from the Discovery Institute an extremely dishonest anti-evolution group that has been shown to be behind the formation of ID by making it creationism with a cheap suite on.

At any rate the claim is very poorly supported and fairly well debunked in this article:

http://home.uchicago.edu/rjr6/articles/Haeckel--antiSemitism.pdf

Where the author points out among other things that Haeckel was sick and bed ridden the year that he supposedly joined Thule according to Daniel Gasman (And I am sorry but the juvenile in me cannot help but laugh at that extremely appropriate and rather anal retentive name):

However, in late 1918, Haeckel was an invalid and could not leave the second floor of
his home; thus, he was hardly in a position to join this Bavarian group.

The work as a whole dissects and debunks the false claims against Haeckel.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Okay, back to gradyll's post his second quote from that piece of dreck:


The logical fallacy here is again an appeal to emotion. It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. If Engels said that he loved the color blue would that mean you would have to get rid of all of your blue jeans? There is nothing of substance there and nothing to really debunk. It was a waste of print as best and a severe attempt to smear someone with guilt by association. It had nothing to do with whether evolution was true or not.

That is two quotes debunked.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single

Oh look, I already debunked this two. Your book only quoted authors that were false. They had no support for their claims. Haeckel was too sick and bed ridden to have joined that group.

That's three. Should I keep going?
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
because for one, you say you are too busy in your last post. Yet you post here every three seconds. So your too busy for somethings and not others, we can all see it.

Yep, this is true. Notice the frequent 'liar' references instead of actual discussion.

Been going on for quite a while now.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.