Total Posts:591|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution debate in a nut shell.

Bennett91
Posts: 4,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 11:14:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.smbc-comics.com...

Any thoughts? I think it's spot on. This of course does not mean religion and evolution are mutually exclusive, the Catholic church being a great example. But I'm curious, especially from theists, why they are so afraid of evolution. It doesn't even disprove the possibility of a god, just those that claim God made everything as it is now 6000 years ago.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 11:26:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 11:14:44 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
http://www.smbc-comics.com...

Any thoughts? I think it's spot on. This of course does not mean religion and evolution are mutually exclusive, the Catholic church being a great example. But I'm curious, especially from theists, why they are so afraid of evolution. It doesn't even disprove the possibility of a god, just those that claim God made everything as it is now 6000 years ago.

Hilarious! That is spot on.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:25:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 11:14:44 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
http://www.smbc-comics.com...

Any thoughts? I think it's spot on. This of course does not mean religion and evolution are mutually exclusive, the Catholic church being a great example. But I'm curious, especially from theists, why they are so afraid of evolution. It doesn't even disprove the possibility of a god, just those that claim God made everything as it is now 6000 years ago.

Refusing to agree with biological evolution or anything else does not mean one is afraid of it. Disagreement does not mean fear. RELIGION and evolution are not mutually exclusive, but the history written in the Bible and evolution are. The Catholic Church regularly distances itself from those who take the Bible to be the actual final Word of God (many protestants) to maintain the authority of the organization in Rome. They favor the interpretation of the Bible as the final Word of God.*

*But only after the Catholic Church tells you what it means.

A plain reading of Genesis makes it clear that it claims to be an actual historical document with creation in 6 days about 6000 years ago. Whether or not you believe the Bible, it is plain the Catholic Church (and many others) are going against what the Bible says in this case, even if they follow it in others. If the Catholic Church is compatible with Evolution, the Catholic Church cannot be compatible with the Bible.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:45:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 2:25:07 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 10/27/2015 11:14:44 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
http://www.smbc-comics.com...

Any thoughts? I think it's spot on. This of course does not mean religion and evolution are mutually exclusive, the Catholic church being a great example. But I'm curious, especially from theists, why they are so afraid of evolution. It doesn't even disprove the possibility of a god, just those that claim God made everything as it is now 6000 years ago.

Refusing to agree with biological evolution or anything else does not mean one is afraid of it. Disagreement does not mean fear.

Ignorance is motivated by fear, at least when is comes to this topic. Many theists think evolution is the devil and being ignorant is the way God wants it. Fear of Hell and what not. Your disagreements are based on ignorance, if you honestly understood what evolution was saying you wouldn't disagree with it. All contentions are based on the Bible, not scientific rebuttal. Your book has no scientific or historical authority.

RELIGION and evolution are not mutually exclusive, but the history written in the Bible and evolution are. The Catholic Church regularly distances itself from those who take the Bible to be the actual final Word of God (many protestants) to maintain the authority of the organization in Rome. They favor the interpretation of the Bible as the final Word of God.*

The church has good reason to distance themselves from lunatics who interpret the Bible literally. Do you observe all of the laws in Leviticus?

*But only after the Catholic Church tells you what it means.

As oppose to your church telling you what the Bible means? lulz

A plain reading of Genesis makes it clear that it claims to be an actual historical document with creation in 6 days about 6000 years ago. Whether or not you believe the Bible, it is plain the Catholic Church (and many others) are going against what the Bible says in this case, even if they follow it in others. If the Catholic Church is compatible with Evolution, the Catholic Church cannot be compatible with the Bible.

You really fit the bill for the comic. Congrats on being a joke. Also the Pope would disagree. But what do you care? You choose to remain safe in your ignorant bubble.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:49:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 2:25:07 AM, Skynet wrote:


Want a dose of reality? Since you seem to believe the earth was created 6000 years ago want to know who actually came up with that theory? James Ussher, A CATHOLIC! hahahahaha
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 4:06:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 11:14:44 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
http://www.smbc-comics.com...

