Is that what you think is going on in the video?
If Evolution
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
Is that what you think is going on in the video?
When you understand why you're not afraid of Santa Claus, you will understand why I'm not afraid of your invisible friend.
Sent from my SM-G930V using TOL mobile app
It only shows that you are not afraid because you are used to compare apples with oranges.
Santa Claus lacks serious accounts of human witnessing. God doesn't lack serious human testimonies. The testimonies are as serious as that the eye-witnesses are willing to martyr themselves to stand for their witnessing. That's the difference. Moreover, you completely lack understanding of the significance of human witnessing.
Right Divider
Body part
I don't have to know anything about Darwin to ask someone using what "Darwin suggests" if they are a Darwinist.
You're such a classic.... what "non-scriptural belief" might that be? Does everything need to be scriptural?
We are not told what the "kinds" are but that there are kinds. You don't believe that Bible, that much is clear.
Species is NOT something that man has discovered scientifically, it is a man-made classification system.
Go ask a breeder about these limitations.
That depends on which of the MANY version of the nebulous "theory of evolution" that you're talking about.
Indeed there are. Many from all different backgrounds have bought the lie. So what?
Actually, evolutionists morph evolution into anything they want, ignoring many scientific facts along the way.
Once again, for the hard of understanding, I don't have to know a single thing about Darwinian theory to ask someone that says "Darwin suggests" if they are a Darwinist.
P.S. It's really funny how smart you think that you are.
6days
New member
As mentioned, arranging pictures in pretty patterns is not evidence.The Barbarian said:
The Barbarian said:
As Moses says 'For in six says, God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them"
And that is the reason why Mr. Wise rejects evolutionary interpretations. He suggests the evidence best fits the creation account.
The Barbarian said:
You are dishonest since you were answered several times.
As Mr. Wise says "It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis".
As Mr. Wise says (because he is honest, right?), even the term 'transitional' is ambiguous. He says "conventional theory is much less successful at explaining some of their fossil evidence (namely the horse series) series then is the creation model."
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Sorry, the analogy is EXACTLY the same.
Special pleading at its finest. See also your post #440 for examples of goddidit and satandidit.
Barbaraian observes:
Most recently, we showed that the abundance of transitional forms where evolutionary theory predicted them (attested to by your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise in Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms) without any such forms were they aren't predicted.
As your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise says, this is strong evidence for evolution as Darwin predicted it to be.
(Bunny Trail attempt ensues:
Nice try. But as you see, it's not pretty pictures but the "transitional forms" Wise writes about that he considers to be strong evidence for evolution. Even stronger, is the lack of transitionals where they shouldn't be.
(Attempt to re-write Genesis as literal history)
I know your modern revision of Genesis calls for reinterpreting figurative verses as history. But most Christians don't buy that change.
He honestly admits that the evidence is contrary to his personal understanding of Genesis. As Dr. Wise says:
"It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis".
As you know, that's not a honest reading of his paper. He says the large number of transitional forms is strong evidence for evolution.
You are referring to this:
Conventional theory has no explanation for the secular decrease in ocean temperature over this period, nor for the increase in grassland over this period (except for the ad hoc suggestion that the grasses must have evolved). Then conventional theory must suggest that high selection pressures caused parallel and convergent evolution to occur within a number of groups. Given the absence of a mechanism for the cooling and drying of the earth and the difficulty in independent creation of new genetic material in a number of groups, conventional theory is much less successful at explaining some of their favourite fossil evidence (namely the horse series) than is the creation model.
Wise is not a botanist nor a climatologist, so he errs here. Grasslands are typical of cooler, drier climate, while wet, warm climates favor forests. He does correctly point out that such changes would evolutionarily result in the changes we see happening in horses at that time. Why it became cooler is not an issue, only that the climate changed and forests retreated. Likewise, grasses had appeared prior to the cooling trend, and only became widespread after cooling began. Wise seems to have been unaware of these facts.
And yes, as Wise suggests, we do see convergent evolution during this time. There were no horses in South America, it still being isolated from other continents during this period. But one litoptern, only distantly related to horses, evolved many of the same adaptation as horses in South America.
