I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[Stripe]

Theories are as certain as it gets in science.

Nope.

As you should know, there are facts. Heck, you even assert your Darwinism as one of them. One would think you'd know that there is more to science than just theories.

:chuckle:

 

[Idolater]

this is the epitome of foolishness, to imagine that God uses random variation, which more often causes pain and disfigurement to "improve fitness"

I sympathize with this sentiment, and He did not use random variation.

Archeology shows anything but random variation.

The fact there's anything like the notion that all these wildly different kinds and types and species of life actually exist (aren't e.g. science fiction) is positive proof of the definite absence of random variation.

That idea is founded upon the fossil record, showing fossilized remains of creatures we've never seen alive, and that, together with all the creatures that are alive, is where the idea comes from that random variation is involved, even when that same mess of data couldn't more clearly rule out random variation.

If there were one life form, OK, maybe random. Two? One "flier," one "outlier," one "fluke," and we can chalk that up to random variation, we're justified in thinking maybe it's random. But two? One's a fluke. Two's a trend, or two's at least the beginning of what could be a trend.

By the time there are three unique special life forms, all perfectly functioning and self-replicating, we have to get away from the idea of random variation, it's silly by three to stubbornly maintain that it's random variation.

But how many different kinds of fully functioning creatures are there? Thousands? Millions? Who knows. They are all distinct and unique and special (species), they are all self-sustaining, they are all perfect, they are all wonderfully made, they are all very good.

Random variation should be justly laughed off the table, by the time there are four different types of life, and there are probably millions.

 

[Stripe]

How many different kinds of fully functioning creatures are there? Thousands? Millions?

I think the number of originally created kinds is probably in the low thousands.

And one would be enough to dictate design.

 

[Idolater]

I think the number of originally created kinds is probably in the low thousands.

Aren't there at least hundreds of thousands of different species, counting microbes?

And one would be enough to dictate design.

Yeah, I agree. It's prima facie to me. For others, who will not grant that it's prima facie, there's some reason they turned off their instincts, maybe due to social pressure when they were younger? Who knows.

 

[Stripe]

Aren't there at least hundreds of thousands of different species, counting microbes?

Yeah, but species is a vague and malleable term. For instance, lions and tigers are descended from a common ancestor population and are different species, but although dogs are the same way, but are one species.

I'm just guessing, but I think there was only fewer than 10,000 created kinds.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, you know how simple barbarians are...

Well chosen...

No, that's just a story creationists tell each other. Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life. A lot of creationists think so, mainly because their leaders invent silly ideas to distract them from learning the real theory. Funny stuff.

Apparently you don't know the "theory" that is being promoted. The "theory" is that all life has a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR. How is that falsifiable? How is that verifiable? (hint: it's can't be verified nor falsified).

No, that's just a fairy tale your creationist leaders made up, and insist real scientists have to believe it.

Nonsense. It's a well known problem that folks like wave your magic wand to make go away.

Nope. You were lied to about that. Population geneticists are always looking at the ratio of neutral mutations (the great majority) to harmful mutations (a few) to useful mutations (a very few). Without natural selection, all animal populations would be quickly doomed. Humans, for example, have dozens of mutations per individual. If it was the way your leaders tell you, we'd be extinct in a few generations.

And these mutations will create legs, arms, brains, penis', etc. etc. etc. ?? No, they cannot.

Sorry, but irreducible complexity is clear proof that you're wrong.

Several universities thought otherwise, enough so to approve degrees in science for me.

Just goes to show you how messed up they are.

As you see, a lot of things you believed were part of science, are actually "just so" creationist stories.

:rotfl:

 

[Right Divider]

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

No fish, no birds, no mammals, no humans. So yes, a work in progress. One does not rule out the other, as God shows you in Genesis.

Pay attention... I did not say "good", I said "VERY GOOD".

Gen 1:31 KJV And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

So how was an exact 24 hour day determined then?

Day and night came first, the 24 hours that make up the day came later.

First the daylight period was split into 12 hours.

John 11:9 9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.​

Then the nighttime period was split into 12 hours.

12 hours + 12 hours = 24 hours.

We no longer count the day by the movement of the sun, so many people mistakenly believe and say 24 hours make up a day instead of understanding that the day is split into 24 hours.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The theory of evolution came about because of the evidence as with any other scientific theory.

You are talking about the Galápagos finches.

There was no foregone conclusion where data needed to be shoehorned in to fit in with it.

The fossil evidence was misinterpreted to support the Theory of Evolution of billions of years of changes, but it supports worldwide cataclysmic events much better.

With YEC, therein lies the problem. If at the outset, a religious belief predetermines the earth can be no older than 10,000 years, then what is left but to disregard any evidence, no matter how compelling or verified and just ignore it? Then just concentrate on anything that might support YEC no matter how tenuous or dubious?

That is not science.

With the Theory of Evolution, there is the exact same problem.
At the outset, a religious belief in the Theory of Evolution predetermines that the earth must be billions of years old, then what is left is to disregard and hide the evidence of a younger earth, no matter how compelling or verified it is.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You are talking about the Galápagos finches.