Any thoughts? I think it's spot on. This of course does not mean religion and evolution are mutually exclusive, the Catholic church being a great example. But I'm curious, especially from theists, why they are so afraid of evolution. It doesn't even disprove the possibility of a god, just those that claim God made everything as it is now 6000 years ago.

Funny!
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 4:15:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 2:49:38 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/28/2015 2:25:07 AM, Skynet wrote:


Want a dose of reality? Since you seem to believe the earth was created 6000 years ago want to know who actually came up with that theory? James Ussher, A CATHOLIC! hahahahaha

The thought that the Earth us 6000-10000years old is refuted by so many different evidences it is only through severe ignorance, or severe willful ignorance, that such a belief can be held.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Evidence
Posts: 845
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 6:15:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 11:14:44 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
http://www.smbc-comics.com...

Any thoughts? I think it's spot on. This of course does not mean religion and evolution are mutually exclusive, the Catholic church being a great example. But I'm curious, especially from theists, why they are so afraid of evolution. It doesn't even disprove the possibility of a god, just those that claim God made everything as it is now 6000 years ago. :

Bible study teacher: "So when Moses came to the fiery bush, God spoke through the Angel and said, .."
Student Dawkins: "Excuse me teacher?"
Teacher: "Yes of course Dawkins, by all meanswhat is it?"
Dawkins: "I don't believe in God, my atheist religion forbids me to even ask logical questions about Bible God."
Teacher: "But there is so much evidence of God, even just recently we have a scientist who defined Bible God, so how is it that your religion won't allow you to even ask reasonable and logical questions of Bible God?"
Dawkins: "Well teacher, my religion teaches that I must try my best to derail any talk of, especially evidence of God, that I must make fun of, degrade, and call anyone claiming and showing evidence of God stupid and ignorant!"
Teacher: "But that's not nice, besides the entire world believes in God in one form or another, why wo.. why wou... "
Dawkins: "Ah, ah, .. sorry, can't let you talk about no flying spaghetti monsters!"
Teacher: "But i wasn't even talking about flying spaghetti monsters, .. we were talking about G.. we were ... yes, now what?"
Dawkins: "You were going to say the 'G' word, it's against my religion to even hear that word! Now you may continue describing your flying spaghetti monster, go ahead!?"
Teacher: "AAarghh, I never said anything about any flying spaghetti, .. oh what's the use?"
Dawkins: "that's right, there is no use trying to convince anyone of the flying spaghetti monster, thank you."
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 6:20:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 6:15:25 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 10/27/2015 11:14:44 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
http://www.smbc-comics.com...

Any thoughts? I think it's spot on. This of course does not mean religion and evolution are mutually exclusive, the Catholic church being a great example. But I'm curious, especially from theists, why they are so afraid of evolution. It doesn't even disprove the possibility of a god, just those that claim God made everything as it is now 6000 years ago. :

Bible study teacher: "So when Moses came to the fiery bush, God spoke through the Angel and said, .."
Student Dawkins: "Excuse me teacher?"
Teacher: "Yes of course Dawkins, by all meanswhat is it?"
Dawkins: "I don't believe in God, my atheist religion forbids me to even ask logical questions about Bible God."
Teacher: "But there is so much evidence of God, even just recently we have a scientist who defined Bible God, so how is it that your religion won't allow you to even ask reasonable and logical questions of Bible God?"
Dawkins: "Well teacher, my religion teaches that I must try my best to derail any talk of, especially evidence of God, that I must make fun of, degrade, and call anyone claiming and showing evidence of God stupid and ignorant!"
Teacher: "But that's not nice, besides the entire world believes in God in one form or another, why wo.. why wou... "
Dawkins: "Ah, ah, .. sorry, can't let you talk about no flying spaghetti monsters!"
Teacher: "But i wasn't even talking about flying spaghetti monsters, .. we were talking about G.. we were ... yes, now what?"
Dawkins: "You were going to say the 'G' word, it's against my religion to even hear that word! Now you may continue describing your flying spaghetti monster, go ahead!?"
Teacher: "AAarghh, I never said anything about any flying spaghetti, .. oh what's the use?"
Dawkins: "that's right, there is no use trying to convince anyone of the flying spaghetti monster, thank you."
59 yrs of age and proudly displaying his gross ignorance for everyones enjoyment.
Go you good thing.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 7:33:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't buy the logic that since things adapt, life has common ancestry. There evidence of maximum variation in-kind and unaccounted leaps in new genetic information (Cambrian explosion). This was one of the points about current revolutions vs. past revolutions.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 8:38:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 7:33:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I don't buy the logic that since things adapt, life has common ancestry. There evidence of maximum variation in-kind and unaccounted leaps in new genetic information (Cambrian explosion). This was one of the points about current revolutions vs. past revolutions.

