The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.

[Autodidact]

When I see something other than childish rants I might actually take a post serious enough to respond as you suggest. What I see for the most part is school yard taunting, which I don't have time for. When you and your cronies want an adult discussion let me know. If all you are interested in is rock throwing I don't have time for it. Learn to have some respect for other peoples opinions.

I see. Asking you to make an attempt to actually do science is called
rock throwing". After doing everything in your power to evade the subject at hand, you have the temerity to get snippy when people lose their patience with you? Has no one ever told you that refusing to answer polite, direct, reasonable questions is rude? I don't have cronies. Your refusal to even attempt to see whether there is any evidence for your position speaks volumes. O.K., let's all just accept that there isn't any (or otherwise you would have presented it by now) and move on to the evidence for ToE.

 

[McBell]

When I see something other than childish rants I might actually take a post serious enough to respond as you suggest.

Then stop posting all your childish rants.

What I see for the most part is school yard taunting, which I don't have time for. When you and your cronies want an adult discussion let me know. If all you are interested in is rock throwing I don't have time for it. Learn to have some respect for other peoples opinions.

I have no respect for you or your opinions.
You refuse to learn anything.

You continually post flat out lies, blatant falsehoods, and steaming piles of bull ****, even after being explained to you how and why they are lies, falsehoods and bull ****.

You are more interested in keeping yourself ignorant of the facts and truth of evolution in favour of your favourite fairy tale.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

When I see something other than childish rants I might actually take a post serious enough to respond as you suggest.

You're lying again, Danmac. In the first 12 to 13 pages of this thread, Autodidact was extremely polite, extremely patient, and very courteous in trying to get you to address questions with honest, direct answers.

You danced around every question given you, regarding evidence, you've tried (incessantly) to change the subject, you've been intentionally dishonest, and you have been told that you were doing these things repeatedly. Why in the world should we expect you to suddenly begin to take posts seriously enough to respond with anything other than more BS?

Now you'd like to have everyone back off of you, and not call you out for your evasiveness. This forum doesn't work that way. If you simply want people to slap you on the back and tell you how smart you are for not using your brain, then you really ought to consider signing up as a supporter for a site like Answers in Genesis. You obviously like it, and it panders to your willful ignorance.

Seems like a match made in heaven, to me.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you simply want people to slap you on the back and tell you how smart you are for not using your brain, then you really ought to consider signing up as a supporter for a site like Answers in Genesis.

*takes a shot*

{tequila}

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You're lying again, Danmac.

An ode to the arrogant intellectual dishonesty of an empty mind:

the courtroom was adjurned
no verdict was returned

[took my Chevy to the levy
but the levy was dry]

[youtube]tr-BYVeCv6U[/youtube]
YouTube - Don McLean - American Pie better quality

 

[Danmac]

Other peoples' opinions? What the heck are you on about?

Look, I get that you feel singled out, but you're really doing it to yourself. If you respond with baseless assertions without even explaining your reasons for asserting them, you're bound to get called out.

This is not a matter of opinion we're discussing here. If you want to state an opinion, the only honest way to do so is to present it as such. Otherwise, you'll have to deal with other peoples' opinions of you - which are not likely to be favorable, but I guess - according to you - they should be respected.

According to forum rules beliefs, and opinions are fair game, but your opinion of me isn't. When you say something with substance, which I haven't seen to date, I will consider your posts. All I have seen form you in the way of "opinions" is less than elementary.

 

[Danmac]

I see. Asking you to make an attempt to actually do science is called
rock throwing". After doing everything in your power to evade the subject at hand, you have the temerity to get snippy when people lose their patience with you? Has no one ever told you that refusing to answer polite, direct, reasonable questions is rude? I don't have cronies. Your refusal to even attempt to see whether there is any evidence for your position speaks volumes. O.K., let's all just accept that there isn't any (or otherwise you would have presented it by now) and move on to the evidence for ToE.

My condolences.

 

[painted wolf]

two can play opinion tag:

A few words from the founder of the Clergy Letter Project, Michael Zimmerman, PhD.

