It's been so long since I've thought about Flame Warriors I had forgotten all about them. I'll bet it's been at least 12 to 15 years. Those descriptions never get old though.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Evolution and its effects.
- Thread starter Truster
- Start date
It's been so long since I've thought about Flame Warriors I had forgotten all about them. I'll bet it's been at least 12 to 15 years. Those descriptions never get old though.
No, he is honest and straightforward. Those he is trying to educate resort to mudslinging when they find they can't counter his well thought out arguments and explanations.
:darwinsm:
:rotfl:
The sprites in his befuddled mind?
It's called de-equivocation. At least, it is now. :up:
Like this time?
|
|
Barbarian has zero credibility, no ability to present a rational case and zero capacity for humility and admitting he was wrong.
They shouldn't throw stones.
Now, did you have something useful to contribute, or are you just run blocking?
I am pointing out that you and your like have been tossing insults at The Barbarian, while ignoring his carefully thought out posts, pretending that facts aren't facts, and generally being nasty and intellectually dishonest.
For example, the difference between the observed facts of evolution and the theory of evolution. This is real. Many Creationists admit the fact of evolution, though they insist that it all happened after The Flood ("Kindology" ideas). And guess what? Creationism is part of a religion. Evolution isn't. Really (shocking, but true).
For example, the difference between the observed facts of evolution and the theory of evolution. This is real. Many Creationists admit the fact of evolution, though they insist that it all happened after The Flood ("Kindology" ideas). And guess what? Creationism is part of a religion. Evolution isn't. Really (shocking, but true).
It's not a problem. It actually helps. That kind of behavior only plays well with people who have already taken the Kool-aid. It turns off anyone with any sense, and they reject everything people like that say. I don't mind. I only put the trolls on ignore because it saves time. One such suggested that I do it to make them angry. I truly don't, although if it does, I guess that's all right.
Yep. Once those guys argued that speciation was an insult to God. Now, they admit the evolution of new species, genera, and even families. If they retreat just a little more, we won't have anything to argue about.
Religions. There are far more Muslims who are creationists than Christians who have adopted creationism.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
They shouldn't walk around naked?
Nope. He says evolution is a fact. We understand very well that he has a definition of evolution — "change" — that would make it a fact, but nobody is declaring that genomes do not change.
We insult him because he's a dishonest fool, constantly pushing a line of argument that — even if it were rational — would be of no value.
Nope. It's just a theory.
And "observed facts of evolution" is an entirely different concept from "fact of evolution."
These things are vague and ill-defined, which is just how Darwinists want them.
None of them, in fact. They might use the word "evolution" in the way Darwinists do, which is a mistake because that definition is useless. Evolution — which a creationist must deny to be worthy of the name — is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. That is what we disagree with. We do not argue that genomes never change.
Now, you might disagree with how we think things should be defined, but you are not justified in insisting that your take be the only one. If you want to engage sensibly, you have to address what we say, not what you wish we would say.
Then quit insisting that it is a fact. The scientific method demands that your ideas be testable and falsifiable. Your idea is that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. If you do not believe that, say so. If you do, defend it sensibly, ie, without equivocation.
His behavior only plays well with people who have already drunk the Kool-aid. It turns off anyone with any sense, and they reject everything people like that say. I don't mind. Someone suggested that I do it to make them angry. I truly don't, although if it does, I guess that's all right. Once those guys argued that a bird with a new song was speciation, another poorly defined Darwinism. They desperately want everything to be evolution. They want to define the debate out of existence. Religions. There are far more atheists who are Darwinists than Christians who have adopted that religion.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Chair - you're not the troll that barbie is, maybe it would be worth having this discussion with you.
Can you do what barbie won't, which is to provide a definition of terms, to serve as a starting point?
For instance, how do you define "evolution"?
How do you define "the theory of evolution"?
Barb has defined these items quite well. You don't like his definitions, and so you attack him personally.
If you like, use Webster:
: descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations
Evolution is a process of continuous branching and diversification from common trunks. This pattern of irreversible separation gives life's history its basic directionality.
— Stephen Jay Gould
also : the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)
Since 1950, developments in molecular biology have had a growing influence on the theory of evolution.
— Nature
In Darwinian evolution, the basic mechanism is genetic mutation, followed by selection of the organisms most likely to survive.
— Pamela Weintraubhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld
These definitions OK with you? Or do you think the dictionary has also "drunk the Kool Aid"?
The boldface text, by the way, are the definitions. The rest are examples of use of the word.
Pick one and stick with it.
Meanwhile, we've made it explicit what we mean when we say evolution. That is what we disagree with, so your myriad definitions and assertions of fact are quite meaningless.
NO. I won't "pick one". There are two separate items here.
"descent with modification from preexisting species etc." This is observed evolution
"the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms etc." This is the theory of evolution.
You can go and redefine evolution any way you want, but it is intellectually dishonest, to put it mildly.
Let's forget the trollish obfuscation, and get these defined.
Evolution (Darwin preferred "descent with modification" which is a better description), after the rediscovery of Mendel's work, is now defined as "a change in allele frequency in a population over time."
A lot of creationists confuse evolution, with agencies of evolution like mutation and natural selection, or with consequences of evolution like common descent. It should be pointed out that most creationist organizations no longer deny speciation, or natural selection, or even common descent to the level of species, genera, and families. They pretty much now merely deny common descent of all living things on Earth.
And none of these natural phenomena are evolutionary theory, the theory that has most successfully predicted the evidence we subsequently found and explains why they work as they do.
Evolution (Darwin preferred "descent with modification" which is a better description), after the rediscovery of Mendel's work, is now defined as "a change in allele frequency in a population over time."
A lot of creationists confuse evolution, with agencies of evolution like mutation and natural selection, or with consequences of evolution like common descent. It should be pointed out that most creationist organizations no longer deny speciation, or natural selection, or even common descent to the level of species, genera, and families. They pretty much now merely deny common descent of all living things on Earth.
And none of these natural phenomena are evolutionary theory, the theory that has most successfully predicted the evidence we subsequently found and explains why they work as they do.
And we only argue against one.
So pick that one and discuss it. Stop insisting that we are talking about both.
Which is next to useless as a definition. Every single organism is different to its parents.
This just says that the theory of evolution is the theory of evolution.
Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. What is dishonest about that? What is untrue about it?
Why do creationists know what evolution is better than the evolutionists?
Let's forget the trollish obfuscation, and get this defined:
Things change. This is a fact. An inane, pointless fact that nobody disputes. We deny evolution and clearly outline what it is we disagree with. Darwinists play silly word games to define the debate out of existence.
You're living in a fantasy world.
Nope. It's just a theory.
Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.
Try again, sunshine. :up:
Which is a useless definition. Every genome changes all the time. Nobody disputes this. This is where the Darwinists start dancing and clapping because "creationists accept evolution."
Things change. This is a fact. An inane, pointless fact that nobody disputes. We deny evolution and clearly outline what it is we disagree with. Darwinists play silly word games to define the debate out of existence.
Nope. Evolution is just a theory.
Nope. You got embarrassed on this one before, remember? Would you like us to show you the quote you provided half of from AIG again?
You're living in a fantasy world.
Nope. It's just a theory.
Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.
Try again, sunshine. :up:
Because you find that you can shore up your weak arguments better by arguing with a straw man.
How would you like it if I defined Creationism for you?
"Creationism is the idea that all living creatures were created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster in 1927."
What argument? :idunno:
We're stuck in a semantic rut. It's really boring, but the Darwinists seem to love it.
That would be fine, as long as you respect what I believe.
You've yet to explain what is wrong with my definition of evolution, or whether you hold to it.