That's not how common ancestry was deduced.

Anyway, the most salient bit here is that, finally, you've come out and said you do not believe in evolution by natural selection as an explanatory mechanism for the variety of life.

I'm not surprised.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 8:42:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 11:14:44 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
http://www.smbc-comics.com...

Any thoughts? I think it's spot on. This of course does not mean religion and evolution are mutually exclusive, the Catholic church being a great example. But I'm curious, especially from theists, why they are so afraid of evolution. It doesn't even disprove the possibility of a god, just those that claim God made everything as it is now 6000 years ago.

It is just conceivable that the universe had some sort of intelligent designer. I bet if that was the case it was nothing like the one featured in the Bible, which seems to be a very human creation. The theory of evolution makes a lot of sense, whereas the creation story in the Bible doesn't. As for the YEC idiots who believe the world to be no more than 10, 000 years old at most, what planet are they on? There appears to be plenty of evidence which points to the earth being very old indeed.

When I was a young teenager, I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church, I was unfortunate enough to attend, where dinosaurs fitted into his young earth belief. The man said that the deity had put them there as a test of faith! My faith took a serious nose dive after that ludicrous statement!
Evidence
Posts: 845
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 9:10:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 6:20:38 AM, bulproof wrote:

59 yrs of age and proudly displaying his gross ignorance for everyones enjoyment.
Go you good thing. :

Age is time, .. what's time? I am free of time, I have been born again my friend, in the newness of my mind, and I can't wait to drop this head off my body for my Lord. Yes, I am Free, and being on death row as un-repented sinners are is not freedom.

https://www.youtube.com...

Ignorance? Hmm, .. but look who has this below his posts;

I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. :

.... said Hitler, Dahmer, Gacy, Anton LaVey, and all the Satanists/Evolutionists stroking their skull & bones collection on their tables:
I answer to no God
I have outgrown God, if it feels good,
I do it, and
I do it my way!

https://www.youtube.com...
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 10:25:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 9:10:25 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 10/28/2015 6:20:38 AM, bulproof wrote:

59 yrs of age and proudly displaying his gross ignorance for everyones enjoyment.
Go you good thing. :

Age is time, .. what's time? I am free of time, I have been born again my friend, in the newness of my mind, and I can't wait to drop this head off my body for my Lord. Yes, I am Free, and being on death row as un-repented sinners are is not freedom.
And I'm glad that keeps you pacified, but we are all on death row, some of us have gotten over it. Try it yourself it will set you free.
https://www.youtube.com...

Ignorance? Hmm, .. but look who has this below his posts;

I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. :
You are terribly afraid of taking responsibility I see, most godbotherers are, that's why they need gods and religions and afterlifes.
Growing up helps but I fear you are well beyond the capacity to do that.
.... said Hitler, Dahmer, Gacy, Anton LaVey, and all the Satanists/Evolutionists stroking their skull & bones collection on their tables:
I answer to no God
I have outgrown God, if it feels good,
I do it, and
I do it my way!

https://www.youtube.com...
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
lannan13
Posts: 23,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 12:57:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I will be rage posting here later today.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 12:57:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 11:14:44 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
http://www.smbc-comics.com...

Any thoughts? I think it's spot on. This of course does not mean religion and evolution are mutually exclusive, the Catholic church being a great example. But I'm curious, especially from theists, why they are so afraid of evolution. It doesn't even disprove the possibility of a god, just those that claim God made everything as it is now 6000 years ago.

What's wrong with the analogy is that complete revolutions have been observed. They are not merely hypothesized, they have been observed. Numerous times.

