TheologyOnline, religion, politics, forum
Go Back   Theology Online | Christian Forums & More > Politics, Religion, And The Rest > Religion
Reload this Page Evolution - The Great Flood - Fish
Religion Discuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#91) Old
The Barbarian The Barbarian is offline
TOL Legend
 The Barbarian's Avatar

 


Reputation:
The Barbarian is well respected by his peers
The Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peers
November 24th, 2011, 05:33 AM

Barbarian observes:
You've gotten this completely wrong. If you doubt that, I can show you what's actually in the literature.

Quote:
No, you are just pretentious baggage that's all, trying to suckle at the teets of atheist claims to serve a composite standing.
You're embarrassed and venting. But you're still wrong. You have a rather odd idea of what evolutionary theory says.

Barbarian observes:
There's nothing circular about pointing out your misconceptions.

Quote:
You haven't pointed out misconceptions, you have merely made the claim. In which case, you are now resorting to pretty much lying, which will likely try to be remedied by a straw man, which will eventually turn your argument into a moving goalpost.
I've spent a lifetime studying biology. And I know. You've gotten it completely wrong.

Just so we can know for sure, why not tell us the four major parts of Darwinian theory, and how it was modified by the geneticists to produce the modern theory?

Quote:
It's so predictable, I don't even know why I waste my time.
Perhaps if you took the time to learn what the theory really says...

Barbarian observes:
Perhaps you don't know what "pretentious" means. It doesn't mean "acknowledging the limitations of science."

Quote:
I know, it means being pervasive in your statements as if to impress others.
I don't think you know what "pervasive" means, either...

pervasive: : existing in or spreading through every part of something

Quote:
In which case, you are ridiculously pretentious.
Say, like using words that one does not understand?

(Misunderstanding about what the Church says about it)

Barbarian observes:
You've been misled on that, too:

While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.
Cardinal Ratzinger, Chairman of the International Theological Comminssion,

Communion and Stewardship:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God

The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution

Surprise.

Barbarian observes:
He suggested that God created the first living things. Not a good way to encourage atheists.

Quote:
Or, you mean people who believe everything came from nothing, and yet call miracles and plagues fairy tales. Such people are merely enslaved by their own convictions.
Too bad for them, then. But as you see, Darwin didn't offer them any comfort.

Barbarian demonstrates:
They lied to you about that too, I'm afraid. The last sentence in the 1872 edition of The Origin of Species:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Quote:
Who are 'they'?
Whoever fed you all that foolishness.

Quote:
I'm the forefront of my knowledge, not 'them'., whoever they are.
Anyways, that's his opinion. His theory didn't say anything about billions of years.
Hmmm....

Geologists had trouble accepting such a short age for Earth. Biologists could accept that Earth might have a finite age, but even 100 million years seemed much too short to be plausible. Charles Darwin, who had studied Lyell's work, had proposed his theory of the evolution of organisms by natural selection, a process whose combination of random heritable variation and cumulative selection implies great expanses of time. (Geneticists have subsequently measured the rate of genetic divergence of species, using the molecular clock, to date the last universal ancestor of all living organisms no later than 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago).

In a lecture in 1869, Darwin's great advocate, Thomas H. Huxley, attacked Thomson's calculations, suggesting they appeared precise in themselves but were based on faulty assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Huxley was right, BTW, Kelvin had made the assumption that the heat was entirely from the formation of the Earth.

Quote:
Why don't you skim through these threads and see the atheists who have tried to claim science specifically to their atheism?
Barbarian suggests:
Name me one of those.

Quote:
Sorry, but I need not waste time telling something that can so easily be observed following a click to the previous pages
Yeah, I couldn't find one, either.





God bless us, every one.
"Or, the less the supportive data and the more declaration the greater the likelihood of horsefeathers." -TH
   
Reply With Quote
  (#92) Old
The Barbarian The Barbarian is offline
TOL Legend
 The Barbarian's Avatar

 


Reputation:
The Barbarian is well respected by his peers
The Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peers
November 24th, 2011, 05:39 AM

Barbarian observes:
You've been badly misled. You hate a misconception, not real science. The theory of evolution does not say bacteria became fungi, or that fungi became reptiles, or reptiles became monkeys, or monkeys became us. Take some time to learn from a source who actually knows what the theory is about.

