Creation vs. Evolution

[gcthomas]

:darwinsm: alwight says such scientifically illiterate things because... CONSENSUS!!! :darwinsm:

FYI, consensus is a fundamental part of science. It is how the scientific enterprise moves on and has done for centuries. What would you have in its place, minority rule?

But you MUST reject either the overwhelming scientific consensus or your randomly selected mythology (unless you selected Christianity independently of the social environment).

 

[alwight]

Yorzhik is his own consensus of one.

 

[gcthomas]

Yorzhik is his own consensus of one.

Just one? He must be right, then!

 

[MichaelCadry]

The Bible is the word of man. And no, I don't accept mindless preaching and verse quoting as evidence.

Dear Hedshaker,

Paragraph quoting about Darwin's words exists also. Darwin's testimony is definite is the word of man. His claims are garbage, all the same. He hasn't found any bones or fossils of such claims. Lucy and Piltdown Man don't count. Must I mention Haeckel also? Verse or paragraph quoting is the same for the Bible's people just as for paragraphs, the same thing. You are really unusual. Hey, I sent you more rep pts. Hope you get another star soon. I've got a good rep power. I will rep you every chance I get. Sometimes I do it and it says I have to wait. So I rep 4 others and then it lets me give you more reps again.

Anyway, your premise is flawed. I'd go into it more, but I have radiation treatments to go to in a bit here.

Much Love Coming Your Way!!

Michael

 

[Lon]

If I am to believe what the Bible says Lon, and I might if it made unambiguous sense, then all I want to know is whether the gospels contradict each other or not, since apparently they do. Why then do you equate that to arson or a threat? Claiming that I'm not sincere or perhaps haven't studied the Bible sufficiently is a crock whatever your shed is made from.

Faux concern atf noted :yawn: If you were really this genuine, you wouldn't be talking to the thread concerning it.

 

[6days]

FYI, consensus is a fundamental part of science. It is how the scientific enterprise moves on and has done for centuries. What would you have in its place, minority rule?

Pffft.... you surely must have a better understanding of science than that. Science is not just floating along with the current...only dead fish and evolutionists do that.

But you MUST reject either the overwhelming scientific consensus....

Yes... like Keplar, Galileo andPasteur did?

"*A major argument against opposition to Darwinism is the claim that evolutionary naturalism is the consensus of the science community, therefore not open to debate. A review of the problems caused by consensus science indicates that, as a whole, it harms scientific progress because wrong ideas become established that impede the research required to determine the actual situation."

Creation Research Journal

 

[alwight]

Faux concern atf noted :yawn: If you were really this genuine, you wouldn't be talking to the thread concerning it.

I will try hard not to let your judgmental opinion of me get me down too much Lon. lain:

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes... like Keplar, Galileo andPasteur did?

Every crank with every ridiculous idea says that. "I'm just like Galileo!!"

A major argument against opposition to Darwinism is the claim that evolutionary naturalism is the consensus of the science community, therefore not open to debate.

Oh, it can be open for debate, but just like if you were going to argue for stationary-earth geocentrism, you'd better bring something significant to the table. And half a century old creationist talking points and logical fallacies aren't it.

 

[6days]

Yes... like Keplar, Galileo andPasteur did?

Every crank with every ridiculous idea says that. "I'm just like Galileo!!"

It is the cranks who wanted Galileo to shut up and go with the flow. It is the cranks who wanted us to believe our appendix was useless. Cranks wanted us to believe our DNA was 98% junk. Cranks want us to believe we evolved from 'monkeys'. Cranks think science is going with the flow.*

 

[Jose Fly]

It is the cranks who wanted Galileo to shut up and go with the flow. It is the cranks who wanted us to believe our appendix was useless. Cranks wanted us to believe our DNA was 98% junk. Cranks want us to believe we evolved from 'monkeys'. Cranks think science is going with the flow.*

This is exactly what I meant by "you'd better bring something significant to the table. And half a century old creationist talking points and logical fallacies aren't it".

Creationism hasn't accomplished a single thing in at least a century. Unless you guys bring something both significant and new to the table, there's not really anything for scientists to consider, is there?

 

[Jonahdog]

It is the cranks who wanted Galileo to shut up and go with the flow. It is the cranks who wanted us to believe our appendix was useless. Cranks wanted us to believe our DNA was 98% junk. Cranks want us to believe we evolved from 'monkeys'. Cranks think science is going with the flow.*

Actually it is mostly creationists who claim "we evolved from monkeys" ala Kent Hovind.Next question from Kent would be "why are there still monkeys?"