No Darwinian evolution has ever been observed. Darwinian evolution cannot be replicated in the lab. Darwinian evolution is a hypothesis. It is only an extrapolation from observable data. It is speculation, not science theory.

And I wish public education could at least provide the intellectual skills and honesty to understand this.
This space for rent.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 1:24:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 12:57:39 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/27/2015 11:14:44 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
http://www.smbc-comics.com...

Any thoughts? I think it's spot on. This of course does not mean religion and evolution are mutually exclusive, the Catholic church being a great example. But I'm curious, especially from theists, why they are so afraid of evolution. It doesn't even disprove the possibility of a god, just those that claim God made everything as it is now 6000 years ago.

What's wrong with the analogy is that complete revolutions have been observed. They are not merely hypothesized, they have been observed. Numerous times.

No Darwinian evolution has ever been observed. Darwinian evolution cannot be replicated in the lab. Darwinian evolution is a hypothesis. It is only an extrapolation from observable data. It is speculation, not science theory.

And I wish public education could at least provide the intellectual skills and honesty to understand this.

You are either a) terribly ignorant about biology, b) willfully ignorant about biology, or c) dishonest about biology. You do not in any way accurately describe modern evolutionary theory.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 1:35:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 12:57:39 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/27/2015 11:14:44 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
http://www.smbc-comics.com...

Any thoughts? I think it's spot on. This of course does not mean religion and evolution are mutually exclusive, the Catholic church being a great example. But I'm curious, especially from theists, why they are so afraid of evolution. It doesn't even disprove the possibility of a god, just those that claim God made everything as it is now 6000 years ago.

What's wrong with the analogy is that complete revolutions have been observed. They are not merely hypothesized, they have been observed. Numerous times.

No Darwinian evolution has ever been observed. Darwinian evolution cannot be replicated in the lab. Darwinian evolution is a hypothesis. It is only an extrapolation from observable data. It is speculation, not science theory.

And I wish public education could at least provide the intellectual skills and honesty to understand this.

Yes, evolution has indeed been observed. For example : https://www.newscientist.com... Before you retort with the notion that this does not apply to more complex creatures, take time to study examples where evolution has been observed within a few generations due to dramatic environmental changes.

You seem to have no clue as to what the term "scientific theory" means. You're also completely oblivious to the predictive powers of the theory, which have been successfully tested and have no counterpart whatsoever with creationism. In short, your opinion seems to be the child of ignorance, either deliberate or accidental. Regardless, the information is out there so it's within reach to rectify the problem.

In that regard, it's creationist business as usual.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 1:36:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 1:24:25 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/28/2015 12:57:39 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/27/2015 11:14:44 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
http://www.smbc-comics.com...

Any thoughts? I think it's spot on. This of course does not mean religion and evolution are mutually exclusive, the Catholic church being a great example. But I'm curious, especially from theists, why they are so afraid of evolution. It doesn't even disprove the possibility of a god, just those that claim God made everything as it is now 6000 years ago.

What's wrong with the analogy is that complete revolutions have been observed. They are not merely hypothesized, they have been observed. Numerous times.

No Darwinian evolution has ever been observed. Darwinian evolution cannot be replicated in the lab. Darwinian evolution is a hypothesis. It is only an extrapolation from observable data. It is speculation, not science theory.

And I wish public education could at least provide the intellectual skills and honesty to understand this.

You are either a) terribly ignorant about biology, b) willfully ignorant about biology, or c) dishonest about biology. You do not in any way accurately describe modern evolutionary theory.

Yeah, I think if Darwinian evolution had ever been observed, or if it had been replicated in the lab, you'd point me to that. But you can't, so you try to shoot the messenger.
This space for rent.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 1:44:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 1:36:28 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/28/2015 1:24:25 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/28/2015 12:57:39 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/27/2015 11:14:44 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
http://www.smbc-comics.com...

Any thoughts? I think it's spot on. This of course does not mean religion and evolution are mutually exclusive, the Catholic church being a great example. But I'm curious, especially from theists, why they are so afraid of evolution. It doesn't even disprove the possibility of a god, just those that claim God made everything as it is now 6000 years ago.