Quote:
I was simplifying things, obviously.
You misspelled "misunderstanding."
Quote:
I know that no one has ever claimed that we come from monkeys.
So why did you say otherwise? Isn't the truth worth keeping?

Quote:
What has not been observed, indeed in the entire history of humanity, is one species becoming another.
First documented case was about 1904. O. gigas from O. lamarckania by a polyploid event.

Quote:
Interspecies evolution has never been observed.
DROSOPHILA MIRANDA, A NEW SPECIES
TH. DOBZHANSKY
Californiia Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California
Received January 30, 1935

http://www.genetics.org/content/20/4/377.full.pdf

Quote:
That was my point.
Turns out, that was wrong, too.





God bless us, every one.
"Or, the less the supportive data and the more declaration the greater the likelihood of horsefeathers." -TH
   
Reply With Quote
  (#93) Old
Stripe Stripe is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Stripe's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
November 24th, 2011, 05:52 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
We already told you the rational answer. As did some who are not atheists. Not only is the answer "there never was a global flood" rational, it is also based on facts. Stuart
No, that's not the answer.

An evolutionist is pretty much incapable of honestly describing what it is a YEC believes. If he were, he probably could not remain an atheist.

And notice how you continue in the vein of not wishing to discuss the answer given.





Where is the evidence for a global flood?
Why do my eyes hurt?
You've never used them.

"...the waters under the "expanse" were under the crust."
-Bob B.

Nominate POTYs. See this thread.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#94) Old
noguru noguru is offline
TOL Subscriber
 noguru's Avatar

 


Reputation:
noguru is well respected by his peers
noguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peers
November 24th, 2011, 06:29 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy View Post
The known world to the writer of the text flooded, doesn't mean the entire globe flooded. When people add hypotheticals/assumptions to the text things get crazy and then 1000 other questions pop up. It's just as simple as what the text says, the world flooded. Whatever span of land they were aware of flooded and there is evidence that there was a great mesopotamian flood. There would have been lots of aquatic life lost, Traditio. I don't think you are far from what actually would have happened, with your ideal.
Please stop being reasonable, you will cause some people's brains to shortcircuit.





Militant Moderate
   
Reply With Quote
  (#95) Old
SuperMonkey SuperMonkey is offline
Veteran

 


Reputation:
SuperMonkey will become famous soon enoughSuperMonkey will become famous soon enoughSuperMonkey will become famous soon enoughSuperMonkey will become famous soon enough
November 24th, 2011, 06:35 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
You misspelled "misunderstanding."
Okay, you can think that if you want. If that's what comforts your ego and helps you maintain your sense of self-superiority, go right ahead. Obviously anyone who disagrees with you can't be as smart or as educated as you are. Pardon me, master.

Quote:
First documented case was about 1904. O. gigas from O. lamarckania by a polyploid event.
That is a quasi-valid point. Technically, what I said was incorrect. But both gigas and lamarckina are flowers. Lamarckina did not cease to become one type of lifeform when it became gigas. It was not a single-celled organism that became a multi-celled one. It was not a fish that became an amphibian. It was not a non-motile bacteria which became a motile one. In short, it is nothing like what is claimed about the supposed evolutionary leaps that took life from single-celled lifeforms to us.

Quote:
DROSOPHILA MIRANDA, A NEW SPECIES
TH. DOBZHANSKY
Californiia Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California
Received January 30, 1935

http://www.genetics.org/content/20/4/377.full.pdf
Interesting. I must confess I hadn't heard of that until today. I don't have much time to read the document right now, but I will do so and get back to you later. Is this new species actually incapable of breeding with its immediate ancestors?

