Creationist - what is your understanding of TOE?

[dallas1125]

How long do yu think it took for the German sto accept it was a brillinat iead to exterminate the Jews.

Completley out of context. You are not considering the events and the causes. Its well known that most of the country did not know or didnt support what was happening. As is with most totalitarian regimes, the people had no power to do anything.

Decades. The Pr campaign that Christianity and faith in God is evil, is relatively new in its wicked inception.

That is not the views of most. I doubt they view it as evil but rather as ignorance or personal views.

If it keeps being widely accepted, then people will quite conformatable that they are doing the world a favour by wiping out thyis evil wicked scurge form the earth, those who are twating mankins progress.

Slippery slope fallacy

 

[fantome profane]

Many tears of scientific investigation?

That must be the best typo I have ever seen on this board. Almost freudian.

 

[LuisDantas]

Bereanz, are you deliberately attempting to change the subject to an unrelated matter?

What about the simple question that this thread proposes? Would you like to answer it?

 

[Bereanz]

It's a public forum. If you don't want to discuss the subject with the entire forum, you shouldn't be here.

Thanks for keeping me in the loop. Although to be fair, in this instance, I was being challenged by someone, publicaly, in a not so polite manner (in my opinion) by someone who didn't have a clue what it was I was discussing, publically, with another member in this public forum publically for all to see what it was I was discussing. One doesnt have to engage directly in a public forum with every random tom dick or harry who appears publically, especially one who interupts a conversation he/she hasn't bothered to understand in the first place. In any form of public interaction, that would be considered to be ethically, quite rude. As is this discourse from you. And if this type of jumped up little upstart of a post from you is the accepted standard of communication in this forum, why would any body actually want to be here anyway?

 

[Bereanz]

Bereanz, are you deliberately attempting to change the subject to an unrelated matter?

What about the simple question that this thread proposes? Would you like to answer it?

I can only wonder if you truly believe in that. I can't decide whether it is worse if you do or if you don't.

If your going to publically wonder what I truly believe on a topic, Im going to publically express it. Im not attempting to deliberatly change the subject to an unrelated matter at all.

You've already demanded once that I express my ideas in this thread as far as my understanding goes, I have done, I haven't seen you do that in any of your posts. Why is that?

 

[Bereanz]

Bereanz, are you deliberately attempting to change the subject to an unrelated matter?

What about the simple question that this thread proposes? Would you like to answer it?

Please see post 80, where I answered your demands once before.

Now can I see your understanding of the OP please????? All I've seen form you in this thread is the same caustic tone (inmy opinion) that you appear to be useing with me, to everyone else in this thread who might not see the things the way you have yet to express you see things. I find that to be very bizzar behaviour from someone who is a staff member here if you don't mind me saying so publically.

 

[fantome profane]

Please see post 80, where I answered your demands once before.

Here is your post # 80.

My understanding of what is commonly referred to as the theory of evolution is this.

It's part varifiable scientific fact, that part, In my opinion is commonly referred to as natural selection, but only some of which is refferde to as natural selcetion is widely accepted and agreed to "scientifically varifiable", and also in my opinion the word is used extremely subjectively and means differnt things to many different people.

The other part is not varifibale sceintic fact at all, and that is what I call "the theory of Evolution", which in an of it self isn't a problematic idea, until people start attempting to suggest it has been scientifically proven to be fact. Which of course is rediculous, not to mention a lie.

The proponents of this theory would do them selves and the general public a huge service if they separated the scienticfic fact from the myth, because as of right now the very words "The theory of Evolution" is a PR night mare and a disinformationalist dream.

So you say it is part verifiable (I think that is what you mean) and part not verifiable.
You also call this unverifiable part problematic.

Great, but what is it? What is this unverifiable problematic thing?

 

[Bereanz]

Here is your post # 80.
So you say it is part verifiable (I think that is what you mean) and part not verifiable.
You also call this unverifiable part problematic.

Great, but what is it? What is this unverifiable problematic thing?

No, I said its not problematic until people attempt to claim it has been proven to be true. Any one is welcome to scribble down their musings as to the origon of the universe, but until it has been proven, it cant be claimed to be true. Sadly, evidently, one is at liberty to claim that it has been proven to be true even when it hasn't been, to the deterement of millions of human beings, especially young minds and the gullible. I call that problematic, among other things.

The problematic part is the evolution of species, i.e apes into humans, rodents into bats, etc etc etc. (it didnt happen folks and you'll never prove it did, and I resent "science" wasting the peasants tax contributions to keep looking or at least pretending to look for missing links that arent there. Also, that the Genisis account is a myth that has been refuted by science is another huge problem, because the opposite is true. This is lies verses the truth, calling it problematic is putting it mildly. Why do I have to spell everything out, when you know the answers to your questions as far as my position on this topic already? I belive the Biblical creation account, I dont belief the theory of Evolution has been proven (because it hasnt been), and I believe the scientific evidence actually proves a world wide deluge really happened a lot more convincingly than it favours evolution. Given that "Evolution heresy" was given fresh wings about 150 years ago, do we really have to keep going over old ground, perhaps we could start by evolving this discussion a bit. The pathetic line drawing in this OP doesn't prove evolution! Does anyone here SERIOULSY think it does, if so, how and why?