What's wrong with the analogy is that complete revolutions have been observed. They are not merely hypothesized, they have been observed. Numerous times.

No Darwinian evolution has ever been observed. Darwinian evolution cannot be replicated in the lab. Darwinian evolution is a hypothesis. It is only an extrapolation from observable data. It is speculation, not science theory.

And I wish public education could at least provide the intellectual skills and honesty to understand this.

You are either a) terribly ignorant about biology, b) willfully ignorant about biology, or c) dishonest about biology. You do not in any way accurately describe modern evolutionary theory.

Yeah, I think if Darwinian evolution had ever been observed, or if it had been replicated in the lab, you'd point me to that. But you can't, so you try to shoot the messenger.

How about a bacteria evolving the ability to consume some of the constituents of nylon, long chain polymers that do not exist in nature. There is no reason for that capability to have existed before these chemicals were invented but a species of bacteria evolved the ability not only to break the polymeric bonds but to use them for sustenance. That happened not in a lab, but in nature itself and it happened in a microscopically short time compared to the billions of years life has been present on this planet. That's just one example, should you actually care to look, of all of the evidence that supports Modern Evolutionary Theory. Oh, and the flu vaccine that has to be made anew each year is based on the same theory, predicting how the virus will change over time in order to know which strains to include.

Read a good biology text.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 1:48:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 8:42:51 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 10/27/2015 11:14:44 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
http://www.smbc-comics.com...

Any thoughts? I think it's spot on. This of course does not mean religion and evolution are mutually exclusive, the Catholic church being a great example. But I'm curious, especially from theists, why they are so afraid of evolution. It doesn't even disprove the possibility of a god, just those that claim God made everything as it is now 6000 years ago.

It is just conceivable that the universe had some sort of intelligent designer. I bet if that was the case it was nothing like the one featured in the Bible, which seems to be a very human creation. The theory of evolution makes a lot of sense, whereas the creation story in the Bible doesn't. As for the YEC idiots who believe the world to be no more than 10, 000 years old at most, what planet are they on? There appears to be plenty of evidence which points to the earth being very old indeed.

When I was a young teenager, I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church, I was unfortunate enough to attend, where dinosaurs fitted into his young earth belief. The man said that the deity had put them there as a test of faith! My faith took a serious nose dive after that ludicrous statement!

Well, I hope you can distinguish between faith in your pastor and/or church and faith in God.

I'm not [necessarily] a YECer, but I think their side deserves a fair presentation. It goes something like this:

Suppose you arrived from Pluto and saw humans living in houses. You decided you wanted to know how old these houses are. So you observe the houses for a while and estimate the decay rate. You conclude that a house might stand for a hundred to several hundred years, based on observed aging processes. But if you then extrapolated that backwards, you can see that you might get wildly inflated estimates of a house's age. A given house might be a hundred years old, or it might have been built last year. You cannot tell by observing the house, only by knowing about how - wait for it - houses are created.

So likewise, if the cosmos was created, there's this giant discontinuity in the timeline. A great many aging techniques fail at the point of creation. Creation, any creation, reflects time like a mirror, you might say.

And mind you, many christians are comfortable with the idea that the big bang is that discontinuity. I tentatively subscribe to the 'gap theory', that proposes that the week of Genesis 1 is some short or long period after the first verse. In other words "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" "And as our story opens, the earth [or even "the land", same word in Hebrew] is dark and empty, and covered with water"
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 1:56:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 1:44:42 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/28/2015 1:36:28 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/28/2015 1:24:25 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/28/2015 12:57:39 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/27/2015 11:14:44 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
http://www.smbc-comics.com...

Any thoughts? I think it's spot on. This of course does not mean religion and evolution are mutually exclusive, the Catholic church being a great example. But I'm curious, especially from theists, why they are so afraid of evolution. It doesn't even disprove the possibility of a god, just those that claim God made everything as it is now 6000 years ago.

What's wrong with the analogy is that complete revolutions have been observed. They are not merely hypothesized, they have been observed. Numerous times.