Anyway, I just want to make something clear -- from my comments you're probably assuming that I'm a YEC -- I'm not. I just happen to think that scientists don't know everything. I think the earth is ancient and has been teeming with life for very probably billions of years. I think evolution is the best scientific explanation for life on earth that anyone's come up with. That doesn't mean it's a good explanation, though. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, evolution is the worst biological theory except for all the other ones we've tried.

I also don't think any of this discussion has any bearing on one's faith or salvation, etc. If you believe that G-d created the earth, and that the accounts of Genesis are true (though not necessarily literal) I have no major beef with you and certainly don't want to try to convert you to YEC-ism.

Hope you and everyone else has a great Thanksgiving.





Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21 Numbers 15:37-41


1 John 4:12-20
   
Reply With Quote
  (#96) Old
noguru noguru is offline
TOL Subscriber
 noguru's Avatar

 


Reputation:
noguru is well respected by his peers
noguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peers
November 24th, 2011, 06:40 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperMonkey View Post
Anyway, I just want to make something clear -- from my comments you're probably assuming that I'm a YEC -- I'm not. I just happen to think that scientists don't know everything.



Who is it that you are trying to convince that scientists don't know everything?

Most reasonable people already knew this. The fact that scientists don't know everything is what fuels the progress of science.





Militant Moderate
   
Reply With Quote
  (#97) Old
SuperMonkey SuperMonkey is offline
Veteran

 


Reputation:
SuperMonkey will become famous soon enoughSuperMonkey will become famous soon enoughSuperMonkey will become famous soon enoughSuperMonkey will become famous soon enough
November 24th, 2011, 06:45 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru View Post


Who is it that you are trying to convince that scientists don't know everything?

Most reasonable people already knew this. The fact that scientists don't know everything is what fuels the progress of science.
Let's rephrase it thus: "I just happen to think that scientists don't know everything they think they do."

That's more accurate.





Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21 Numbers 15:37-41


1 John 4:12-20
   
Reply With Quote
  (#98) Old
noguru noguru is offline
TOL Subscriber
 noguru's Avatar

 


Reputation:
noguru is well respected by his peers
noguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peers
November 24th, 2011, 06:51 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Churchill
I did not worry about the inconsistency of thinking one way and believing the other. It seemed good to let the mind explore so far as it could the paths of thought and logic, and also good to pray for help and succour, and be thankful when they came. I could not feel that the Supreme Creator who gave us our minds as well as our souls would be offended if they did not always run smoothly together in double harness. After all He must have foreseen this from the beginning and of course He would understand it all.

Accordingly I have always been surprised to see some of our Bishops and clergy making such heavy weather about reconciling the Bible story with modern scientific and historical knowledge. Why do they want to reconcile them? … These matters may be puzzling, but they are certainly not important. What is important is the message and the benefits to you of receiving it. Close reasoning can conduct one to the precise conclusion that miracles are impossible: that it is much more likely that human testimony should err, than that the laws of nature should be violated and at the same time one may rejoice to read how Christ turned the water into wine in Cana of Galilee or walked on the lake or rose from the dead.

[...]

I therefore adopted quite early in life a system of believing whatever I wanted to believe, while at the same time leaving reason to pursue unfettered whatever paths she was capable of treading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by superchunkey
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, evolution is the worst biological theory except for all the other ones we've tried.
I am not quite sure if your paraphrase is an accurate representation of what Chruchill actually felt on the matter. Can you elaborate on your claim?





Militant Moderate
   
Reply With Quote
  (#99) Old
noguru noguru is offline
TOL Subscriber
 noguru's Avatar

 


Reputation:
noguru is well respected by his peers
noguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peersnoguru is well respected by his peers
November 24th, 2011, 06:53 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperMonkey View Post
Let's rephrase it thus: "I just happen to think that scientists don't know everything they think they do."

That's more accurate.


Can you turn that criticism right around on yourself? Or are you certain you know everything you think you know?





Militant Moderate
   
Reply With Quote
  (#100) Old
The Barbarian The Barbarian is offline
TOL Legend
 The Barbarian's Avatar

 


Reputation:
The Barbarian is well respected by his peers
The Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peers
November 24th, 2011, 07:26 AM

Quote:
Okay, you can think that if you want. If that's what comforts your ego and helps you maintain your sense of self-superiority, go right ahead.
Funny how people who do that, never know it, um?