 

[fantome profane]

No, I said its not problematic until people attempt to claim it has been proven to be true. Any one is welcome to scribble down their musings as to the origon of the universe, but until it has been proven, it cant be claimed to be trur. Sadly, evidently, one is at liberty to claim that it has been proven to be true even when it hasn't been, to the deterement of millions of human beings, espcially young minds. I call that problematic, among other things.

Lol, ok, so what is it that is “not problematic until people attempt to claim it has been proven to be true”

 

[Bereanz]

Lol, ok, so what is it that is “not problematic until people attempt to claim it has been proven to be true”

Please read my previous post again, Ive added to it.

 

[Bereanz]

Lol, ok, so what is it that is “not problematic until people attempt to claim it has been proven to be true”

I was watching William Shatner "Is that Weird or What" to night. There was a story about a tribe of people who can run 400 miles in 48 hours bare foot over wilderness terain. The whole tribe includuing 70 and 80 year old men and woman can do this.

A "scientist" said something along the lines of....30, 40, 50, thousand years ago, no body really knows ... in the make up of one of his highly nonspecific scientific explainations. If this is as accuarate as "Science" can get, it's going to have to lift it's game in order not to be considered cannon fodder for reason not to mention great comedy for the awakened!

 

[McBell]

Does anyone here SERIOULSY think it does, if so, how and why?

This thread has shown that creationists are not the least bit worried about proving their claim.
They are much more concerned with fighting a losing battle.
That battle being about poking holes in evolution.

Unfortunately creationists have no clue as to what evolution actually is, what the ToE actually says, or much of anyhting else about evolution.

You have done nothing more than help verify this.
Thank you.

 

[Bereanz]

This thread has shown that creationists are not the least bit worried about proving their claim.
They are much more concerned with fighting a losing battle.
That battle being about poking holes in evolution.

Unfortunately creationists have no clue as to what evolution actually is, what the ToE actually says, or much of anyhting else about evolution.

You have done nothing more than help verify this.
Thank you.

Acturally I agree with you to a certain extent. Creationists who enter into this non argument, for whatever reason, only lend undeserved credibilty to the rediculousness of the claims of evolution. But serioulsy now, one can't poke holes in something that doesn't exist.

 

[McBell]

Acturally I agree with you to a certain extent. Creationists who enter into this non argument, for whatever reason, only lend undeserved credibilty to the rediculousness of the claims of evolution. But serioulsy now, one can't poke holes in something that doesn't exist.

 

[LuisDantas]

If your going to publically wonder what I truly believe on a topic, Im going to publically express it. Im not attempting to deliberatly change the subject to an unrelated matter at all.

You've already demanded once that I express my ideas in this thread as far as my understanding goes, I have done, I haven't seen you do that in any of your posts. Why is that?

I am still in the dark, unfortunately. I have no idea what, if anything, you know about the ToE. So far you have posted a lot of opinions, but given no hint of what you know.

Except, I guess, that those opinions have so little to do with the ToE, or even with facts in a more general sense, that I must assume you don't have a clue what the ToE is about.

Sorry if you expected me to elaborate on my opinions. I never thought that to be important - for one thing, other topics in this area make my thoughts insufferably clear. For another, this is a topic for Creationists to talk their minds, and I am most certainly not a Creationist.

Please see post 80, where I answered your demands once before.

Now can I see your understanding of the OP please????? All I've seen form you in this thread is the same caustic tone (inmy opinion) that you appear to be useing with me, to everyone else in this thread who might not see the things the way you have yet to express you see things. I find that to be very bizzar behaviour from someone who is a staff member here if you don't mind me saying so publically.

Actually no, I don't mind. Transparence is a good thing, and I don't mind making it clear that some situations boggle my mind to the point that I wonder if I am dealing with a Poe. It would be perhaps worse if I attempted to hide my puzzlement to such a degree.

Now, since you have directed me twice already to #80, let's see it (about the question that titles the thread):

It's part varifiable scientific fact, that part, In my opinion is commonly referred to as natural selection, but only some of which is refferde to as natural selcetion is widely accepted and agreed to "scientifically varifiable", and also in my opinion the word is used extremely subjectively and means differnt things to many different people.

Well, no. The Theory of Evolution is an established fact at the very least since the first peer reviewers attempted to falsify it, which I must assume happened way back in the 19th Century - in fact, since Wallace came by it independently, it was already validated to some degree before it was even announced to the public by Darwin.

And really, it is completely scientific, completely objective and completely accepted by those who go through the trouble of testing it. Some people seem to sincerely believe otherwise, but that only shows how little aware of the nature of science and of the scientific proccess they are. Or, perhaps, how strong and ill-informed the propaganda against the ToE is in some circles.