Nope.

The fossil evidence was misinterpreted to support the Theory of Evolution of billions of years of changes, but it supports worldwide cataclysmic events much better.

:AMR:

With the Theory of Evolution, there is the exact same problem.
At the outset, a religious belief in the Theory of Evolution predetermines that the earth must be billions of years old, then what is left is to disregard and hide the evidence of a younger earth, no matter how compelling or verified it is.

Of course there isn't. Theories come about because of evidence, not the other way around. Trying to project the obvious pitfalls of YEC simply doesn't work when applied to the scientific method. Evolution doesn't dictate how old the earth is either. If the evidence supported a young earth then science would reflect that as science itself is neutral. You'd have to be a major conspiracy nut to think that scientists around the world have some agenda to suppress the truth of a young earth...

 

[genuineoriginal]

Theories come about because of evidence, not the other way around.

The evidence Darwin used for the Origin of Species was the Galápagos finches.

Evolution doesn't dictate how old the earth is either.

Sure it does.
The fossil record is used to claim the age of the rock layers are millions of years old based on nothing more than the assumptions of the evolutionary paleontologists.

Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology The dating of the rocks depends on the evolutionary sequence of the fossils, but the evolutionary interpretation of the fossils depends on the dating of the rocks. No wonder the evolutionary system, to outsiders, implies circular reasoning. "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."​ Another geologist who has recognized the circularity problem is Dr. Ronald West, at Kansas State University. "Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."​ In view of such admissions from many leading evolutionists, it is clear that there neither is, nor can be, any proof of evolution. The evidence for evolution is merely the assumption of evolution.

​

If the evidence supported a young earth then science would reflect that

No, science has consistently rejected evidence that supports a young earth.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The evidence Darwin used for the Origin of Species was the Galápagos finches.

It was part of it.

Sure it does.
The fossil record is used to claim the age of the rock layers are millions of years old based on nothing more than the assumptions of the evolutionary paleontologists.

Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology The dating of the rocks depends on the evolutionary sequence of the fossils, but the evolutionary interpretation of the fossils depends on the dating of the rocks. No wonder the evolutionary system, to outsiders, implies circular reasoning. "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."​ Another geologist who has recognized the circularity problem is Dr. Ronald West, at Kansas State University. "Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."​ In view of such admissions from many leading evolutionists, it is clear that there neither is, nor can be, any proof of evolution. The evidence for evolution is merely the assumption of evolution.

​

Oh wow, what an objective source.

lain:

No, science has consistently rejected evidence that supports a young earth.

Um, yes, that's how science works. If evidence was presented and rejected then it was lacking. Simple as that.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Oh wow, what an objective source.

The source of an argument has no bearing on whether an argument is valid or invalid.

It's called a genetic fallacy for a reason.

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

The source of an argument has no bearing on whether an argument is valid or invalid.

It's called a genetic fallacy for a reason.

lain:

Stating that the age of the earth has been determined by the "assumptions of evolutionary paleontologists" is bizarrely ignorant and citing a source that perpetuates that ignorance is hardly something that can be respected or taken seriously by the very same token.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Stating that the age of the earth has been determined by the "assumptions of evolutionary paleontologists"

Should be able to be disproven if it is false, regardless of the source.

is bizarrely ignorant

Appeal to ridicule, and appeal to the stone. Logical fallacies.

and citing a source

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. In other words, a claim is ignored in favor of attacking its source. The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are not conclusive in determining its merits.

-Wikipedia: Genetic Fallacy

You are literally doing exactly what defines a genetic fallacy, attacking the source of a claim rather than the claim itself.

that perpetuates that ignorance

If a claim is ignorant, then show how, instead of attacking it's source, which is what you are doing.

is hardly something that can be respected or taken seriously by the very same token.

So what?

If you think a claim is false, don't commit a logical fallacy, but instead, show the claim to be wrong or incorrect.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Oh wow, what an objective source.

You mean these sources of the quotes used that are found in the reference section of the article?

References 1 J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 51. 2 Gareth V. Nelson, "Origin and Diversification of Teleostean Fishes," Annals, New York Academy of Sciences, 1971, p. 27. 3 Donald R. Griffin, "A Possible Window on the Minds of Animals," American Scientist, Vol. 64, September-October 1976, p. 534. 4 James W. Valentine and Cathryn A. Campbell, "Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record," American Scientist, Vol. 63, November-December 1975, p. 673. 5 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, p. 47. 6 David G. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 466. 7 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, p. 48. 8 Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1973) p. 62. 9 Derek V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record," Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 132. 10 Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," Compass, Vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216. 11 B. Schaeffer, M.K. Hecht and N. Eldredge, "Phylogeny and Paleontology," Ch. 2 in Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 6 (edited by Th. Dobzhansky, M.K. Hecht and W.C. Steere; New York Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972) p. 39. 12 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, pp. 47-55. 13 Ibid, p. 49. 14 Ibid, p. 50. 15 Ibid, p. 51. 16 Ibid, p. 54. 17 Ibid, p. 53.