Quote:
Obviously anyone who disagrees with you can't be as smart or as educated as you are. Pardon me, master.
Find out about these things, and you'll find it goes a lot easier for you.

Barbarian observes:
First documented case was about 1904. O. gigas from O. lamarckania by a polyploid event.

Quote:
That is a quasi-valid point. Technically, what I said was incorrect. But both gigas and lamarckina are flowers. Lamarckina did not cease to become one type of lifeform when it became gigas.
If gigas was a completely different form of life, it would be highly unusual. Evolutionary theory says things usually change gradually, over many generations.

You're not arguing against the real theory.

Quote:
It was not a single-celled organism that became a multi-celled one. It was not a fish that became an amphibian. It was not a non-motile bacteria which became a motile one.
Motility has been observed to evolve in bacteria. And given that we have numerous transitionals between fish and amphibians, that's also a given. And there are transitional forms between single-celled and multicellular organisms. Would you like to learn about them?

Quote:
In short, it is nothing like what is claimed about the supposed evolutionary leaps that took life from single-celled lifeforms to us.
Again, you've been handed this misunderstanding about what the theory actually says. Learn about it. And don't ask Hugo Chavez to explain capitalism to you.

Another new species:
DROSOPHILA MIRANDA, A NEW SPECIES
TH. DOBZHANSKY
Californiia Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California
Received January 30, 1935

http://www.genetics.org/content/20/4/377.full.pdf


Quote:
Interesting. I must confess I hadn't heard of that until today. I don't have much time to read the document right now, but I will do so and get back to you later. Is this new species actually incapable of breeding with its immediate ancestors?
Yep.

Quote:
Anyway, I just want to make something clear -- from my comments you're probably assuming that I'm a YEC -- I'm not. I just happen to think that scientists don't know everything.
Did you think scientists thought they knew everything? Seriously?

Quote:
I think the earth is ancient and has been teeming with life for very probably billions of years. I think evolution is the best scientific explanation for life on earth that anyone's come up with. That doesn't mean it's a good explanation, though. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, evolution is the worst biological theory except for all the other ones we've tried.
It has the virtue of being consistent with the evidence. And in science, that's what counts.

Quote:
I also don't think any of this discussion has any bearing on one's faith or salvation, etc. If you believe that G-d created the earth, and that the accounts of Genesis are true (though not necessarily literal) I have no major beef with you and certainly don't want to try to convert you to YEC-ism.
That's the way it should be for a Christian.

Quote:
Hope you and everyone else has a great Thanksgiving.
You, too. Enjoy the day.





God bless us, every one.
"Or, the less the supportive data and the more declaration the greater the likelihood of horsefeathers." -TH
   
Reply With Quote
  (#101) Old
Sum1sGruj Sum1sGruj is offline
BANNED

 


Reputation:
Sum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselves
November 24th, 2011, 10:43 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
You're embarrassed and venting. But you're still wrong. You have a rather odd idea of what evolutionary theory says.
Embarrassed about what? I have a rather odd idea about evolutionary theory because I stated that- Darwin's original theory had nothing to do with a 3 billion year old life span on Earth?

Just as I said, you are predictable. There goes the straw man I announced you would post. It's amazing

Quote:
I've spent a lifetime studying biology. And I know. You've gotten it completely wrong.



I can't even answer the rest of your post, because I find it to be redundant and childish. You are a class act, just like the consecutive neg reps I have found, once again, nestling in my CP just for debating the subject with you and the evolutionist bigots on here.

And just so you know:

Quote:
I don't think you know what "pervasive" means, either...

pervasive: : existing in or spreading through every part of something
I have a massive vocabulary. Don't embarrass yourself. Why don't you go recheck my definition and straw man that to? Yes, I think you should This is what you sound like., a baby.

