Evolution? How?

"You seem smarter than that."

Well appearances can be deceptive

0 Replies

Biliskner wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
With god all miracles are possible; that's the underlying argument for everything in the bible.

For a True Believer, it's even more extreme than this, because not only is God omnipotent and omniscient, but he is also granted the flexibility of motive beyond our understanding ("God works in mysterious ways"), and in so doing is given the freedom of illogical and irrational (to us) action.

damn. i had high hopes for people such as Hobbs, Boyle, Descarte, Newton, Leibeniz, Bacon, Faraday, Maxwell, Kepler, Pascal but i guess they were poo-ed in the head and mad with rabies too 'cos they believed in God... damn it, all of a sudden i feel so cold.

Hail Hitle... I mean, Hail Darwinism, and Evolution too.

Belief in God and being a "True Believer" are not necessarily the same thing. True Believers follow their beliefs to the exclusion of reality. Obviously, some people have found a way to make their vision of God fit into reality, and others haven't.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

"You seem smarter than that."

Well appearances can be deceptive

He's able to type on a computer, and construct a sentence. Yet it should take less skill than that to realize how empty his argument is. So I assume his argument is disingenuous hyperbole.

0 Replies

Bili wrote:

Quote:

the author IS saying that it requires a minimum of 128 days growth of plants to witness the amount of coal reserves we see today. nothing more, nothing less. so what's your question?

The author said 128 YEARS.. not days. 128 YEARS of growth did not exist on the single day that the flood would have occurred. That is my question of the logic. The previous 127 years of growth would not be there on that day for the entire world. Only perenials that live to be 128 or more would still be alive. The author argues that that coal was not created over millions of years but caused by the catastrophe of the flood.

Humans are not annual plants. So your comparison to human life expectency makes no sense. Grasses that annually die off after producing seeds don't suddenly survive for 128 years. Those plants die and decay. We know from the "literal" story of the flood that there were animals that would have eaten some of those plants each year hence the number of years needed is more.

You ridicule my question of how long the flood lasted? Interesting technique on your part. I point out that the site you claim proves you right is in CONTRADICTION to the bible version of the story. Either you believe the story of the flood is literal in the bible or not. If you do then any argument that makes the flood last 1 year can not be correct if the bible is the only true version.

Quote:

those guys that made the pyramids took it as compensation for building the pyramids.

So much for your requirement of "empirical science."

0 Replies

Quote:

Evolution is a religion, one that cannot be questioned and academia seems to take a very unintellectual stance regarding any scrutiny or rejection of the theory.

If evolution can not be questioned then why has the theory changed over the years?

Now you are arguing the direct opposite of other creationists here.

1.) Evolution isn't correct because it does change.
2.) Evolution isn't correct because it has changed.

Some people need to learn what science is all about. I'll be damned if I am going to let those people teach my children. A guaranteed way to make the US a 3rd world country. Its amazing how many luddites think it is OK to use a computer.

0 Replies

"Evolution is a religion, one that cannot be questioned and academia seems to take a very unintellectual stance regarding any scrutiny or rejection of the theory."

I don't know who said this, but I can guess.

Lets just pull it to bits

"Evolution is a religion..."

Really? What like Darwin had a vision from God and decided to write it all down and call it Origin of Species? No sorry, evolution is not a religion.

"that cannot be questioned"

this is patently untrue as well. Creatonists do nothing else.

"academia take(s) a very unintellectual stance..."

Thats the first accusation I've ever heard of academics not being intellectual or academic enough. Normally lay people are the first to criticise academics for being obsessed with their own intellects and academic pursuits.

"regarding any rejection or scrutiny of the theory"

but at the beginning of the sentence you said evolution was a religion. Evolution cannot be a religion and a theory at the same time. This is not quantum mechanics. Evolution is a theory. That is true. Even you would agree its actually called the Theory of Evolution, or evolutionary theory. But you say its not scrutinised properly. That is not true either. Its because it has been scrutinised many times and in detail and still stands 150+ years after it was first formulated that gives evolutionary theory its extraordinary weight and status. It is not a religion nor is it treated as an article of faith by scientists.

0 Replies

Once upon a time, there was a god named Moxie. He sayeth, I created the heavens and the earth in 30 days. To ensure that people in the future not confuse what I mean by 30 days, I am stating here and now that 30 days is the common, accepted, 24 hour days. As god, I am restricting man to create other gods or worship them. If they do, their penalty is death. It is not required that family and friends stone them to death, because when they die, I will send them to hell. I will call this book the "noitcif," and it is the literal word of me, god. I also command that you convert everybody in this world to my religion. If they believe otherwise, the penalty is death. Amen.

0 Replies

And Moxie said unto Moses, your lot are special, don't take any sh1t from the Canaanites. Later he spoke to Jesus, and Jesus said "I am the way", and his lot used that to persecute the Jews and the Canaanites if there were any left. Then Moxie said to Mohammed, "I'm giving you my final perfect and unalterable word", which Mohammed used as justification to persecute Jews Christians Canaanites and anyone else he regarded as an infidel. Finally after many years of inter-religious strife it began to dawn on people that either Moxie had a particularly strange sense of humour, or Moses Jesus and Mohammed actually had no better idea about what Moxie was like than anyone else.

