I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[Subduction Zone]

My claim is that the bible's claim are consistent with science. The bible claims that microevolution exists but it limits it. That is consistent with what science has ever observed.

That is not correct. Macroevolution has been directly observed. You probably do not understand the terms that you are using. Macorevolution is evolution at the species level and above that that has been observed. People have linked observed events of speciation for you. And reinterr

The same thing I have been saying for weeks. Lets back up and start with the actual verses in question.

Genesis 1:21
God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:24
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

17 Bible verses about Living Things
I agree that the bible can be figurative or symbolic at times. It would depend on which verse is under discussion.

You need to properly define kind before you go any further. With a proper definition of "kind" you could tell whether two groups are of the same kind or not and creationists still have no accomplished that . Undefined terms are of little to no use. What is a "kind"?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Well, I thought that you could follow along and see how this kind of thing is done.

Then move forward and I will follow along.

You can use either term you want, I think both apply. I don't know what you meant by the term "Clades".

Clades are a common ancestor and all of their descendants. Clades are defined by shared derived features, such as fur, mammary glands, cusped cheek teeth, and a single lower jaw bone help define the mammal clade.

I was waiting for you concerning the interpretation of the bible verses in question, if you do not want to follow along I will go ahead and give you my interpretation but without an explanation. Is that how you want me to go about this?

I interpret the Bible as saying that the Chihuahua and Great Dane are beyond the limits of what we should see if the Bible is true. We know that Chihuahuas and Great Danes came from a common ancestral wolf, so this shows that the Bible is wrong.

So now we have disproven the Bible.

Again, the terms used by a modern biologist are virtually irrelevant. We need to go back and see what the bible says then see if any observation defeats it. Is that what you want me to do?

Yes. Describe for us the types of fossils and genetic evidence that would disprove what you think the Bible is saying.

 

[1robin]

That's rather convenient as not only did you have time with these two above posts, but you also had several other rather lengthy posts.

I don't care whether you think it is convenient or inconvenient it is still just as true. After I respond to this post our discussion in this thread will be concluded. See post #542.

I think the reality is quite different, namely that there simply is no scientific evidence that supports your premise that micro stop before becoming macro, and I tend to think that you do know that but can't bring yourself to admit it. I've asked this of several others here, and all I ever get back is either the sound of crickets or some cut & paste from a creationist website.

Once again your trying to confuse the burdens concerning our individual arguments come with.

1. I hold both the faith and the negative position. Those claims are valid unless you supply a defeater.
2. You hold the scientific and positive position. Your burden is to provide the defeater mentioned above.

Fortunately, in a survey I saw probably about 40 or so years ago, most Christian theologians (about 70%, if my memory is correct-- which is sometimes questionable, I'd admit) do not have a problem with the basic ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

Why is the subgroup "Christian theologian" relevant?

I do not have any problem with "micro-evolution" either. I only have a problem with common descent.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I do not have any problem with "micro-evolution" either. I only have a problem with common descent.

Precisely. Therefore, common descent between Chihuahuas and Great Danes disproves the Bible.

 

[1robin]

It remains a lame excuse.

When you are ready to learn the basics of science I am more than happy to help you.

See post #542. This is the reason I created it.

 

[1robin]

You need to learn the difference between an argument and an observation. Your post is lame. Only the cowardly take such a route. Why are you afraid to learn even the basics of science? It will be handy in many other internet debates and does not take that long to learn.

See post #542. This is the reason I created it.

 

[1robin]

Wait, you presented that post because you are terribly ignorant about the basics of science? Now that makes no sense at all. Stay away from firearms. You have a tendency to shoot yourself in the foot.

See post #542. This is the reason I created it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See post #542. This is the reason I created it.

Yes, when shown to be wrong all you have are lame excuses. We already know that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again your trying to confuse the burdens concerning our individual arguments come with.

1. I hold both the faith and the negative position. Those claims are valid unless you supply a defeater.
2. You hold the scientific and positive position. Your burden is to provide the defeater mentioned above.

No, #1 fails as soon as evidence is found that refutes it. Your inability to understand the evidence does not mean that it has not been refuted. Once that occurs it appears that all you have is willful ignorance..

And #2 has been satisfied. See above. You have been defeated, you simply refuse to learn how. Your approach is why teaching creationism is illegal in U.S. schools. It is only unsupported religious belief. While scientific claims can be taught because they can be tested and confirmed. Your beliefs cannot be tested and confirmed and have in fact been shown to be wrong.