Thoatherium had the same adaptation of a single hoof and reduced leg bones as horses have. It was for a while thought to be a horse, until closer examination showed it to be a litoptern.
Most recently, we showed that the abundance of transitional forms where evolutionary theory predicted them (attested to by your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise in Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms) without any such forms were they aren't predicted.
As your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise says, this is strong evidence for evolution as Darwin predicted it to be.
(Bunny Trail attempt ensues:
Nice try. But as you see, it's not pretty pictures but the "transitional forms" Wise writes about that he considers to be strong evidence for evolution. Even stronger, is the lack of transitionals where they shouldn't be.
(Attempt to re-write Genesis as literal history)
I know your modern revision of Genesis calls for reinterpreting figurative verses as history. But most Christians don't buy that change.
He honestly admits that the evidence is contrary to his personal understanding of Genesis. As Dr. Wise says:
"It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis".
As you know, that's not a honest reading of his paper. He says the large number of transitional forms is strong evidence for evolution.
You are referring to this:
Conventional theory has no explanation for the secular decrease in ocean temperature over this period, nor for the increase in grassland over this period (except for the ad hoc suggestion that the grasses must have evolved). Then conventional theory must suggest that high selection pressures caused parallel and convergent evolution to occur within a number of groups. Given the absence of a mechanism for the cooling and drying of the earth and the difficulty in independent creation of new genetic material in a number of groups, conventional theory is much less successful at explaining some of their favourite fossil evidence (namely the horse series) than is the creation model.
Wise is not a botanist nor a climatologist, so he errs here. Grasslands are typical of cooler, drier climate, while wet, warm climates favor forests. He does correctly point out that such changes would evolutionarily result in the changes we see happening in horses at that time. Why it became cooler is not an issue, only that the climate changed and forests retreated. Likewise, grasses had appeared prior to the cooling trend, and only became widespread after cooling began. Wise seems to have been unaware of these facts.
And yes, as Wise suggests, we do see convergent evolution during this time. There were no horses in South America, it still being isolated from other continents during this period. But one litoptern, only distantly related to horses, evolved many of the same adaptation as horses in South America.
Thoatherium had the same adaptation of a single hoof and reduced leg bones as horses have. It was for a while thought to be a horse, until closer examination showed it to be a litoptern.
Last edited:
Barbarian suggests:
Just for the record, so we know what you're asking, tell us what the four points of Darwninism are.
So you have no idea? No wonder you keep walking into walls. You don't know what you're talking about.
Barbarian suggests:
Let's test your non-scriptural belief, then. Give us a "kind" and tell us precisely what the "genetic limitations" are, with your evidence that no further variation is possible for that species.
So you can't tell us what a "kind" is, either? You're bi-ignorant, RD.
Kinda like Bigfoot or the Tooth Fairy. You don't believe the Bible, that much is clear.
No, you're wrong about that. Species are indeed a reality. Just a few years ago, creationists were declaring that God created each species independently, and that they never changed. Now you guys are telling us that they don't exist. You're making it up as you go, aren't you?
Barbarian chuckles:
We'll know that, when we see your evidence for "genetic limitations." Show us what you've got beyond your non-Biblical imagination.
So nothing? That's what I thought. Name me a breed that has reach the limit of its variability and can have no further mutations.
Barbarian observes:
Doesn't matter to evolutionary theory, which makes no claims about the origin of life.
Let's use the one scientist use. Your nebulous theories aren't actually part of science. I'll make it simple for you. You don't have to include modern revisions to the theory; just tell us Darwnin's four points. Google it if you have to.
Barbarian, regarding scientists:
Many of them are Christians and Jews, and Muslims and so on. I guess you didn't know that. But your obfuscation attempt aside, show us that the origin of life is part of Darwin's theory.
(RD declines to support his claim)
As expected. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Barbarian regarding RD's claim that anything scientists acknowledge as true has to be part of evolutionary theory:
They claim that electricity is a fact, too. So you're telling us that electricity is part of Darwinian theory? C'mon. You aren't bright enough to pull off a trick like this. You morph evolution into whatever you want like so many creastionists do.