0 Replies

And they lived in wars ever after...

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
Evolution is a religion, one that cannot be questioned and academia seems to take a very unintellectual stance regarding any scrutiny or rejection of the theory.

If evolution can not be questioned then why has the theory changed over the years?

Now you are arguing the direct opposite of other creationists here.

1.) Evolution isn't correct because it does change.
2.) Evolution isn't correct because it has changed.

Some people need to learn what science is all about. I'll be damned if I am going to let those people teach my children. A guaranteed way to make the US a 3rd world country. Its amazing how many luddites think it is OK to use a computer.

Pardon me for the lack of clarity. When I said evolution cannot be questioned, I meant the premise of the theory that we evolved. The fact that the theory has undergone minute changes in structure, has not changed its premise. One can very well interpret that to mean that evolutionists have constantly tried to change the theory to hold fast to an immutable theory. What is it about science that I don't understand? Why call something fact when it is a theory? Why teach something as having had happened when there is no way of verification?

0 Replies

If they can't verify, it's not a theory.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Really? What like Darwin had a vision from God and decided to write it all down and call it Origin of Species? No sorry, evolution is not a religion.

One of the definitions of "religion" by Merriam-Webster

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Religion does not necessarily have to imply bold superstitious claims. In the case of evolution it uses different criteria and methods. However, what it has in common with other religions is the zeal and faith of its followers.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Thats the first accusation I've ever heard of academics not being intellectual or academic enough. Normally lay people are the first to criticise academics for being obsessed with their own intellects and academic pursuits.

Which explains why no one in the scientific establishment can question evolution without being smeared or verbally ostracised in some way.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

but at the beginning of the sentence you said evolution was a religion. Evolution cannot be a religion and a theory at the same time.

For purposes of the discussion I claimed evolution is a religion as an opinion based on what I have observed. That does not mean I must deny its status in academia.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

This is not quantum mechanics. Evolution is a theory. That is true. Even you would agree its actually called the Theory of Evolution, or evolutionary theory. But you say its not scrutinised properly. That is not true either. Its because it has been scrutinised many times and in detail and still stands 150+ years after it was first formulated that gives evolutionary theory its extraordinary weight and status. It is not a religion nor is it treated as an article of faith by scientists.

To get an idea of the religious character of evolution observe this quote by Teilhard de Chardin: "Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more - it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforth bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow - this is what evolution is"

Evolution is, in short, the God we must worship, or rather "bow" in his own words. Can things get any more religious, faithful, and dogmatic than that?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

If they can't verify, it's not a theory.

So now the theory of evolution is not actually a theory?

0 Replies

It's because you are blind to science and scientific findings.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's because you are blind to science and scientific findings.

Once you get personal, you lose.

0 Replies

Says you. LOL

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Says you. LOL

0 Replies

Evolution is, in short, the God we must worship, or rather "bow" in his own words. Can things get any more religious, faithful, and dogmatic than that?

Probably not, especially for someone who wrote

"Christ is realized in evolution."

0 Replies

Anon, Tell us what you believe or don't believe about science and scientific findings? We already know what you believe about religion.

0 Replies

Quote:

As far as the Gazelles... well they are still Gazelles. Seems that is adaptation. When a Gazelle gives birth to a cheetah (a much faster critter) then I will believe in evolution. The slow Gazelles (Gazelles with "slow genes") will eventually get culled. The Gazelles with the "fast genes" keep getting their lineage stronger. This is survival of the fittest and has nothing to do with evolution this is more along the lines of adaption. When a bird lays an egg and out hatches something other than a bird then I will believe in evolution. Let me see it...and not some scientific genetically modified creature...let nature do it on it's own. As far as scientific observation...what have scientists actually observed happening in their lifetimes. Mammals give birth to Mammals each to it's own kind. Humans birth humans, Equine birth equine etc. Fish birth fish to their own kind... Goldfish are still goldfish, Sharks are still sharks etc. I could go on but you know what I mean. 2 cents Way back on page 11 or 12 I stated that scientists need to use their termonology correctly. There is a BIG difference between adaptation, mutation and evolution. Know the difference and make sure you use it correctly please (and thank you)

Well that's not how it works... I explained it before but you may have been gone anyways here goes:
The mutations which fuel evolution are not detrimental for the organism in its environment. Let's say we have a (for example) chicken (random example) in an area that suffers a prolonged but subtle drought (not no-water-for-30year thing). There is another group of chickens of the same species ina lovely paradise with everything. However the drought chickens are having trouble. They can' get as much water. One slight mutation is one chicken needs less water to survive. So it AND ITS OFFSPRING are now more fit to survive in THIS environment. Over long time the normal chickens disappear and these (same species) chickens with the drought tolerance are still there.
Then a couple chickens are born with, say smaller bodies, that require less nourishment. These chickens are more adapt to survive and soon they become the chicken norm. Then a mutation for needing more water develops but he doesnt survive long. Evolution doesnt involve him in this environment. But then another mutation arise and antoher. Soon these drought chickens are way different from normal chicken; smaller size, beaks, needing less water, more camoflaged, maybe even better flight. These chickens cant even BREED with the old chickens and produce fertile offspring they are so different. And so a new species is born.

0 Replies

Evolution? How?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know