The other part is not varifibale sceintic fact at all, and that is what I call "the theory of Evolution", which in an of it self isn't a problematic idea, until people start attempting to suggest it has been scientifically proven to be fact. Which of course is rediculous, not to mention a lie.

Except that, well, it is not a lie, and indeed a very solid and scientifically proven theory, and has been so for most of a century at the very least. Not to mention that is also a very widely applied one.

I've recently come to wonder if those who doubt the accuracy of the ToE don't believe instead that God is personally invested in "pretending that it is true". It would take that for a person who is sufficiently aware of facts to conciliate Creationism with the available information, IMO.

The proponents of this theory would do them selves and the general public a huge service if they separated the scienticfic fact from the myth, because as of right now the very words "The theory of Evolution" is a PR night mare and a disinformationalist dream.

Actually, you are demanding that we say that the Theory of Evolution is a well-established, completely demonstrated and well-documented fact.

The myth would be that it is somehow not the case.

 

[David M]

I've promised to go since apparently I'm a troll for not believing in Evolution, but just remember this, Christianity is not theistic Evolution, and you're critisisng me for not believing it and yet you think you can get away with calling yourself a Christian.

No, I'm criticising you for telling lies and making claims without providing evidence.

TE is compatible with Christianity.

Given that any monkey knows that Genesis is not metaphorical or allegiorical in any way, the only orical it is, is Historical.

Its not historical, thats a certainty.

Not many of us take Dawrins Origin of Species literally you know, and given that the idea of Evolution is from that book, well, wouldnt that make you all plagiarists or a sort? LOL.

So as well as not knowing what the ToE acually says you don't really know what plagiarism is.

 

[Autodidact]

How long do you think it took for the Germans to accept it was a brilliant idea to exterminate the Jews? Decades of progaganda. The PR campaign that Christianity and faith in God is evil, is relatively new in its wicked inception. If it keeps being widely accepted, then people will be quite comforatable in thinking they are doing the world a favour by wiping out this evil wicked scourge form the earth, i.e those who are thwarting mankinds progress.

I'm quite serious. The bible predicts that those who won't obey the party line will be beheaded.

Can someone give me a hint as to what Bereanz is talking about? Thanks.

 

[Autodidact]

Thanks for keeping me in the loop. Although to be fair, in this instance, I was being challenged by someone, publicaly, in a not so polite manner (in my opinion) by someone who didn't have a clue what it was I was discussing, publically, with another member in this public forum publically for all to see what it was I was discussing. One doesnt have to engage directly in a public forum with every random tom dick or harry who appears publically, especially one who interupts a conversation he/she hasn't bothered to understand in the first place. In any form of public interaction, that would be considered to be ethically, quite rude. As is this discourse from you. And if this type of jumped up little upstart of a post from you is the accepted standard of communication in this forum, why would any body actually want to be here anyway?

Buh-bye. Nice knowing you.

 

[Autodidact]

No, I said its not problematic until people attempt to claim it has been proven to be true. Any one is welcome to scribble down their musings as to the origon of the universe, but until it has been proven, it cant be claimed to be true. Sadly, evidently, one is at liberty to claim that it has been proven to be true even when it hasn't been, to the deterement of millions of human beings, especially young minds and the gullible. I call that problematic, among other things.

The problematic part is the evolution of species, i.e apes into humans, rodents into bats, etc etc etc. (it didnt happen folks and you'll never prove it did, and I resent "science" wasting the peasants tax contributions to keep looking or at least pretending to look for missing links that arent there. Also, that the Genisis account is a myth that has been refuted by science is another huge problem, because the opposite is true. This is lies verses the truth, calling it problematic is putting it mildly. Why do I have to spell everything out, when you know the answers to your questions as far as my position on this topic already? I belive the Biblical creation account, I dont belief the theory of Evolution has been proven (because it hasnt been), and I believe the scientific evidence actually proves a world wide deluge really happened a lot more convincingly than it favours evolution. Given that "Evolution heresy" was given fresh wings about 150 years ago, do we really have to keep going over old ground, perhaps we could start by evolving this discussion a bit. The pathetic line drawing in this OP doesn't prove evolution! Does anyone here SERIOULSY think it does, if so, how and why?

So your position is that we never see new species arise as a result of descent with modification plus natural selection?

 

[Autodidact]

I was watching William Shatner "Is that Weird or What" to night. There was a story about a tribe of people who can run 400 miles in 48 hours bare foot over wilderness terain. The whole tribe includuing 70 and 80 year old men and woman can do this.

A "scientist" said something along the lines of....30, 40, 50, thousand years ago, no body really knows ... in the make up of one of his highly nonspecific scientific explainations. If this is as accuarate as "Science" can get, it's going to have to lift it's game in order not to be considered cannon fodder for reason not to mention great comedy for the awakened!

Yeah, science sucks. What a bunch of idiots! They've never figured out anything useful. They should just shut down all the science departments so we can use the money for something useful, like paying monks to copy Bible manuscripts, don't you agree?