See above. You set a trap, and then walked right into it. You've repeatedly shown that you have no idea what evolutionary theory is, and so you just make up stuff and insist scientists have to believe it.
Barbarian asks again:
Again, just so we know, tell us the four points of Darwinian theory, and we'll see if you know what you're talking about.
I'm not the one who's trying to tell us about something he doesn't know the first thing about. What I'm showing you is not that complex. Anyone with a three-digit IQ would be able to get it.
Just for the record, so we know what you're asking, tell us what the four points of Darwninism are.
So you have no idea? No wonder you keep walking into walls. You don't know what you're talking about.
Barbarian suggests:
Let's test your non-scriptural belief, then. Give us a "kind" and tell us precisely what the "genetic limitations" are, with your evidence that no further variation is possible for that species.
So you can't tell us what a "kind" is, either? You're bi-ignorant, RD.
Kinda like Bigfoot or the Tooth Fairy. You don't believe the Bible, that much is clear.
No, you're wrong about that. Species are indeed a reality. Just a few years ago, creationists were declaring that God created each species independently, and that they never changed. Now you guys are telling us that they don't exist. You're making it up as you go, aren't you?
Barbarian chuckles:
We'll know that, when we see your evidence for "genetic limitations." Show us what you've got beyond your non-Biblical imagination.
So nothing? That's what I thought. Name me a breed that has reach the limit of its variability and can have no further mutations.
Barbarian observes:
Doesn't matter to evolutionary theory, which makes no claims about the origin of life.
Let's use the one scientist use. Your nebulous theories aren't actually part of science. I'll make it simple for you. You don't have to include modern revisions to the theory; just tell us Darwnin's four points. Google it if you have to.
Barbarian, regarding scientists:
Many of them are Christians and Jews, and Muslims and so on. I guess you didn't know that. But your obfuscation attempt aside, show us that the origin of life is part of Darwin's theory.
(RD declines to support his claim)
As expected. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Barbarian regarding RD's claim that anything scientists acknowledge as true has to be part of evolutionary theory:
They claim that electricity is a fact, too. So you're telling us that electricity is part of Darwinian theory? C'mon. You aren't bright enough to pull off a trick like this. You morph evolution into whatever you want like so many creastionists do.
See above. You set a trap, and then walked right into it. You've repeatedly shown that you have no idea what evolutionary theory is, and so you just make up stuff and insist scientists have to believe it.
Barbarian asks again:
Again, just so we know, tell us the four points of Darwinian theory, and we'll see if you know what you're talking about.
I'm not the one who's trying to tell us about something he doesn't know the first thing about. What I'm showing you is not that complex. Anyone with a three-digit IQ would be able to get it.
Right Divider
Body part
Your fallacious logic is hilarious. YOU said that "Darwin says".... So... are you a Darwinist?
It's just that simple... I need to know nothing about Darwin to ask you this based on YOUR "Darwin says".
Quit embarrassing yourself.
The brain-dead Barbarian cannot understand even the simplest of things (like how to properly QUOTE a TOL post). The Bible says that God created KINDS... it does NOT say exactly what those KINDS are. So what?
Proclaiming your ignorance is very cute.
Are you really that stupid? I did NOT say that "species don't exist". That is just YOUR stupid nonsense. What I DID say is that species are a MAN-MADE classification system that has NO absolute basis in empirical fact.
All dog breeder bred dogs.
All horse breeder bred horses.
None ever turns a dog or a horse into anything other than dogs and horses.
:juggle:
More lies and babbling nonsense from the Barbs.
:rotfl:
You are such a "genius in your own mind".
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Right Divider doesn't understand that the disagreeable odor he smells isn't from something in the room, rather it's from his brain frying in an attempt to develop another clever insult.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
More childishness from SH.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Right Divider
Body part
:yawn:
6days
New member
Nope... you are dishonest.The Barbarian said:
Kurt Wise only suggests it is evidence within your belief system. He calls it an interpretation. He rejects that interpretation, and says an interpretation based on the Biblical account often seems a better fit... Dr Wise"It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis".
