Evolution My ToE

[shunyadragon]

In other words you seem to be saying that God is limited in how he had to have created by what you perceive are the 'methods' or processes of nature today. I don't think God is that small.

No, you are saying that God is limited to the way you believe how God Created everything, Science just uses the Objective verifiable evidence as how our physical existence naturally is. God can use whatever methods God chooses. Science is simply descriptive and does not determine God's methods. I do not believe that God Creates contradictions in the nature of our physical existence, and that is what you propose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pretty lame to compare today with Noah's day. Noah didn't drive any car.

Myths cannot drive cars. You could not drive your car if scientists did not base their theories on reality. In other words you are being hypocritical every time you go for a spin around the block.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you are saying that God is limited to the way you believe how God Created everything, Science just uses the Objective verifiable evidence as how our physical existence naturally is. God can use whatever methods God chooses. Science is simply descriptive and does not determine God's methods. I do not believe that God Creates contradictions in the nature of our physical existence, and that is what you propose.

I find Christians like dad to be rather blasphemous. They have the gall to tell their God how he had to make the world.

 

[ecco]

There are definitely some things in various textbooks taught to students that are NOT accurate, thus leaving students with the wrong information.

There are definitely some things in The Holy Bible taught to children and adults that are NOT accurate, thus leaving people with the wrong information.

The proof of this is that there are thousands of Christian denominations.
The proof of this is that there are hundreds of versions of the Christian Bible, in English.

All teach different things.


Science knowledge is the result of man's investigations. Biblical Truth is supposedly from the mouth of God.

What was the point you were trying to make?

 

[ecco]

Did anyone answer what was the bridge, according to evolution, between plants and animals, or do you think they had different branches stemming from bacteria that developed differently from the supposed unicellular organisms

~$15.00

 

[Subduction Zone]

The above video is an excellent video on ERV's. (Endogenous RetroViruses for those not in the loop). It explains how they make evolution a slam dunk.

 

[YoursTrue]

That, or something like it, was the answer I had expected. There is no scientific or naturalistic explanation for the genetic evidence other than descent from common ancestors, so you have to invoke miracles and a supernatural creator. And presumably if there was no nested hierarchy of genetic similarities, you would attribute the lack of a nested hierarchy to creation; creation can explain anything, and therefore it explains nothing.

The promises God gives far outweigh anything that evolution outlines.

 

[YoursTrue]

~$15.00

And so you believe the conjectures evolutionists make about the random trial occurrences that led to plants and animals. At least shunyadragon gave a complex answer. I guess the book you recommend has it for dummies like me to wonder, "how did they figure THAT out?" By now I figure it's mainly guesswork as to what happened, how it happened, because yes, you'd have to figure what happened at the beginning until millions (or is it billions) of years after that, from the one-celled organism(s) moving into other forms. It's almost like a game. Meantime, do I take vaccines? Yes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And so you believe the conjectures evolutionists make about the random trial occurrences that led to plants and animals. At least shunyadragon gave a complex answer. I guess the book you recommend has it for dummies like me to wonder, "how did they figure THAT out?" By now I figure it's mainly guesswork as to what happened, how it happened, because yes, you'd have to figure what happened at the beginning until millions (or is it billions) of years after that, from the one-celled organism(s) moving into other forms. It's almost like a game. Meantime, do I take vaccines? Yes.

Unfortunately so far you have refused to even try to learn. That makes your claim that is is 'mainly guesswork' unjustifiable. It is rather amazing to me that creationists do not understand how making such claims about others that they cannot justify all but guarantees that they are breaking the Ninth Commandment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The promises God gives far outweigh anything that evolution outlines.

Quite the non sequitur there. You do not seem to have noticed that no one has claimed that the fact of evolution disproves God.

 

[nPeace]

How can that be true, if as you said in your last post to me, "this is the first time you are questioning me on my views"?

One of those statements has to be false. So which is it?

Ah. This explains a few things.
I'm now wondering which part of the world you are from. You don't seem American.

Try reading the bold statement with this in mind... Irony (from Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía, meaning 'dissimulation, feigned ignorance'), in its broadest sense, is a rhetorical device, literary technique, or event in which what appears, on the surface, to be the case, differs radically from what is actually the case.

The ironic form of simile, used in sarcasm, and some forms of litotes can emphasize one's meaning by the deliberate use of language which states the opposite of the truth, denies the contrary of the truth, or drastically and obviously understates a factual connection.

Hope that helps.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ah. This explains a few things.
I'm now wondering which part of the world you are from. You don't seem American.

I'm American....born and raised. You?

Try reading the bold statement with this in mind... Irony (from Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía, meaning 'dissimulation, feigned ignorance'), in its broadest sense, is a rhetorical device, literary technique, or event in which what appears, on the surface, to be the case, differs radically from what is actually the case.

