Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
alwight
New member
The reason I had no recollection of typing the quote that you attributed to me was because I didn't and you have misattributed it to me, please correct it. :AMR:
gcthomas
New member
6days
New member
6Days writes:
Barbarian considers:
Hmm... historically, the first experimental science we know about was by Democritus of Abdera, who used experiments to show that air was matter, and to infer the existence of atoms. Eiseley's assumuption that deism is the foundation of science, is clearly contradicted by the evidence.
Scripture doesn't say anything about the foundations of science. You've just tacked that onto the Bible on your own. But truth is its own justification. If your view depends on rejecting the truth, isn't that a clue for you?
And why are you touting the obviously wrong opinion of someone who thinks science is the result of people who thought God created things, and then walked away from it all?
Barbarian considers:
Hmm... historically, the first experimental science we know about was by Democritus of Abdera, who used experiments to show that air was matter, and to infer the existence of atoms. Eiseley's assumuption that deism is the foundation of science, is clearly contradicted by the evidence.
Scripture doesn't say anything about the foundations of science. You've just tacked that onto the Bible on your own. But truth is its own justification. If your view depends on rejecting the truth, isn't that a clue for you?
And why are you touting the obviously wrong opinion of someone who thinks science is the result of people who thought God created things, and then walked away from it all?
6days
New member
Barbarian said:
Oh my.... you always seem so desperate trying to discredit anybody who says something even remotely supporting scripture and science. * *
Barbarian said:
You have a problem with honesty Barbarian...it is not your friend.*
Barbarian said:
Simple...*Evolutionary anthropologist, Loren Eiseley is a hostile witness. He is no friend of Biblical creation /Christianity yet is honest enough to say that "science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption".*
Shall we now call some friendly witnesses to the stand?
6Days writes:
Barbarian observes:
Scripture doesn't say anything about the foundations of science. You've just tacked that onto the Bible on your own.
You tried to change scripture. And I pointed it out. What I said was true. And yes, I showed you that Eseley was wrong about the origins of science.
Democritus was not a deist, and not really a theist, either. And if you can find an earlier example of scientific inquiry using experiment, by a theist, I would like to see it. But that would require some honesty, wouldn't it?
Barbarian asks:
And why are you touting the obviously wrong opinion of someone who thinks science is the result of people who thought God created things, and then walked away from it all?
No. The man spent his life searching and never found it. But he admitted:
I am treading deeper and deeper into leaves and silence. I see more faces watching, non-human faces. Ironically, I who profess no religion find the whole of my life a religious pilgrimage.
The religious forms of the present leave me unmoved. My eye is round, open, and undomesticated as an owl’s in a primeval forest -- a world that for me has never truly departed.
I have come to believe that in the world there is nothing to explain the world.
Like the toad in my shirt we were in the hands of God, but we could not feel him; he was beyond us. totally and terribly beyond our limited- senses.
Man is not as other creatures and. . . without the sense of the holy, without compassion, his brain can become a gray stalking horror -- the deviser of Belsen [from All the Strange Hours and The Star Thrower, by Loren Eiseley].
He found those invisible things, clearly seen, that Paul told us about. But he never found out Who it was.
I hope God in His mercy kept him in spite of his invincible ignorance.
He's talking about uniformitarianism. The notion that the rules have always been the same. But it's not a religious faith, of the sort he was evincing the the above passage.
If you don't know your friends, how will you know your enemies?
Barbarian observes:
Scripture doesn't say anything about the foundations of science. You've just tacked that onto the Bible on your own.
You tried to change scripture. And I pointed it out. What I said was true. And yes, I showed you that Eseley was wrong about the origins of science.
Democritus was not a deist, and not really a theist, either. And if you can find an earlier example of scientific inquiry using experiment, by a theist, I would like to see it. But that would require some honesty, wouldn't it?
Barbarian asks:
And why are you touting the obviously wrong opinion of someone who thinks science is the result of people who thought God created things, and then walked away from it all?