 

[6days]

Actually it is mostly creationists who claim "we evolved from monkeys"

George Gaylord Simpson says you are pussyfooting with your terminology (and cowardly)... " on this subject, by the way, there has been way too much pussyfooting. Apologist emphasize that man cannot be a descendant of any living ape, a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility, and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it.*Since the terms apes and monkeys are defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys. It is pusillanimous (cowardly) if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise".*

 

[6days]

Creationism hasn't accomplished a single thing in at least a century.

Evolutionism has hindered the progress of science for at least the last century and a half.

 

[patrick jane]

Has anyone tried breeding a monkey with a human ?

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolutionism has hindered the progress of science for at least the last century and a half.

Like I said, if all you have are memorized old talking points like this....

 

[Jonahdog]

George Gaylord Simpson says you are pussyfooting with your terminology (and cowardly)... " on this subject, by the way, there has been way too much pussyfooting. Apologist emphasize that man cannot be a descendant of any living ape, a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility, and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it.*Since the terms apes and monkeys are defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys. It is pusillanimous (cowardly) if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise".*

Ah, are you agreeing with Simpson? Or did you find this quote mine on a creationist site?

In addition I'm not sure the terms monkey and ape are interchangeable in biology as he implies they are in "popular speech".

 

[6days]

Has anyone tried breeding a monkey with a human ?

Yup... it has been tried. Monkey {popular speech} ape... http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/stalins-ape-man-superwarriors/

 

[iouae]

But Michael there is no eye witness testimony only the stories written by anonymous evangelists in the gospels, don't you see that?
If you were on trial in Judge Judy's court do you think she would allow such hearsay? If I wrote about a hundred eye witnesses that therefore it amounts to actual eye witness testimony of a hundred people, of course it doesn't. :nono:

Judge Judy does not allow hearsay because the witnesses are still alive, and she wants to cross-examine them in court.

The Gospel writers were eye-witnesses, writing what they saw. They may not have seen everything, but when they wrote, there were folks alive to have verified or nullified what they wrote.

2000 years later, all history is hearsay - except that ONE OF THE WITNESSES IS ALIVE!!! *

You believe all other secular history out there, but because Christ did miracles, including rising from the dead and being seen by over 500 witnesses - now you refuse to believe it.

If Christ did not do one miracle, He still has the greatest message on earth. Why not compare His message with Mohamed's, or Buddha's, or Socrates' or Confucius' to see the utter superiority of the lifestyle which Christ taught.

* "He's Alive" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyPBVwOCYmM

 

[MichaelCadry]

But Michael there is no eye witness testimony only the stories written by anonymous evangelists in the gospels, don't you see that?
If you were on trial in Judge Judy's court do you think she would allow such hearsay? If I wrote about a hundred eye witnesses that therefore it amounts to actual eye witness testimony of a hundred people, of course it doesn't. :nono:

Dear alwight,

Just because two different eyewitnesses testimony differ on a certain point does not mean that all of the other eyewitnesses are wrong about their experiences or testimonies. Who knows what Judge Judy would do. Probably tell them who the winner is and hurry to judge so she can go eat lunch. Matthew was an eyewitness to his experiences with Jesus and his testimony is good. We who read his words know that most, if not all, of his testimony is true, because our Bible is the Word of God. He gave them each the words to say. Each testimony is written by the person who 'eye-witnessed' it. Our Bible very clearly says that Matthew wrote the book. Some disciples couldn't write, but Matthew could. He used to be a tax collector. So he's probably good at math too. You don't seem to understand about that. I'm right about most of what I say. I have messed up a couple times. I didn't say I was a know-it-all. I'm human, just like you. And we make mistakes. It still all comes out in the wash. Whatever we were wrong about will be made known by the Lord and likewise, that which we were right about will be made known by the Lord.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Oh no? Yet you're quick to threaten people with hell fire for simply not believing as you do. I would say your level is much, much lower. It doesn't effect me cause I know you're talking rubbish, but someone who is not so resolute or children might take it to heart. Please tell me you've never told a child s/he could go to hell for not accepting Jesus?

And I'm sorry but Dunning Krugar is an accurate description. Knowledgeable people have tried to explain about evolution to you and instead of leaning, humbly, you cluelessly try to discredit them for their effort. That is a classic Dunning Krugar effect.

I would not say such a thing to children. They are innocent babes anyway. I do not tell you that you may have to watch out for a trip to hell because you don't believe what I say. I say it when you don't believe what God says in the Bible. I am just a intermediator. I don't need evolution to be explained to me. I have better use for my brain cells. I know enough to know it's ridiculous. I'm also not clueless when it comes to evolution. I just don't agree with many facets of it. That's all.

Much Love And Cheerio Coming Your Way!!

Michael