The ironic form of simile, used in sarcasm, and some forms of litotes can emphasize one's meaning by the deliberate use of language which states the opposite of the truth, denies the contrary of the truth, or drastically and obviously understates a factual connection.

Hope that helps.

Okay, you were being ironic.

Now, how about we drop the whole "you said this", "no I didn't" back and forth, and get back to debating the actual issues? I suggest we pick up where that part of the debate left off....HERE.

 

[nPeace]

None of the above represents a complete consideration of the objective verifiable evidence supporting evolution. It represents an unethical selective cut and paste of sound bites that you gerrymander to justify your religious agenda.

It remains a matter of fact that if all your citations were put back in context with ALL the scientific references and knowledge it could not possibly justify your warped perspective, and it remains a fact that 98% of the qualified scientists support evolution and reject your bogus unethical argument based on a religious agenda, and ALL the scientist are well aware of all you have cited.

If you are not going to read posts, why bother responding to them with your pledge to be committed to Darwinism, or Neo-Darwinism? A pledge of belief is not relevant to the thread.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you are not going to read posts, why bother responding to them with your pledge to be committed to Darwinism, or Neo-Darwinism? A pledge of belief is not relevant to the thread.

It is not Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism it is the science of evolution, and all my posts are based on science. I have read your posts and responded appropriately, because your posts are a selective cut and paste of references to support your religious agenda. Pretty much all you cited reject your view. Not good honest nor ethical science.

 

[nPeace]

I'm American....born and raised. You?


Okay, you were being ironic.

Now, how about we drop the whole "you said this", "no I didn't" back and forth, and get back to debating the actual issues? I suggest we pick up where that part of the debate left off....HERE.

I'm not getting into a one sided conversation with you, especially where there is a very big problem with communication, and where you cannot answer questions, but reply by telling me to go learn or read.
Why do you want to converse with someone who knows nothing on the topic?
Besides the debate did not end there, and I have no desire to continue to discuss this topic with you, for the reasons I mentioned.

 

[nPeace]

It is not Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism it is the science of evolution, and all my posts are based on science. I have read your posts and responded appropriately, because your posts are a selective cut and paste of references to support your religious agenda. Pretty much all you cited reject your view. Not good honest nor ethical science.

All your posts are not based on science. True, you may mention a few thing that are correct, but some of what you say are assertions, which you refuse to back up, when requested to.

 

[shunyadragon]

All your posts are not based on science.

Demonstrate this with references.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not getting into a one sided conversation with you, especially where there is a very big problem with communication, and where you cannot answer questions, but reply by telling me to go learn or read.
Why do you want to converse with someone who knows nothing on the topic?
Besides the debate did not end there, and I have no desire to continue to discuss this topic with you, for the reasons I mentioned.

Still waiting for you to explain why you are selectively citing references from scientists that do not support your religious agenda.

Also @Jose Fly has been very patient answering your questions, but from you layman religious agenda perspective you have predictably ignored his responses.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm not getting into a one sided conversation with you

It can only be one-sided if you refuse to participate.

especially where there is a very big problem with communication, and where you cannot answer questions, but reply by telling me to go learn or read.

I spent a great deal of time answering a significant number of questions from you. Also, you tacitly admitted that you've not read through scientific journals on evolutionary biology, taken courses in evolutionary biology, or attended conferences on evolutionary biology. You also chastised me for attempting to "tutor" you on the subject. Therefore, it's entirely reasonable for me to suggest you take the time to learn the subject you're attempting to debate.

Why do you want to converse with someone who knows nothing on the topic?

Lately I've not been conversing, but rather have been debating (as a result of your reminding me that this is a debate forum).

Besides the debate did not end there

Yes it did. You elected to only reply to one very narrow part of that post. The rest of that post remains unaddressed, including several questions that you have not answered. You do realize that in a debate format, that means you have conceded those points, right?

and I have no desire to continue to discuss this topic with you, for the reasons I mentioned.

So you are conceding the debate.

Now that that's over, I'm curious....when we first started in this thread I tried to adopt a more friendly approach with you, where I didn't try and debate you as much as just explain the science and scientific POV. In the midst of that, you accused me of being "serpent like" and other things. Normally I would have challenged you on your accusations, but under the new approach I simply apologized and assured you that my intentions were not devious. But later, I saw what seemed to me as you sorta complaining about that approach, and reminding me that this is a debate forum and as such you're here to debate, not discuss. So I obliged and switched back to debating you, and as we saw the exchange ended very quickly after that.

So my question to you is, which approach do you prefer? Would you rather I take a debating team style stance towards you, or would you prefer the more conversational style I used earlier?

 

[nPeace]

Demonstrate this with references.

Maybe stop ignoring posts, and you would not need to make these statements. Might help to go back and see if you find the ones you ignored, then perhaps you might find it.

Still waiting for you to explain why you are selectively citing references from scientists that do not support your religious agenda.

I'm still waiting for you to address posts you deliberately ignored.