This really is a cursed subject for me on these threads. It speaks volumes however, you see. When I am attacked specifically wholesale, it means that I am bringing that grandstanding and anti-philosophy to the surface for others to see and it makes you all mad.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#102) Old
The Barbarian The Barbarian is offline
TOL Legend
 The Barbarian's Avatar

 


Reputation:
The Barbarian is well respected by his peers
The Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peers
November 24th, 2011, 11:31 AM

Sum writes:
Quote:
No, you are just pretentious baggage that's all, trying to suckle at the teets of atheist claims to serve a composite standing.
Barbarian observes:
You're embarrassed and venting. But you're still wrong. You have a rather odd idea of what evolutionary theory says.

Quote:
Embarrassed about what?
Not understanding what evolutionary theory is about. So you concocted that strawman about "suckling at teets" to cover.

Quote:
I have a rather odd idea about evolutionary theory because I stated that- Darwin's original theory had nothing to do with a 3 billion year old life span on Earth?
In fact, as you learned, Darwin pointed out to Kelvin that his estimate of the Earth's age had to be wrong, because 10 million years or so wasn't enough time. Darwin was right.

Quote:
Just as I said, you are predictable. There goes the straw man I announced you would post. It's amazing
You have no sense of irony.

Barbarian observes:
I've spent a lifetime studying biology. And I know. You've gotten it completely wrong.

Quote:
I can't even answer the rest of your post, because I find it to be redundant and childish.
And here people were thinking it was because you were profoundly ignorant of evolutionary theory.

Quote:
You are a class act, just like the consecutive neg reps I have found, once again, nestling in my CP just for debating the subject with you and the evolutionist bigots on here.
I don't do negative rep. But the truth doesn't seem to be much of restraint for you.

Barbarian observes:
Perhaps you don't know what "pretentious" means. It doesn't mean "acknowledging the limitations of science."

Quote:
I know, it means being pervasive in your statements as if to impress others.
Barbarian chuckles:
I don't think you know what "pervasive" means, either...

pervasive: : existing in or spreading through every part of something


Quote:
I have a massive vocabulary.
How nice for you. But a big vocabulary is better for catching than pitching.

Quote:
Don't embarrass yourself. Why don't you go recheck my definition and straw man that to? Yes, I think you should This is what you sound like., a baby.
Calm yourself.

Quote:
This really is a cursed subject for me on these threads.
Doesn't have to be. Spend a little time learning about it. It's not that hard, just a little time-consuming. Better than letting it raise your blood pressure.





God bless us, every one.
"Or, the less the supportive data and the more declaration the greater the likelihood of horsefeathers." -TH
   
Reply With Quote
  (#103) Old
Sum1sGruj Sum1sGruj is offline
BANNED

 


Reputation:
Sum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselves
November 24th, 2011, 01:07 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
Not understanding what evolutionary theory is about. So you concocted that strawman about "suckling at teets" to cover.
You have gathered that I have evolutionary theory completely wrong because I stated a simple truth. You tried to reverse it by quoting the last paragraph of Darwin's book after he concocted some loophole for his faith to withstand an appeasing statement for evolution after the fact of Lyell's findings. Darwin is a pioneer, not the crux of ToE, and I know precisely what his original theory was. You are simply being outrageous.

Quote:
In fact, as you learned, Darwin pointed out to Kelvin that his estimate of the Earth's age had to be wrong, because 10 million years or so wasn't enough time. Darwin was right.
Darwin ha snot been shown to be right, because common descent has not been shown to be right. That is simply just the passion and optimism of vain pro-evolutionists such as yourself. When it actually comes to putting it on the table, one can point out many problems in which you and others simply cry about it and say we don't understand it.
Even though we do_

Quote:
You have no sense of irony.
Obviously, I have a keen sense of irony

Quote:
How nice for you. But a big vocabulary is better for catching than pitching.
Maybe you should brush up on your catching. The vocabulary I've spoken on here is not rocket science.