 

[1robin]

Hello Robin,

I hope you are doing well. [/quote] Hello ST, glad to hear from you again. I broke my femur in January and had to take a break from debating for a while.

May I suggest that, if you are strapped for time, perhaps spend that limited time dealing with the substantive posts that pertain to the thread topic, rather than these types of posts that have very little, if anything, to do with it. Just a suggestion that may help.

This precisely what I have tried do. I tried to limit the number of people I respond to, to only those who post the most challenging claims. If you look at post #542 you can see my rationale behind this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Robin,

I hope you are doing well.

Hello ST, glad to hear from you again. I broke my femur in January and had to take a break from debating for a while.

This precisely what I have tried do. I tried to limit the number of people I respond to, to only those who post the most challenging claims. If you look at post #542 you can see my rationale behind this.[/QUOTE]

If your time is so valuable why do you waste so much of it? Once again understanding the scientific method and the nature of evidence would save you immense amounts of time here.

 

[1robin]

That is not correct. Macroevolution has been directly observed. You probably do not understand the terms that you are using. Macorevolution is evolution at the species level and above that that has been observed. People have linked observed events of speciation for you. And reinterr




You need to properly define kind before you go any further. With a proper definition of "kind" you could tell whether two groups are of the same kind or not and creationists still have no accomplished that . Undefined terms are of little to no use. What is a "kind"?

Do you realize I am no longer reading your posts? I have never seen this level of desperation in a debate. See post #542.

 

[1robin]

Yes, when shown to be wrong all you have are lame excuses. We already know that.

Do you realize I am no longer reading your posts? I have never seen this level of desperation in a debate. See post #542.

 

[1robin]

No, #1 fails as soon as evidence is found that refutes it. Your inability to understand the evidence does not mean that it has not been refuted. Once that occurs it appears that all you have is willful ignorance..

And #2 has been satisfied. See above. You have been defeated, you simply refuse to learn how. Your approach is why teaching creationism is illegal in U.S. schools. It is only unsupported religious belief. While scientific claims can be taught because they can be tested and confirmed. Your beliefs cannot be tested and confirmed and have in fact been shown to be wrong.

Do you realize I am no longer reading your posts? I have never seen this level of desperation in a debate. See post #542.

 

[1robin]

Hello ST, glad to hear from you again. I broke my femur in January and had to take a break from debating for a while.

This precisely what I have tried do. I tried to limit the number of people I respond to, to only those who post the most challenging claims. If you look at post #542 you can see my rationale behind this.

If your time is so valuable why do you waste so much of it? Once again understanding the scientific method and the nature of evidence would save you immense amounts of time here.[/QUOTE]
Do you realize I am no longer reading your posts? I have never seen this level of desperation in a debate. See post #542.

 

[exchemist]

Do you realize I am no longer reading your posts? I have never seen this level of desperation in a debate. See post #542.

Eh? How are you managing to reply to them, then?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you realize I am no longer reading your posts? I have never seen this level of desperation in a debate. See post #542.

I know that you are desperate. Running away is a sign of desperation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If your time is so valuable why do you waste so much of it? Once again understanding the scientific method and the nature of evidence would save you immense amounts of time here.

Do you realize I am no longer reading your posts? I have never seen this level of desperation in a debate. See post #542.[/QUOTE]
You are the one that keeps complaining about not having enough time. I offered you a more than reasonable cure. Strange way to not read my posts.

 

[1robin]

But what do you think it says, in your own words, about evolution?

In general I think it suggests that evolution has limits and that common descent is untrue.

Because these verses you mention do not seem to me to preclude evolution as the means by which all these creatures came to be created. I don't find, anywhere in the bible, anything that says created life has to be static and unchanging with time. Where do creationists get this idea from?

True, they actually do not contradict microevolution. However they do suggest that it has limits on the macroevolution scale. Let me clarify this again.

1. Both I and the bible suggests that microevolution within "kinds" occurs. This is all that has ever been observed.
2. Both I and the bible suggest that evolution has limits. This is also the only thing that has ever been observed.

In fact it could be argued that "Let the earth bring forth living creatures......" is exactly what we see in the process of evolution, from microscopic cells all the way through to the variety we see now.

Your refreshingly reasonable. I agree with everything you said except for the common descent stuff.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Eh? How are you managing to reply to them, then?

I think he is desperate to avoid learning. Offering to go over the basics so he can understand the evidence presented to him only seems to be the logical thing to do.