No. The man spent his life searching and never found it. But he admitted:
I am treading deeper and deeper into leaves and silence. I see more faces watching, non-human faces. Ironically, I who profess no religion find the whole of my life a religious pilgrimage.
The religious forms of the present leave me unmoved. My eye is round, open, and undomesticated as an owl’s in a primeval forest -- a world that for me has never truly departed.
I have come to believe that in the world there is nothing to explain the world.
Like the toad in my shirt we were in the hands of God, but we could not feel him; he was beyond us. totally and terribly beyond our limited- senses.
Man is not as other creatures and. . . without the sense of the holy, without compassion, his brain can become a gray stalking horror -- the deviser of Belsen [from All the Strange Hours and The Star Thrower, by Loren Eiseley].
He found those invisible things, clearly seen, that Paul told us about. But he never found out Who it was.
I hope God in His mercy kept him in spite of his invincible ignorance.
He's talking about uniformitarianism. The notion that the rules have always been the same. But it's not a religious faith, of the sort he was evincing the the above passage.
If you don't know your friends, how will you know your enemies?
6days
New member
You are dishonest. ....
noguru
Well-known member
Can you support that claim with evidence?
i've only been reading recent posts, is anyone saying that everything just happened ? i don't recall much mention of sciences in the Bible.
Well, it's not written as a Science book, but it contains many of the Basic Ideas in Science. Good and Evil, Positive and Negative forces. The Idea of Species/Kind. The Idea that the Universe/Heavens are Spreading out, and that time Passes at different Rates depending on your Point of Reference in the Universe; Which are all now Scientifically Observable.
Many of the First Scientists, or "Alchemists" looked to the Bible for many reasons; one was because they believed it held High Scientific Value. Which means that it had Values, and Information which is Observably True.
Six Days is Right.
=M=
Of Course!!! She Gets Dishonest with me all the Time, LOL!!!
She keeps claiming that Dogs have Speciated from Wolves, but no speciation has Occurred given Dogs and Wolves are the Same Exact Species.
Your Science is Old Barbie!!!
Even though he knows this; he keeps claiming the opposite.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Are...a:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=nts
That's about Dishonest as Dishonest Gets; knowing the Truth, but constantly claiming the Opposite.
When Barbie!!! When will you Realize that Evolution isn't real, and you have been lied to your whole life; and you Believed It?
Barbie Proved that the Theory of Evolution isn't a Theory which can Explain Origin of Species; When Dave got her to admit that there are no Intermediate Fossils of Animals in the Fossil Record; Yet, Barbie Girl still Claims that Man Must have Evolved from a Chimp-Like Being in just 3 Million Years.
But then I'm all Like; "Hey barbie Doesn't this Animal (Bohlinia Giraffe "Fossils Found Said to be Over 10 Million years Old"):
Look just like this Animal? (Modern Living Giraffe)";
Barbie is all Like; "No!".
I would be more than willing to consider any more of your "beliefs" and "thoughts".
==================================
MUSIC!!!
Many of the First Scientists, or "Alchemists" looked to the Bible for many reasons; one was because they believed it held High Scientific Value. Which means that it had Values, and Information which is Observably True.
Six Days is Right.
=M=
JD said:
Of Course!!! She Gets Dishonest with me all the Time, LOL!!!
She keeps claiming that Dogs have Speciated from Wolves, but no speciation has Occurred given Dogs and Wolves are the Same Exact Species.
Your Science is Old Barbie!!!
Even though he knows this; he keeps claiming the opposite.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Are...a:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=nts
That's about Dishonest as Dishonest Gets; knowing the Truth, but constantly claiming the Opposite.
When Barbie!!! When will you Realize that Evolution isn't real, and you have been lied to your whole life; and you Believed It?
Barbie Proved that the Theory of Evolution isn't a Theory which can Explain Origin of Species; When Dave got her to admit that there are no Intermediate Fossils of Animals in the Fossil Record; Yet, Barbie Girl still Claims that Man Must have Evolved from a Chimp-Like Being in just 3 Million Years.
