Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Well, no. That's exactly what young earth creationists posit, that the earth is no older than ten thousand years old. That isn't bias on my part, it's mere observation.
    You still cannot even understand what I'm talking about.

    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Well, again, no. I reject man made doctrine that insists on a rigidly literal reading of an account that has so much poetic and symbolic narrative to it. Of course you're going to reject anything that counters a young earth which is why you have such a hang up with so much in science. You're not in a position to call anything fake in science frankly.
    You believe that the entire Bible is a fairy story.

    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Well...again, no. Popularity doesn't have anything to do with it and you're once again just showing ignorance of how the scientific method works and how such theories come into being.
    Please tell me what empirical observations led to the unscientific method of radiometric dating of rocks.

    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    There's no popularity contest going on. If the evidence pointed to a young earth then science would reflect that. It doesn't.
    Time and again you try to confirm your old earth by telling us about how popular the idea is. You never discuss actual science.

    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    The only reason you have such an issue with it is because a young earth seems to be a crucial aspect of your faith. It doesn't need to be as there's plenty of Christians who have no disconnect with science and belief but as long as you put such emphasis on that then you'll disregard anything that contradicts it.
    So, once AGAIN, "there are plenty of Christians".... popularity does NOT determine truth.

    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    You've dismissed Alate's detailed examples and direct answers to you as it is so be honest. You won't listen to anything will you?
    Sure I will. Alate's "facts" are just like yours.

    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Of course I understand it, along with associated methods, all explained in the links I provided you and else. But it doesn't say what you want to hear so you write it off regardless.
    Always back to the "links". I read it and showed YOU that even that article admits that the method is based entirely on assumptions. You cannot date rocks based entirely on assumptions, but you believe it anyway.
    All of my ancestors are human.
    Originally posted by Squeaky
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Originally posted by God's Truth
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
      You still cannot even understand what I'm talking about.
      You might want to try following how the conversation has gone. You accused me of bias, which in answer to your previous post was simply pointing out how young earth creationism works. Conclusion based on a religious belief first, anything that doesn't fit in with rigid belief dismissed, the complete opposite of how the scientific method actually works. Hey, we all have biases to a certain degree so I won't deny it. I have an aversion to religious dogmatism for starters...

      You believe that the entire Bible is a fairy story.
      Why? Because I'm not a hardline fundamentalist? Otherwise, that was pretty childish of you.

      Please tell me what empirical observations led to the unscientific method of radiometric dating of rocks.
      You can read all about it yourself, along with all of the methods as linked to in this thread and as explained by Alate. You can then claim that they're all just bunk and that it's "non science"!

      Time and again you try to confirm your old earth by telling us about how popular the idea is. You never discuss actual science.
      No, I don't. I've pointed out that popularity doesn't hold sway in science. Either the evidence holds up or it doesn't. Pointing out that many Christians have no issue with science is not the same thing either. Do you think that the discovery of the DNA double helix came about by a vote?

      So, once AGAIN, "there are plenty of Christians".... popularity does NOT determine truth.
      See above.

      Sure I will. Alate's "facts" are just like yours.
      Then refute them. She is an assistant professor of biology as I recall and her knowledge in biology extends far beyond most people's on this forum and that certainly includes mine as well. Barbarian is an obvious exception but you don't listen to anything that conflicts with your dogmatic belief system, else why the problem? All I've seen you do when Alate has taken the effort to explain things to you is a juvenile dismissal and a stupid smiley or something. Why is that?

      Always back to the "links". I read it and showed YOU that even that article admits that the method is based entirely on assumptions. You cannot date rocks based entirely on assumptions, but you believe it anyway.
      You didn't show any such thing and you were ridiculously simplistic. It's almost laughable.
      Well this is fun isn't it?

      Comment


      • That vague and malleable term...
        "A change in allele frequency in a population over time." Seems pretty specific to me. But then, I actually know what I'm talking about, so that might be the problem for creationists.

        ever changing
        It has changed. Darwin's definition was "descent with modification." After the rediscovery of genetics, it became more precise. "Change in allele frequency in a population over time." The new one is also "descent with modification, just in greater detail. Darwin's term is still true and valid.

        to make sure that the "theory" cannot be falsified.
        As Haldane noted, a fossil of a bunny in undisturbed Cambrian deposits would do that nicely. So would many other things. Would you like to learn about some of them?

        The majority of those that call themselves "evolutionists" believe that a SINGLE LIVING THING came into being and that all life is a descendant of that wondrous creature.
        Haven't taken a poll. Darwin just thought that God made the first living things. It doesn't matter, because the origin of life, as you now realize, is not part of evolutionary theory. If God just poofed the first things in to existence, instead of having the Earth produce them as He says in Genesis, it would be of no consequence at all to evolutionary theory.

        "Evolution" cannot begin until there is life
        Yep. Darwin thought God did it. Some think it might be a "space alien" (some IDers) and so on. Evolutionary theory just assumes life began, and describes how it changes.

        Nice try, but it's what we used to call a PRATT. (Point Refuted A Thousand Times)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
          "A change in allele frequency in a population over time." Seems pretty specific to me. But then, I actually know what I'm talking about, so that might be the problem for creationists.
          Your arrogance seems to know no bounds.

          Please help us understand changes that do not occur "over time".