No Darwinian evolution has ever been observed. Darwinian evolution cannot be replicated in the lab. Darwinian evolution is a hypothesis. It is only an extrapolation from observable data. It is speculation, not science theory.

And I wish public education could at least provide the intellectual skills and honesty to understand this.

You are either a) terribly ignorant about biology, b) willfully ignorant about biology, or c) dishonest about biology. You do not in any way accurately describe modern evolutionary theory.

Yeah, I think if Darwinian evolution had ever been observed, or if it had been replicated in the lab, you'd point me to that. But you can't, so you try to shoot the messenger.

How about a bacteria evolving the ability to consume some of the constituents of nylon, long chain polymers that do not exist in nature.

Yes, I figured Lenski was next, but I wanted to let you bring it up. Lenski is NOT Darwinian evolution. The e coli continue to be e coli to this day, after 10s of thousands of carefully observed generations. There is no 'origin of species' going on in Lenski's experiments.

In fact, you could say that Lenski has provided pretty good evidence that Darwinian evolution does NOT happen. He's shown that the DNA is very good at preserving the gross features of a species while allowing bounded variation.

So yes, cool stuff happened. (And it might be genetics, btw, a rare but latent ability that got expressed). Cool stuff happened, but not Darwinian evolution.

Oh, and the flu vaccine that has to be made anew each year is based on the same theory, predicting how the virus will change over time in order to know which strains to include.


And the flu remains the flu. No origin of species here. And again, much of it is genetics. Much of it is simply 'moving targets'. Some of it appears to be a deliberate design feature, where microbes share DNA snippets.

Read a good biology text.

And engage your God-given brain while you do so. This is hardly the first time in history where the opinions of the elite were badly wrong. Don't just take evolution on faith - pop the hood and see if the magical engine really exists or not.
This space for rent.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 1:58:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 1:56:57 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/28/2015 1:44:42 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/28/2015 1:36:28 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/28/2015 1:24:25 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/28/2015 12:57:39 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/27/2015 11:14:44 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
http://www.smbc-comics.com...

Any thoughts? I think it's spot on. This of course does not mean religion and evolution are mutually exclusive, the Catholic church being a great example. But I'm curious, especially from theists, why they are so afraid of evolution. It doesn't even disprove the possibility of a god, just those that claim God made everything as it is now 6000 years ago.

What's wrong with the analogy is that complete revolutions have been observed. They are not merely hypothesized, they have been observed. Numerous times.

No Darwinian evolution has ever been observed. Darwinian evolution cannot be replicated in the lab. Darwinian evolution is a hypothesis. It is only an extrapolation from observable data. It is speculation, not science theory.

And I wish public education could at least provide the intellectual skills and honesty to understand this.

You are either a) terribly ignorant about biology, b) willfully ignorant about biology, or c) dishonest about biology. You do not in any way accurately describe modern evolutionary theory.

Yeah, I think if Darwinian evolution had ever been observed, or if it had been replicated in the lab, you'd point me to that. But you can't, so you try to shoot the messenger.

How about a bacteria evolving the ability to consume some of the constituents of nylon, long chain polymers that do not exist in nature.

Yes, I figured Lenski was next, but I wanted to let you bring it up. Lenski is NOT Darwinian evolution. The e coli continue to be e coli to this day, after 10s of thousands of carefully observed generations. There is no 'origin of species' going on in Lenski's experiments.

In fact, you could say that Lenski has provided pretty good evidence that Darwinian evolution does NOT happen. He's shown that the DNA is very good at preserving the gross features of a species while allowing bounded variation.

So yes, cool stuff happened. (And it might be genetics, btw, a rare but latent ability that got expressed). Cool stuff happened, but not Darwinian evolution.

Oh, and the flu vaccine that has to be made anew each year is based on the same theory, predicting how the virus will change over time in order to know which strains to include.


And the flu remains the flu. No origin of species here. And again, much of it is genetics. Much of it is simply 'moving targets'. Some of it appears to be a deliberate design feature, where microbes share DNA snippets.

Read a good biology text.

And engage your God-given brain while you do so. This is hardly the first time in history where the opinions of the elite were badly wrong. Don't just take evolution on faith - pop the hood and see if the magical engine really exists or not.