Beyond the obvious, and growing, problem that natural design is far from perfect, the concept of intelligent design also runs afoul of the scientific method. Simply put, ID offers no hypotheses that can be tested -- the hallmark of scientific investigation.
The concept of irreducible complexity is even more problematic. Each example of a biological entity or process that has been advanced as being irreducibly complex has been found, after further investigation, to be understandable as a function of its constituent parts. Not surprisingly, as scientists focus their attention on complex structures, over time, they begin to make sense of what they see.
Proponents of ID, on the other hand, demonstrate the height of arrogance in their position. Rather than working toward greater understanding of their subjects, they proclaim something to be irreducibly complex and call for scientific investigation to be halted, claiming that any additional study would be a waste of effort.

Religious organizations have also recognized the paucity of intellectual content embodied in ID -- and the damage that it can do to religion as well as science. The United Methodist Church, for example, at its 2008 General Conference, resoundingly adopted the following motion: "The United Methodist Church goes on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools." For religion to accept the concept of intelligent design would mean embracing the concept of the "God of the Gaps," a religiously vacuous idea in which adherents turn to God for an explanation for that which science cannot explain. As science advances, the "gaps" become smaller and smaller and God is relegated to a progressively less interesting role.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Still looking for that evidence, Danmac. Remember your disagreement with ToE is that you assert that it is confined to an undefined, unrecognizable category you call a "kind." Now, let's talk evidence. What evidence would tend to confirm or deny your hypothesis?

Here's some possible areas to look at:

Classification of living things.
Reproductive mechanism of living things: uniform, or different for each "kind?"
Pattern of homologies.
Geographical distribution of species.
Pattern of vestigial features.
Pattern of DNA similarity.
Fossil record.

Which of these would you like to investigate first?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Danmac,
A little advice for you......
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/97699-how-creationism-damages-christianity.htmlCreationism Damages Christianity

 

[Danmac]

Danmac,
A little advice for you......
Creationism Damages Christianity

So as a Christian I shouldn't believe in creation? Is that what you are saying?

 

[painted wolf]

So as a Christian I shouldn't believe in creation? Is that what you are saying?

No, but quoting from people who rely on lies and misdirection may not reflect well on your religion.

Accepting creation as a matter of faith is quite different from using misquotes and falsehoods to try to make it look like science. IMHO

wa:do

 

[DeitySlayer]

So as a Christian I shouldn't believe in creation? Is that what you are saying?

No. As a level-headed, rational, and sane human being, you shouldn't believe in a literal Creation.

 

[Danmac]

No. As a level-headed, rational, and sane human being, you shouldn't believe in a literal Creation.

Doesn't the scientific law of causality demand that all things have a cause? Even the big bang?

 

[painted wolf]

Doesn't the scientific law of causality demand that all things have a cause? Even the big bang?

Causality would insist that God has a cause in that case.


wa:do

 

[Danmac]

Causality would insist that God has a cause in that case.


wa:do

Causality cannot be determined in string theory at the sub atomic levels. That would support the position that a God is holding all things together at the sub atomic level.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Causality cannot be determined in string theory at the sub atomic levels. That would support the position that a God is holding all things together at the sub atomic level.

How does the Big Bang have any bearing whatsoever on abiogenesis and evolution? The 'first cause' or 'God' whatever you wish to call it was 9 billion years in the past when the Earth formed. Divine intervention is no longer needed as a 'cause', because regardless of how it got there, the Earth and chemicals were there 4.5 billion years ago. Naturalistic processes are more than sufficient to explain events from this point onwards.

 

[Autodidact]

So as a Christian I shouldn't believe in creation? Is that what you are saying?

As a Christian you shouldn't believe n the creation myth set forth in Genesis as being literal fact, because it isn't. You don't want to base your religion on lies, do you?

 

[fantome profane]

Doesn't the scientific law of causality demand that all things have a cause? Even the big bang?

Causality cannot be determined in string theory at the sub atomic levels.

You can’t just apply the principle of causality arbitrarily when it suits your needs. If the principle applies to all things, then it applies to all things. If you are willing to make an exception to the principle in the case of your “God” then I can make an exception to the principle in the case of the universe itself. At least we know the universe exists.

That would support the position that a God is holding all things together at the sub atomic level.

No, it doesn’t.

 

[Autodidact]

Doesn't the scientific law of causality demand that all things have a cause? Even the big bang?

Evolution, Danmac. I understand it's hard for you, but try to focus. For the ten or twentieth time, this is not a thread about atheism vs. God. We all accept creationism in the sense that God created all things. This is a thread about how. NOT WHO, HOW. HOW. HOW. The question is, does the evidence support the hypothesis that God created all species via evolution? Do you have any thoughts about that?