          Thanks
          All of my ancestors are human.
          Originally posted by Squeaky
          That explains why your an idiot.
          Originally posted by God's Truth
          Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
          Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
          (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

          1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
          (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

          Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
            I actually know what I'm talking about













            Which must be why you persistently whine and cry and stonewall against questions that you've been asked, repeatedly, such as,
            • Of what is evolution the cause?
            • To what are you referring by your phrase, "life itself", when you say "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life itself"?
            • What is the goldfish population of a fishbowl in which one, and only one, goldfish lives?


            and oh so many more questions, in this very thread, that you've never answered.

            I'll grant you that you probably pretty well know what you're talking about when it comes to your passion for Pokemon collecting. I wouldn't want to take that from you, and, frankly, you can keep it to yourself. But, as far as the questions you've been asked in this thread are concerned, you've failed dismally, consistently.

            Think about that: you can't even answer a question as elementary as, "What is the goldfish population of a fishbowl in which one, and only one, goldfish lives?"

            Of course, your inability to answer that question isn't caused by sheer stupidity. Rather, it's out of calculation. Tactically (though in futility), as a Darwin cheerleader, you are committed to stonewalling against it. See, you are committed to not saying that one individual can constitute a population, because, were you to admit such an elementary truth as that, then what's to become of Darwinism's idiotic slogan, "Individuals don't evolve; populations evolve"??? That's right: You'd walk yourself right into the unenviable position of being asked, "Well, since an individual goldfish can constitute a population, then, does that goldfish--that individual/population--evolve, or not?"

            See, you lose, either way. Answer the question, you lose. Stonewall against the question, you lose.
            All my ancestors are human.
            PS: All your ancestors are human.
            PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
              Science deals in evidence.
              You haven't the foggiest notion why you would, or should, call one thing "evidence", and why you would, or should, call another thing "not evidence". You will fail as miserably in regard to questions about the nature of evidence as you have failed in regard to all the other questions you've been asked.

              If you fail--as you shall--regarding a question as elementary as what constitutes evidence, then you are necessarily a poser whenever you try to impress people with your pretended command of the word, "science", or of the phrase, "scientific method". Every Darwinist, without exception, is a cookie-cutter poser with absolutely no clue when it comes to epistemology.
              All my ancestors are human.
              PS: All your ancestors are human.
              PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                You haven't the foggiest notion why you would, or should, call one thing "evidence", and why you would, or should, call another thing "not evidence". You will fail as miserably in regard to questions about the nature of evidence as you have failed in regard to all the other questions you've been asked.

                If you fail--as you shall--regarding a question as elementary as what constitutes evidence, then you are necessarily a poser whenever you try to impress people with your pretended command of the word, "science", or of the phrase, "scientific method". Every Darwinist, without exception, is a cookie-cutter poser with absolutely no clue when it comes to epistemology.
                Well, I'm not a "Darwinist" as much as some folk like to toss the term around anyway so the rest is pretty much moot. If you wish to describe every scientist around the world as a "cookie cutter poser" then you're missing the point that the theory(ies) that you have such a hang up with came about because of the evidence, not the other way around. Such evidence has been supplied time and again and you could even do your own research if it hadn't but it has. Of course, it doesn't fit in with your apparently unshakable conviction that the earth has to be young so...no!

                As it is, your calling other people posers is incredibly ironic.
                Well this is fun isn't it?

                Comment


                • Guys, sorry that I've only read the OP and the first few replies, but as I discussed when I had the honor of speaking on the Pepperdine University campus...



                  ...Darwinians take manipulative advantage of the "number" of the word species, that it is both singular and plural. They thereby trick millions of people who hardly pay attention into thinking that the evolutionists can explain life apart from a Creator. Then, when you call them on what they deceptively lead the public to assume, they mock you for being ignorant.

                  In Christ,

                  - Bob Enyart
                  The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bob Enyart View Post
                    ...Darwinians take manipulative advantage of the "number" of the word species, that it is both singular and plural.
                    Yes!

                    That's definitely part of the intentionally murky language game they've built for themselves over the decades.

                    Also, they say things like "Wolves evolved into dogs", but then, when you confront them, trying to find out if they even mean anything by such a saying, and you ask, "Well, then, what is it for a wolf to evolve into a dog?", they get irate. So, somehow
                    • "Wolves (plural) evolved into dogs (plural)" = good thing to say
                    • "A wolf (singular) evolved into a dog (singular)" = bad thing to say


                    How can wolves have "evolved into" dogs, without at least one wolf having "evolved into" at least one dog?

                    Their reaction: "Oh, well we don't mean wolves by the word "wolves"--we mean a population of wolves!"

                    Darwinists are not at all fans of being drilled about their own use of their own most commonly cherished, and parroted, slogans--words like "evolve" and "evolution". I mean, shouldn't it be considered elementary for them to need to be able to stand up to such drilling? But they don't stand up to it: they can't. They fall--and that by their own device, under the weight of their own, pompous, incoherence and nonsense--every single time. I ask them what (if anything) it is supposed to be for something to "evolve into" something, and I get nothing but self-righteous pretense of indignance from them, and unbroken stonewalling against my questions.

                    Thanks, Bob, for dropping by this thread!

                    God bless!
                    All my ancestors are human.
                    PS: All your ancestors are human.
                    PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                    Comment


                    • So, scientists around the world are "cookie-cutter posers" then. Every single one that doesn't deny evolution, a young earth or universe at least it would seem. All of the intricacy and in depth testing and scrutiny, not to mention continual and peer review process counts for nought.

                      Oh, well...
                      Well this is fun isn't it?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X