But then I'm all Like; "Hey barbie Doesn't this Animal (Bohlinia Giraffe "Fossils Found Said to be Over 10 Million years Old"):
Look just like this Animal? (Modern Living Giraffe)";
Barbie is all Like; "No!".
I would be more than willing to consider any more of your "beliefs" and "thoughts".
==================================
MUSIC!!!
| All Along The Watch Tower - Jimi (Dark Soul's Destruction) | |
Last edited:
Patrick Jane said:
Any atheist Here, believes that it Happened by Random Chance; Probably by an Additional Belief in a Multi-Universe Theory known as the String Theory.
A theory which is not based at all in Observed Science; Nobody knows there is another Universe than this one, it's never been observed; this is just an Atheist's Weak attempt to Explain Away a Fine-Tuned Universe, with Unobserved Nonsense.
=M=
Last edited:
Dear All Atheists and noguru,
No matter how you twist and turn, there is really a God! 6days is not alone without help. Neither is Mark. You all just like to gang up on MarkS and 6days for fun. There's a blue sky here. There's a red sky on Mars. No one has seen Venus. Do you think we've gone far enough yet to say there is no God?? Oh, how the proud have fallen in the past. I know you will believe there is a God when Jesus Returns. I know it's very soon. But I can't tell you EXACTLY WHEN, because no one is suppose to know except God. Even the Lord Jesus, God's Son, does not know yet. It is God's Trump Card and so is the identity of the second prophet/witness. Do you know how you will know when it's time for Jesus to Return again?? You will hear of a great earthquake, greater than any since man has been on earth. That's how you will know. You should hear about it unless the earthquake damages all news stations or channels, or antennae for the news to reach you. Wouldn't that be ironic?? Well, I have left you all I can for now. You are a hard crowd to please and some of you are being downright ridiculous and severely stubborn. That's not going to help a lot when you face Jesus. He's going to look at you and say, "Go from me. I never knew you." But if that's what you want, then have at it, the whole lot of you, MarkS, 6days, and patrick jane excluded. Have all of the fun and frolic that you long for and think is cute and fun. See Rev. 16:18, "and there was a Great earthquake, such as not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake and so great."
What An Extreme Shame That Man Has A Mind Like These!!
Michael
No matter how you twist and turn, there is really a God! 6days is not alone without help. Neither is Mark. You all just like to gang up on MarkS and 6days for fun. There's a blue sky here. There's a red sky on Mars. No one has seen Venus. Do you think we've gone far enough yet to say there is no God?? Oh, how the proud have fallen in the past. I know you will believe there is a God when Jesus Returns. I know it's very soon. But I can't tell you EXACTLY WHEN, because no one is suppose to know except God. Even the Lord Jesus, God's Son, does not know yet. It is God's Trump Card and so is the identity of the second prophet/witness. Do you know how you will know when it's time for Jesus to Return again?? You will hear of a great earthquake, greater than any since man has been on earth. That's how you will know. You should hear about it unless the earthquake damages all news stations or channels, or antennae for the news to reach you. Wouldn't that be ironic?? Well, I have left you all I can for now. You are a hard crowd to please and some of you are being downright ridiculous and severely stubborn. That's not going to help a lot when you face Jesus. He's going to look at you and say, "Go from me. I never knew you." But if that's what you want, then have at it, the whole lot of you, MarkS, 6days, and patrick jane excluded. Have all of the fun and frolic that you long for and think is cute and fun. See Rev. 16:18, "and there was a Great earthquake, such as not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake and so great."
What An Extreme Shame That Man Has A Mind Like These!!
Michael
Dear Stuart,
How do you feel about what I've said in my last post?? You're always honest with me. It's been quite a while. Are you banned forever? I miss ya' but been SUPER BUSY, to say the least!! Write me and let me know how you are doing, if you're so inclined. If not, I will understand. I am sent to the believers, but also more-so, the non-believers. Doesn't that sound logical??