What do you propose as an alternative to modern evolutionary theory to explain the diversity of life on this world? Let's take a look under that hood as well.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:18:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 8:38:10 AM, Hitchian wrote:
At 10/28/2015 7:33:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I don't buy the logic that since things adapt, life has common ancestry. There evidence of maximum variation in-kind and unaccounted leaps in new genetic information (Cambrian explosion). This was one of the points about current revolutions vs. past revolutions.

That's not how common ancestry was deduced.

Well, they'd still have to account for those objections regardless.

Anyway, the most salient bit here is that, finally, you've come out and said you do not believe in evolution by natural selection as an explanatory mechanism for the variety of life.

I'm not surprised.

I'm not saying that it isn't. If it is, it wasn't an undirected process.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:23:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 1:58:53 PM, dhardage wrote:
...

What do you propose as an alternative to modern evolutionary theory to explain the diversity of life on this world? Let's take a look under that hood as well.

There doesn't have to be an alternative. It's not an election here. Darwin's basic theory is right or wrong, true or false. So one alternative is simply "We don't know".

I think evolution is basically a "correlation is not causation" error. For instance, the French eat more butter and the French have less heart attacks. But you can't conclude that eating more butter will prevent heart attacks. It may do exactly the opposite. So Darwin's theory correlates with the data in many respects, but it's not a viable mechanism, so it can't be the cause of the diversity of life (or at least not a major cause).

My alternative, so I don't seem like I'm dodging, is creation and genetics. But again, my objections to Darwinism are primarily technical. The idea that random mutation and natural selection are sufficient to produce the genius of the ecosystem is, despite it's popularity, just a ridiculous idea from a technical point of view.
This space for rent.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:25:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 2:23:15 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/28/2015 1:58:53 PM, dhardage wrote:
...

What do you propose as an alternative to modern evolutionary theory to explain the diversity of life on this world? Let's take a look under that hood as well.

There doesn't have to be an alternative. It's not an election here. Darwin's basic theory is right or wrong, true or false. So one alternative is simply "We don't know".

I think evolution is basically a "correlation is not causation" error. For instance, the French eat more butter and the French have less heart attacks. But you can't conclude that eating more butter will prevent heart attacks. It may do exactly the opposite. So Darwin's theory correlates with the data in many respects, but it's not a viable mechanism, so it can't be the cause of the diversity of life (or at least not a major cause).

My alternative, so I don't seem like I'm dodging, is creation and genetics. But again, my objections to Darwinism are primarily technical. The idea that random mutation and natural selection are sufficient to produce the genius of the ecosystem is, despite it's popularity, just a ridiculous idea from a technical point of view.

May I ask about your credentials and the studies you've conducted to support this out of mainstream assertion?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:27:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 2:23:15 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/28/2015 1:58:53 PM, dhardage wrote:
...

What do you propose as an alternative to modern evolutionary theory to explain the diversity of life on this world? Let's take a look under that hood as well.

There doesn't have to be an alternative. It's not an election here. Darwin's basic theory is right or wrong, true or false. So one alternative is simply "We don't know".

I think evolution is basically a "correlation is not causation" error. For instance, the French eat more butter and the French have less heart attacks. But you can't conclude that eating more butter will prevent heart attacks. It may do exactly the opposite. So Darwin's theory correlates with the data in many respects, but it's not a viable mechanism, so it can't be the cause of the diversity of life (or at least not a major cause).

My alternative, so I don't seem like I'm dodging, is creation and genetics. But again, my objections to Darwinism are primarily technical. The idea that random mutation and natural selection are sufficient to produce the genius of the ecosystem is, despite it's popularity, just a ridiculous idea from a technical point of view.

... so who created that creator?

If said creator is in some way related to "eternal"...

why can I not ascribe that same quality to existence on the whole?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:40:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 2:27:13 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/28/2015 2:23:15 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/28/2015 1:58:53 PM, dhardage wrote:
...

What do you propose as an alternative to modern evolutionary theory to explain the diversity of life on this world? Let's take a look under that hood as well.

