Why Evolution is True (3)

[dad]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Why Evolution is True (2)"

 

[createdtoworship]

subscribing

 

[dad]

Doubly wrong.

Infinitely right, evos can't do math.

The verses merely stated that the Earth was stationary. You could not justify your claim.

That is less than a lobotomized comprehension of what the verses you your self offered, thinking they supported you, claerly and undeniably talk about.

As usual you lost.

Pitiful - what is that, a self hypnosis of the utterly defeated attempt?


Fanatical hatred of God's word is not interesting, any more than shoveling the stuff and trying to get folks dirty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Infinitely right, evos can't do math.


That is less than a lobotomized comprehension of what the verses you your self offered, thinking they supported you, claerly and undeniably talk about.
Pitiful - what is that, a self hypnosis of the utterly defeated attempt?


Fanatical hatred of God's word is not interesting, any more than shoveling the stuff and trying to get folks dirty.

A fact. I don't need fanciful reinterpretations to support me. You on the other hand do.

Here is a simple question, why don't you believe Aman's interpretation of the Bible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

if it were truly as you say, instead of going round and round, you would simply call me out on it. As I do repeatedly when you guys dodge scientists that are IDers' just because they are non evolution and not on the basis of their arguments.
__________________

You have been called out many times. And I have shown that ID claims are wrong myself and I know that others have too.

Do you even know how and why ID was developed and how it shows that the DI is an incredibly dishonest source of information? You must have followed the Dover Trial. It dealt with your specialty.

 

[createdtoworship]

You have been called out many times. And I have shown that ID claims are wrong myself and I know that others have too.

Do you even know how and why ID was developed and how it shows that the DI is an incredibly dishonest source of information? You must have followed the Dover Trial. It dealt with your specialty.

all I know is in the last few posts you mention that your sources are scientific, yet macro evolution has yet to be observed so how can it even be a theory without observation of the hypothesis?

 

[Dizredux]

Grady

hey I had a another quick question. Do you believe Genesis is the word of God, Do you believe it is literal?

if not, then how can people be called sinners if adam was never there to begin the process of "the fall". Without being called sinners, how can someone be forgiven of sin by Christ's sacrifice, and lastly, how can one be saved with no theological roots to the fall. Granted one may in fact come upon the doctrine of original sin, and depravity by other means, but what is the ultimate point if the original sin, did not sin, because He didn't exist?

I await your response.

I wasn't going to respond to this as it probably is off topic in this forum but changed my mind.

It will take me a few days though as I have just had new carpet put in and putting things back is both painful and rather slow.


Dizredux

 

[Subduction Zone]

all I know is in the last few posts you mention that your sources are scientific, yet macro evolution has yet to be observed so how can it even be a theory without observation of the hypothesis?

What do you mean that it has not been observed?

We can observe it both in the fossil record and in DNA.

We are not limited to your versions of observation. And remember how you dishonestly claimed that people dodged answering this question of yours? I think the problem is not that people are dodging you but that you do not like the answer.

 

[Dizredux]

all I know is in the last few posts you mention that your sources are scientific, yet macro evolution has yet to be observed so how can it even be a theory without observation of the hypothesis?

Grady, Macroevolution has been shown and explained to you many times but you do not seem to like this and continuously reject the information no matter how much it has been explained or how valid the references.

To make it simple here is a definition from What is macroevolution? from Berkeley.edu

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.

As you can see, macroevolution is evolution above the species level. Microevolution is focused on the individual species and Macro on what happens after speciation.

Really, you can't get a better reference on current evolutionary thinking than evolution.berkeley.edu.

Like it or not this is the consensus view on macroevolution. Your private definition is not relevant unless you wish to take it up with the people at Berkeley.

Hopefully this issue has been put to rest.

Dizredux

 

[dad]

What do you mean that it has not been observed?

We can observe it both in the fossil record and in DNA.

We are not limited to your versions of observation. And remember how you dishonestly claimed that people dodged answering this question of yours? I think the problem is not that people are dodging you but that you do not like the answer.

DNA is present state so irrelevant to the origins debate. The fossils do not tell you exactly what evolved or what was created. Hilarious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

DNA is present state so irrelevant to the origins debate. The fossils do not tell you exactly what evolved or what was created. Hilarious.

Actually they do. Of course it is beyond your understanding. But keep denying it if it makes you feel any better. There is a reason why your side loses very court case. Judges are experts on evidence of all sorts. They always find for the evolution side.

 

[dad]

Actually they do. Of course it is beyond your understanding.

That would be demonstrated if you had any truth and a case and did more than emit oral foam. Grab a napkin, try again!

There is a reason why your side loses very court case. Judges are experts on evidence of all sorts. They always find for the evolution side.

Judges are clueless, and look to people they trust are supposed to know. You are in a corner and getting desperate here apparently.

 

[lost999]

There is a reason why your side loses very court case. Judges are experts on evidence of all sorts. They always find for the evolution side.

Yea, like judges are always noble.

Judges may be educated in the law, but not when it comes to scientific theory. They are hardly competant enough to be dabbling in these issues.

 

[dad]

Yea, like judges are always noble.

Judges may be educated in the law, but not when it comes to scientific theory. They are hardly competant enough to be dabbling in these issues.

They are bought and sold like street workers or lawyers.

 

[Dizredux]

Yea, like judges are always noble.

Judges may be educated in the law, but not when it comes to scientific theory. They are hardly competant enough to be dabbling in these issues.

That may or may not be true but they are usually competent to determine what the law says and that is what was determined in the cases involved.

The courts don't have to be competent in the science, that is why they have expert witnesses.

Also in our legal system someone has to rule on questions of law and that is placed in the laps of judges.

For better or worse, it is what we have at least here in the states.

Dizredux

 

[dad]

..

 

[dad]

The courts don't have to be competent in the science, that is why they have expert witnesses.

The have frauds that pose as experts but know squat about origins.

Also in our legal system someone has to rule on questions of law and that is placed in the laps of judges.

That may be how it has to be for your society on issues like killing babies, and advocating Sodom and Gomorrahism around the country and world, and keeping God away from kids etc. That doesn't affect the truth or facts of the creation issues one bit.

For better or worse, it is what we have at least here in the states.

Having advanced terminal rejectionalism is great. Hallelujah. The truth simply waits to go marching on over the ashes.



Job 12:17 - He leadeth counsellors away spoiled, and maketh the judges fools.


Ps 2:10 - Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.





Isa 5:20 - Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

 

[Appleface]

I believe in evolution over magic!!

 

[dad]

I believe in evolution over magic!!

No magic then? How about miracles?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That would be demonstrated if you had any truth and a case and did more than emit oral foam. Grab a napkin, try again!


Judges are clueless, and look to people they trust are supposed to know. You are in a corner and getting desperate here apparently.

That's right. Everyone that disagrees with dad is wrong.

Did you ever think that you may be sadly mistaken?