Warmest Regards!!
Michael
How do you feel about what I've said in my last post?? You're always honest with me. It's been quite a while. Are you banned forever? I miss ya' but been SUPER BUSY, to say the least!! Write me and let me know how you are doing, if you're so inclined. If not, I will understand. I am sent to the believers, but also more-so, the non-believers. Doesn't that sound logical??
Warmest Regards!!
Michael
noguru
Well-known member
The irony is just too much sometimes. You accuse others of ganging up for fun, yet you are in a deep state of denial regarding evidence. Yes, when people are wrong there will be others that try to point that out. If you want to call that "ganging up", then you can also call the prosecution "ganging up" when they prosecute a crime. We are not fools Michael. And yes your credibility along with your cohorts is certainly an issue. You folks have no credibility. Both factors here are the key to the reason why people such as you gather on sites like this to urinate and moan about the current state of science. If you guys had such a good case against the mechanisms of genetic variation and reproductive advantage leading to biodiversity from common ancestry then you would be changing science, and not moaning about "mistreatment" here.
Also Michael, I am not saying "There is not a God" simply because I accept the evidence for the natural mechanism which bring about biodiversity. This is another distorted reality that has been smashed into your feeble little mind by your creationist overlords. And as many time as I correct you on that, you continue to repeat the error.
Originally Posted by DFT_Dave View Post
So that would mean that any group is made up of those with a mutated advantage and those who don't. Right?
And if that be so then why would any generation not have a mix of mutants with various traits?
So that would mean that any group is made up of those with a mutated advantage and those who don't. Right?
And if that be so then why would any generation not have a mix of mutants with various traits?
Not all individuals in a species acquire the same mutation at the same time and therefore not all in a group can develop a new characteristic at the same time. So saying evolution effects species but not individual members of a species is nonsense.
There are individuals in species today that acquire mutations that do not effect all the members. So, why should we believe that in the past it was any different?
--Dave
Dear noguru,
No one is calling you a fool. You just like to surmise that because you think it will help you make a point. We creationists know a lot more than you give us credit for. Frankly, I think you are full of misnomers, among other things. There is no distorted reality smashed into my 'feeble little mind' (your belittling). Our credibility comes from the Bible, the greatest book and bestseller ever written. Don't you know anything?? You sure don't seem like a Christian to me. Do you really know what being a Christian is all about?? It isn't someone who goes around speaking against the Biblical Account of the Creation!
Michael
6days
New member
MichaelCadry said:
Thanks Michael... but most atheists on TOL are great. Alwight and gcthomas do a awesome job of defending their beliefs. We don't agree with them but I appreciate them (usually) * *ToL wouldn't be very interesting if we didn't have people who challenge our beliefs.*
They all have mutations. So the mix is those with advantageous genes, those with harmful genes, and those with largely neutral ones.
How could it be otherwise?
Right. So a favorable mutation usually takes several generations to become fixed (if it becomes fixed at all) in a population. "Fixation" is when the allele is found in all individuals in a population.
Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time. It happens to populations, but of course not to individuals, which don't change their alleles.
It didn't have to be different. Sometimes an allele becomes fixed. Most often, there is a balance of alleles, often variations on a previously fixed allele that underwent mutation. Most often, such mutations don't affect fitness at all. Sometimes they are harmful and tend to be removed by natural selection. Sometimes they are advantageous and tend to increase as less fit organisms are removed from the gene pool.
It's not that hard to understand.
BTW, you were going to show us two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, that don't have any transitional forms between them. Do you think you'll be able to do that anytime soon?
6Days writes:
Barbarian observes:
Scripture doesn't say anything about the foundations of science. You've just tacked that onto the Bible
What I wrote is true, and you know it. Shame on you.
Barbarian observes:
Scripture doesn't say anything about the foundations of science. You've just tacked that onto the Bible
What I wrote is true, and you know it. Shame on you.
- Status