​

 

[Arthur Brain]

Should be able to be disproven if it is false, regardless of the source

Easily. Anyone familiar with scientific methodology knows that theories aren't based on assumptions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Appeal to ridicule, and appeal to the stone. Logical fallacies.

As above. It's completely ignorant to posit that the age of the earth is based on assumption.

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. In other words, a claim is ignored in favor of attacking its source. The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are not conclusive in determining its merits.

-Wikipedia: Genetic Fallacy

You are literally doing exactly what defines a genetic fallacy, attacking the source of a claim rather than the claim itself.

The claim itself was ridiculous, as is anything that would support it. All addressed above.

If a claim is ignorant, then show how, instead of attacking it's source, which is what you are doing.

Done and done.

So what?

If you think a claim is false, don't commit a logical fallacy, but instead, show the claim to be wrong or incorrect.

And once again, see above. Btw, if someone makes a ridiculous claim then it isn't necessarily committing a logical fallacy to just point out what should already be obvious.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You mean these sources of the quotes used that are found in the reference section of the article?

References 1 J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 51. 2 Gareth V. Nelson, "Origin and Diversification of Teleostean Fishes," Annals, New York Academy of Sciences, 1971, p. 27. 3 Donald R. Griffin, "A Possible Window on the Minds of Animals," American Scientist, Vol. 64, September-October 1976, p. 534. 4 James W. Valentine and Cathryn A. Campbell, "Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record," American Scientist, Vol. 63, November-December 1975, p. 673. 5 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, p. 47. 6 David G. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 466. 7 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, p. 48. 8 Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1973) p. 62. 9 Derek V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record," Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 132. 10 Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," Compass, Vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216. 11 B. Schaeffer, M.K. Hecht and N. Eldredge, "Phylogeny and Paleontology," Ch. 2 in Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 6 (edited by Th. Dobzhansky, M.K. Hecht and W.C. Steere; New York Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972) p. 39. 12 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, pp. 47-55. 13 Ibid, p. 49. 14 Ibid, p. 50. 15 Ibid, p. 51. 16 Ibid, p. 54. 17 Ibid, p. 53.

​

And? What's this supposed to show exactly apart from a bunch of names?

 

[ok doser]

It's completely ignorant to posit that the age of the earth is based on assumption.

:doh:


what

a

moron :nono:

 

[7djengo7]

You should have had a comma after the word "what" at the start of this post.

No more than you should have had a comma after the word "You" at the start of this post. But, I'll be happy to hear you try to tell me exactly why you say I should, Professor.

I'm reckoning that pointing out this grammatical error of yours is going to irk you a bit and to be fair,

Oh, man, you angered me so, I took a hammer to your nacho cheese face avatar, and now you owe me a new monitor. Again, Professor, I'm all ears if you wish to embarrass yourself by trying to explain why you imagine there should be a comma where you said there should be a comma. Have fun.

it's pedantic on my part

If by "pedantic", you mean dull and unimaginative, then, from what I've seen, everything is pedantic on your part.

but where it comes to science and an understanding of the appropriate terminology it's paramount to the subject.

Too bad for you, then, that you've absolutely no understanding of anything.

Be my guest in correcting syntax or some such on my part as I make mistakes all the time.

It's impossible for me to correct your errors, especially your many cognitive ones. All I can do is to point them out. One of your lesser errors is that you got the wrong emoji, here. This is the one that would have been accurate in expressing your mood:

Be my guest in correcting syntax or some such on my part as I make mistakes all the time. :madmad:

Why do you consider yourself to be "engaging rationally" by meaninglessly parroting the phrase, "scientific theory"?

I don't, so I don't need to.

Hey, I give you kudos for at least having admitted that you don't consider yourself to be engaging rationally. You are, though, meaninglessly parroting the phrase, "scientific theory". That's why, so far, you've needed to stonewall against my questions.

I've merely pointed out what a theory is where it comes to science and the understanding of the word in that context.

Your problem is that you mean nothing by the word, "theory". That is why you have had to stonewall against my questions.

See above.

Ah, right. Above. Because that's where all your hot air rises to--far away from reason, which is down here on the ground, where I like to hang out.

Why do you feel the need to type out words in Caps when there's no need or any point or emphasis?

Why do you feel the need to be a hypocrite, accusing me of needlessly capitalizing some letters, while turning around and needlessly capitalizing the initial of your word, "caps"?

It seems to me as it's you who has a penchant for parroting pointless phrases that don't actually mean anything, this whole "Darwin Cheerleader" for one...

So soon you repeat your hypocrisy, needlessly capitalizing another word: "cheerleader".

Hmm, thanks for the word salad, any chance of some dressing with it next time?

Thanks for acknowledging your awareness of what you're pejoratively calling "the word salad", because you're further advertising your mental incompetence to actually try to address what I wrote, seeing as you are forced to stonewall against it. You've made it clear that you're aware of the challenge, and that you know, as well as I know, that you must fail to meet the challenge. What's bizarre is that you seem proud of yourself for your incompetence to meet the challenge.

Well, no, you've had the theory explained numerous times on this thread

What theory? No theory is called "the theory of evolution", so what (if any) theory are you referring to by your above highlighted phrase, "the theory"??