The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[blü 2]

When did I REJECTED EVOUTION?

Please quote a comment where I did such a thing.

Then let's be very clear on this:

When it comes to explaining the origin of species ─

do you agree with the modern theory of evolution?

or do you agree with Genesis creation?

 

[leroy]

Then let's be very clear on this:

When it comes to explaining the origin of species ─

do you agree with the modern theory of evolution?

or do you agree with Genesis creation?

Please describe to me exactly what you mean by "modern theory of evolution" .....

 

[blü 2]

Please describe to me exactly what you mean by "modern theory of evolution" .....

So you don't even know what the modern theory of evolution is?

Then how are you in a position to criticize it?

And why do you constantly avoid answering the direct question whether you believe that the origin of species is as described in Genesis?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's sad to see that you are more interested in avoiding the burden proof, rather than defending (or even explaining) your position.

I have provided evidence for my position.

You have a burden of proof. You do everything you can to shed that burden and force it on others. At this point, it is an accepted norm and most people are aware of your tactics.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

More ridiculous excuses to avoid supporting your claims ? Shame on you.


Ether support your assertions or admit that you where wrong.

More silly tactics and ridiculous excuses to avoid supporting your claims. As excpected.

If you cannot support your assertions, then have the courtesy and courage to admit that you are wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you don't even know what the modern theory of evolution is?

Then how are you in a position to criticize it?

And why do you constantly avoid answering the direct question whether you believe that the origin of species is as described in Genesis?

Is it pigeon chess for a $1000 Alex?

I finally came to a conclusion that there is little chance for a rational discussion with @leroy, since his effort is focused on trying to get others to defend his claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please describe to me exactly what you mean by "modern theory of evolution" .....

You don't know? I guess it isn't really a secret is it.

 

[blü 2]

Is it pigeon chess for a $1000 Alex?

I finally came to a conclusion that there is little chance for a rational discussion with @leroy, since his effort is focused on trying to get others to defend his claims.

I'm relying on @leroy to have the honesty, integrity and rejection of evasion that is, I'm told, central to the spirit and practice of Christianity.

I certainly wouldn't expect him, or any person of decency, to sink into the moral mud of the apologist.

 

[blü 2]

Is it pigeon chess for a $1000 Alex?

That line is a thing of great beauty.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

More ridiculous excuses to avoid supporting your claims ? Shame on you.

What's ridiculous about asking biologists if you have questions about biology?

I'm not a biologist. I don't make claims about biology.
I just accept the consensus of the experts. They are the ones qualified to make claims and evaluate them.

Unlike some other people, I don't pretend to know better then them.

Ether support your assertions or admit that you where wrong.

Biologists support their assertions. I don't know better then them.
Neither do you. Yet here you are

 

[leroy]

And why do you constantly avoid answering the direct question whether you believe that the origin of species is as described in Genesis?

No I don't believe in a. Literal interpretation of genesis.

 

[leroy]

So you don't even know what the modern theory of evolution is?

No what I don't know is your personal understanding of "modern theory of evolution"

So please provide a clear and direct definition with your own words, so that I can tell you if I agree or disagree with what you call evolution.

 

[leroy]

More silly tactics and ridiculous excuses to avoid supporting your claims. As excpected.

If you cannot support your assertions, then have the courtesy and courage to admit that you are wrong.

Can you quote any assertion that I have made, that I haven't supported?

 

[leroy]

I just accept the consensus of the experts. They are the ones qualified to make claims and evaluate them.

Ok I accept the consensus too.


So under what basis do you afirma that there is a consensus within biologist on the claim that organisms evolved mainly through benefitial random mutations + natural selection?

Where did you get that information?

 

[blü 2]

No I don't believe in a Literal interpretation of genesis.

Thank you.

Then how do account for species if not as the result of magic?

I ask the question in that form because my argument here is that either the existence of species is down to magic or the existence of species is as science explains it, and ─ incidentally to the issue here, magic v science, ─ science explains it with the modern theory of evolution.

 

[leroy]

Thank you.

Then how do account for species if not as the result of magic?

.

I consider myself an agnostic on this issue (in other words I don't know) and as far as I am aware of scientist don't know either.

Sure we know with high degree of certainly that organisms evolved through a gradual process of variation +natural selection and genetic drift.

But we don't know the details of how organisms evolved.

Particularly there is disagreement amoung scientists on the role of non random mutations (also called directed mutations) and the role of genetic drift (the role of neutral mutations)


My best guess is that the universe was fine tunned since the begging such that everything would unpack to a series of cause and effects that eventually lead to the origin of humans (like a Rube Goldberg machine)


So if we are going to have a conversation , the first step is to find point s of disagreement....so have you found any point of disagreement?

 

[blü 2]

I consider myself an agnostic on this issue (in other words I don't know) and as far as I am aware of scientist don't know either.

Sure we know with high degree of certainly that organisms evolved through a gradual process of variation +natural selection and genetic drift.

But we don't know the details of how organisms evolved.

Particularly there is disagreement amoung scientists on the role of non random mutations (also called directed mutations) and the role of genetic drift (the role of neutral mutations)


My best guess is that the universe was fine tunned since the begging such that everything would unpack to a series of cause and effects that eventually lead to the origin of humans (like a Rube Goldberg machine)


So if we are going to have a conversation , the first step is to find point s of disagreement....so have you found any point of disagreement?

No, if you're happy that the origin of species is entirely natural and it's just a matter of correctly describing the natural processes involved, then we agree in principle.

The rest is only details which the scientists will resolve for us.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok I accept the consensus too.

Then what are you arguing about? Do you even know?
Sometimes I have a feeling that you tend to loose track of your own claims and bs.

So under what basis do you afirma that there is a consensus within biologist on the claim that organisms evolved mainly through benefitial random mutations + natural selection?

Where did you get that information?

Every biologist I have ever spoken to and every book on the subject I have ever read.

Also, the theory doesn't say "mainly" nor does it say "only".
The theory only mentions those things for which supportive evidence exists.

And that happens to be, in a nutshell, reproduction with variation followed by selection.

 

[leroy]

No, if you're happy that the origin of species is entirely natural and it's just a matter of correctly describing the natural processes involved, then we agree in principle.

The rest is only details which the scientists will resolve for us.

Sure so no disagreement as far as I can see

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure we know with high degree of certainly that organisms evolved through a gradual process of variation +natural selection and genetic drift.

But we don't know the details of how organisms evolved.

You make no sense with this self-contradictory nonsense.

First you say that it is a near certainty that it happens through the gradual process of variation plus selection and in the next breath you say we don't know.

Make up your mind.

My best guess is that the universe was fine tunned since the begging such that everything would unpack to a series of cause and effects that eventually lead to the origin of humans (like a Rube Goldberg machine)

Which is a religious belief for which no evidence exists.
It reeks of cdesign proponentsist nonsense.

Which isn't surprising. You frequently invoke the pseudo-scientific terminology of those con-men.
Like "fine tuning" and "specified complexity" and such other nonsense.

So if we are going to have a conversation , the first step is to find point s of disagreement....so have you found any point of disagreement?

Yes. Your insistence on trying to drag cdesign proponentsism nonsense into the conversation.