And the fact that you try to insult someone on their vocabulary so often speaks volumes about you. Just like the typical pro-evo, you lack humility in debate.
It's just too bad that this time, it came back and bit you

Quote:
Doesn't have to be. Spend a little time learning about it. It's not that hard, just a little time-consuming. Better than letting it raise your blood pressure.
There goes another straw man. Like I said before, it's amazing



   
Reply With Quote
  (#104) Old
Alate_One Alate_One is offline
Over 4000 post club
 Alate_One's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Alate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peers
November 24th, 2011, 01:12 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperMonkey View Post
That is a quasi-valid point. Technically, what I said was incorrect. But both gigas and lamarckina are flowers. Lamarckina did not cease to become one type of lifeform when it became gigas. It was not a single-celled organism that became a multi-celled one. It was not a fish that became an amphibian. It was not a non-motile bacteria which became a motile one. In short, it is nothing like what is claimed about the supposed evolutionary leaps that took life from single-celled lifeforms to us.
The goalposts they have been moved! (You asked for species first) Of course you won't see fish becoming amphibians over a human lifetime or even over the length of human civilization up to this point. That is well understood, and not to be expected.

Though there are these critters . . .

Mudskippers
Maybe in a million years or so they might become something "new" or maybe not.

But the amount of change required to become something you would call "new" is nebulous and the "new" is not obvious UNTIL the transitional forms connecting the "new" and "old" are extinct.

For example . . .







“We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

What Darwin Never Knew
   
Reply With Quote
  (#105) Old
The Barbarian The Barbarian is offline
TOL Legend
 The Barbarian's Avatar

 


Reputation:
The Barbarian is well respected by his peers
The Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peers
November 24th, 2011, 01:16 PM

Barbarian chuckles:
Not understanding what evolutionary theory is about. So you concocted that strawman about "suckling at teets" to cover.

Quote:
You have gathered that I have evolutionary theory completely wrong because I stated a simple truth. You tried to reverse it by quoting the last paragraph of Darwin's book after he concocted some loophole for his faith to withstand an appeasing statement for evolution after the fact of Lyell's findings.
Darwin is, after all, the final authority on what he meant. Sorry.

Quote:
Darwin is a pioneer, not the crux of ToE, and I know precisely what his original theory was. You are simply being outrageous.
I see your denial, but what you wrote about it is more persuasive. You don't get it.

Barbarian observes:
In fact, as you learned, Darwin pointed out to Kelvin that his estimate of the Earth's age had to be wrong, because 10 million years or so wasn't enough time. Darwin was right.

Quote:
Darwin ha snot been shown to be right,
Rutherford demonstrated that he was, and Kelvin eventually conceded that Darwin was right.

Quote:
because common descent has not been shown to be right.
If you think so, you're ignoring a great deal of evidence.

Quote:
That is simply just the passion and optimism of vain pro-evolutionists such as yourself. When it actually comes to putting it on the table, one can point out many problems in which you and others simply cry about it and say we don't understand it.
Now's the time to bring it out for us. We can take a look at your "problems" with the evidence.

(Sum claims to have a large vocabulary)
Quote:

Barbarian observes:
How nice for you. But a big vocabulary is better for catching than pitching.

Quote:
Maybe you should brush up on your catching.
I showed you what "pervasive" means. That should count for something.

Quote:
And the fact that you try to insult someone on their vocabulary so often speaks volumes about you.
Words mean things. It matters if you don't use them for their customary meaning.

Quote:
Just like the typical pro-evo, you lack humility in debate.
You'd do better here, if you could put together a cogent argument, instead of complaining about the evil Barbarian.

Barbarian, regarding ignorance:
Doesn't have to be. Spend a little time learning about it. It's not that hard, just a little time-consuming. Better than letting it raise your blood pressure.

Quote:
There goes another straw man.
I don't think you know what that term means.





God bless us, every one.
"Or, the less the supportive data and the more declaration the greater the likelihood of horsefeathers." -TH
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
flood, noguru is gay, stripe is a moron, stripe is gay


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright ©1997-2014 TheologyOnLine



Logos Bible Study Software Up to 15% OFF FOR THEOLOGYONLINE MEMBERS! Study twice, post once.
Logos Bible Software —take your Bible study to the next level.