There doesn't have to be an alternative. It's not an election here. Darwin's basic theory is right or wrong, true or false. So one alternative is simply "We don't know".

I think evolution is basically a "correlation is not causation" error. For instance, the French eat more butter and the French have less heart attacks. But you can't conclude that eating more butter will prevent heart attacks. It may do exactly the opposite. So Darwin's theory correlates with the data in many respects, but it's not a viable mechanism, so it can't be the cause of the diversity of life (or at least not a major cause).

My alternative, so I don't seem like I'm dodging, is creation and genetics. But again, my objections to Darwinism are primarily technical. The idea that random mutation and natural selection are sufficient to produce the genius of the ecosystem is, despite it's popularity, just a ridiculous idea from a technical point of view.

... so who created that creator?

If said creator is in some way related to "eternal"...

why can I not ascribe that same quality to existence on the whole?

There you go. I didn't expect it to be said so directly, but there you go, the new pantheism that I have referred to (in other threads). I maintain that belief in evolution is a belief in magic when you really drill down.

I've got to run off an do paying work guys, not sure if I'll get back for a while...
This space for rent.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:43:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 2:40:16 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/28/2015 2:27:13 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/28/2015 2:23:15 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/28/2015 1:58:53 PM, dhardage wrote:
...

What do you propose as an alternative to modern evolutionary theory to explain the diversity of life on this world? Let's take a look under that hood as well.

There doesn't have to be an alternative. It's not an election here. Darwin's basic theory is right or wrong, true or false. So one alternative is simply "We don't know".

I think evolution is basically a "correlation is not causation" error. For instance, the French eat more butter and the French have less heart attacks. But you can't conclude that eating more butter will prevent heart attacks. It may do exactly the opposite. So Darwin's theory correlates with the data in many respects, but it's not a viable mechanism, so it can't be the cause of the diversity of life (or at least not a major cause).

My alternative, so I don't seem like I'm dodging, is creation and genetics. But again, my objections to Darwinism are primarily technical. The idea that random mutation and natural selection are sufficient to produce the genius of the ecosystem is, despite it's popularity, just a ridiculous idea from a technical point of view.

... so who created that creator?

If said creator is in some way related to "eternal"...

why can I not ascribe that same quality to existence on the whole?

There you go. I didn't expect it to be said so directly, but there you go, the new pantheism that I have referred to (in other threads). I maintain that belief in evolution is a belief in magic when you really drill down.

I've got to run off an do paying work guys, not sure if I'll get back for a while...

Then that would mean your "creator" is in of itself "magical". I am cutting out the middle man, and you find my position to be incredulous. C'mon, man.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:49:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 2:40:16 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/28/2015 2:27:13 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/28/2015 2:23:15 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/28/2015 1:58:53 PM, dhardage wrote:
...

What do you propose as an alternative to modern evolutionary theory to explain the diversity of life on this world? Let's take a look under that hood as well.

There doesn't have to be an alternative. It's not an election here. Darwin's basic theory is right or wrong, true or false. So one alternative is simply "We don't know".

I think evolution is basically a "correlation is not causation" error. For instance, the French eat more butter and the French have less heart attacks. But you can't conclude that eating more butter will prevent heart attacks. It may do exactly the opposite. So Darwin's theory correlates with the data in many respects, but it's not a viable mechanism, so it can't be the cause of the diversity of life (or at least not a major cause).

My alternative, so I don't seem like I'm dodging, is creation and genetics. But again, my objections to Darwinism are primarily technical. The idea that random mutation and natural selection are sufficient to produce the genius of the ecosystem is, despite it's popularity, just a ridiculous idea from a technical point of view.

... so who created that creator?

If said creator is in some way related to "eternal"...

why can I not ascribe that same quality to existence on the whole?

There you go. I didn't expect it to be said so directly, but there you go, the new pantheism that I have referred to (in other threads). I maintain that belief in evolution is a belief in magic when you really drill down.

I've got to run off an do paying work guys, not sure if I'll get back for a while...

I'll be waiting for your qualifications and the studies you've conducted or have been conducted and peer reviewed to support your statement. Thanks.