Winter Wheat Video Lecture

[VirOptimus]

What about those who deny standard interpretations of physical reality?

Physical reality is physical reality.

Interpretations is for religion.

 

[Speedwell]

Not for this theist.

Then you must have some other reason for rejecting it than merely your belief in God.

 

[Speedwell]

See what I mean? Atheists love evolution. It's a wholly inadequate theory to explain reality, but it's perfect if you believe we came from nowhere for no reason.

It is also entirely satisfactory for those who believe that God exists and is author of our being. Close to two billion Christians world wide along with countless other theists have no particular issue with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Physical reality is physical reality.

Interpretations is for religion.

Tell that to Mr Phlogiston, Mr Alchemy, Mr Geocentric and his dog Pluto.

 

[renniks]

You really really dont understand science, philosophy and theology.

Try adding more " reallys" that way it will be really convincing.

 

[renniks]

It is also entirely satisfactory for those who believe that God exists and is author of our being. Close to two billion Christians world wide along with countless other theists have no particular issue with it.

And most people once thought earth was the center of the solar system. Neither theist or non-theist had a problem with it.
Just because something is widely accepted doesn't mean it's correct.

 

[Speedwell]

And most people once thought earth was the center of the solar system. Neither theist or non-theist had a problem with it.
Just because something is widely accepted doesn't mean it's correct.

No, but if it rises to the level of a scientific theory it becomes reasonably likely, and if there is no competition then there is no reason not to accept it; provisionally, of course, just like any other scientific theory.

 

[renniks]

No, but if it rises to the level of a scientific theory it becomes reasonably likely, and if there is no competition then there is no reason not to accept it; provisionally, of course, just like any other scientific theory.

There is plenty of competition. In fact 40 percent of americans believe in creation. If you took a poll of muslims and Jews, I think you going to find a version of creation beloved by most, also. Just because something is a leading scientific theory doesn't make it correct.

 

[VirOptimus]

Tell that to Mr Phlogiston, Mr Alchemy, Mr Geocentric and his dog Pluto.

Heh, thanks for the QED.

 

[VirOptimus]

Try adding more " reallys" that way it will be really convincing.

One only have the read your posts.

 

[Mr Laurier]

See what I mean? Atheists love evolution. It's a wholly inadequate theory to explain reality, but it's perfect if you believe we came from nowhere for no reason.

We actually don't care one bit about evolution.
It doesn't have to explain reality. It just has to happen. And it does happen.
Only the most out of touch nihilists believe anything close to that turd of a thought process

 

[renniks]

One only have the read your posts.

You are free to not read them.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

There is plenty of competition. In fact 40 percent of americans believe in creation. If you took a poll of muslims and Jews, I think you going to find a version of creation beloved by most, also. Just because something is a leading scientific theory doesn't make it correct.

So speaking of scientific theories or hypotheses, any comments on Genetic Entropy or do you just believe it because it aligns with your belief in your interpretation of Genesis?

 

[renniks]

We actually don't care one bit about evolution.
It doesn't have to explain reality. It just has to happen. And it does happen.
Only the most out of touch nihilists believe anything close to that turd of a thought process

I think that's probably a rule violation.. .
If you all didn't try to use it to explain reality, well you know... but you do. Constantly.

 

[AV1611VET]

We actually don't care one bit about evolution.

Just don't say creationists have to make excuses for evolution to go away using, of all things, winter wheat as an example, and expect me not to say something.

 

[renniks]

So speaking of scientific theories or hypotheses, any comments on Genetic Entropy or do you just believe it because it aligns with your belief in your interpretation of Genesis?

The part I remember from the book is that a mutation can't change the whole organism.
Kind of like the whole organism is a skyscraper, only more complex. A little change in one section of the DNA code might turn a light on in the basement, but it isn't going to start a process of changing the skyscraper into a subway tunnel.
That wasn't the exact analogy used... but you get the idea.
But that's not even getting to the part about our DNA degrading. I haven't found the book yet.

 

[VirOptimus]

You are free to not read them.

No no, I love comedy.

Never change!

 

[dlamberth]

There is plenty of competition. In fact 40 percent of americans believe in creation.

In your reply what your not at all being clear about is what people think of with the term "creation".

According to the Pew Research Center study, 81% of U.S. adults say that humans evolved over time.
For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate

 

[Mr Laurier]

I think that's probably a rule violation.. .
If you all didn't try to use it to explain reality, well you know... but you do. Constantly.

I have never done any such thing.
The fact is that evolution is a purely biological process. and the theory of evolution only explains that process... and nothing else.
NOBODY with even the smallest bit of understanding of evolution, thinks it can, or should, explain anything else.
Not why the sun rises on the morning. Not where our consciousness goes after we die. Not why Germany failed to take Moscow on 1941. Not how James Brown sings just the way a lady needs to hear a man talk. None of it. Evolution does not address any of it.
And no atheist has ever suggested otherwise. Most christians also know better, as do most muslims and jews. Only Young Earth Creationists demand that evolution explain all of reality.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

The part I remember from the book is that a mutation can't change the whole organism.
Kind of like the whole organism is a skyscraper, only more complex. A little change in one section of the DNA code might turn a light on in the basement, but it isn't going to start a process of changing the skyscraper into a subway tunnel.
That wasn't the exact analogy used... but you get the idea.
But that's not even getting to the part about our DNA degrading. I haven't found the book yet.

I get the idea, you remember the strawman argument that a mutation can't change a whole body plan which nobody claims, but that wasn't even the part he got vaguely correct. Save your effort in finding the book and learn a little more about evolution, and geology while you are at it.

Anyhow, thanks for getting me to read up on the local creationist. I've learned something.