The Barbarian said:
As Jesus said, 'If you don't believe what Moses wrote, how can you believe in Him.
You keep repeating arguments you have been proven wrong on. You are dishonest. Many of the very earliest church fathers argued against secular old earth beliefs and for literal six day creation.The Barbarian said:
Nope... you are dishonest. Kurt Wise doea see. honest. He actually says that there are interpretations of fossils that can be understood to support macroevolution... But, "It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis", and that fossil evidence often better fits the Biblical account.The Barbarian said:
Barbie..... it seems you accepted some atheist web sites inaccurate depiction of Mr Wises article. Rather than read it yourself, you just keep trying to defend their (atheist web sites) dishonesty... and now your own dishonesty.
Mr Wise, or honest Mr. Wise as you call him, says that there are scientific reasons for believing in a young Earth and that rejecting evolution is not rejecting science.
Veritas veritate
New member
I cannot give you an in depth take on this without reading further into the book; therefore, let me give you my thoughts about what he is saying in this instance to see if we are on the same page about the excerpt before I formulate any opinions therein.
From the context, it looks as if he is talking about three groups of people. The orthodox religious, Darwinists, and the modern/post-modernists that believe the only choice when it comes to our world view is between God and Darwinism. The latter group including both the religious and atheist alike.
It is clear that he objects to the latter group, but it is not clear as to whether or not he has any objections to the other two groups. I would have to know his stance on the other two before I could give you an in depth answer. The following are examples of why I need more information about his beliefs first.
| "Of course, we would be wrong to suggest that Darwinism is a sufficient "test" of Christian orthodoxy tout court- it is not even a necessary test. Rather, Darwinism is an interesting and useful test at this particular cultural moment." |
This quote makes me question his stance and opinion at all because it seems that he views Christian orthodoxy and Darwinism as two separate world views, but even that is unclear because he then goes right into this:
| "If Darwinism is "dangerous", it's dangerous because the popular version of Darwinism offered up by the most high-profile so-called Darwinists endeavors to turn Darwinism into a universal philosophy." |
This suggests that it isn't Darwinism in and of itself that is a separate world view from Christian orthodoxy, but a popular ultra-fundamental form of Darwinism.
But then he says that he will show ultra-Darwinism as a Christian heresy rather than a true presentation of Darwin's theory of evolution...
This guy is all over the place.
As you said, he makes some telling points, but he fails to make clear where he stands given those points; at least in the context of this excerpt alone.
Veritas veritate
New member
This is wrong on so many levels, lol, but the main reason is that the average human being only has a 2 digit IQ. There are only 15 countries with an average of 100 or more... And the trend is that more countries are progressively getting lower that countries that are getting higher.
Flynn Effect:
The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day.[citation needed] When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised, they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first. Again, the average result is set to 100. However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores are significantly above 100.
Test score increases have been continuous and approximately linear from the earliest years of testing to the present. For the Raven's Progressive Matrices test, a study published in the year 2000 found that subjects born over a 100-year period were compared in Des Moines, United States, and separately in Dumfries, Scotland. Improvements were remarkably consistent across the whole period, in both countries.[1][better source needed] This effect of an apparent increase in IQ has also been observed in various other parts of the world, though the rates of increase vary.[2][better source needed]
There are numerous proposed explanations of the Flynn effect, as well as some skepticism about its implications. Similar improvements have been reported for other cognitions such as semantic and episodic memory.[3] Recent research suggests that the Flynn effect may have ended in at least a few developed nations, possibly allowing national differences in IQ scores[4] to diminish if the Flynn effect continues in nations with lower average national IQs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
This is clearly not evolutionary, but it reflects a remarkable increase in intelligence worldwide. The score needed to make 100 has increased markedly over the last few decades. (IQ scores are set so that 100 is the average in the population)
(Barbarian checks)
https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day.[citation needed] When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised, they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first. Again, the average result is set to 100. However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores are significantly above 100.
Test score increases have been continuous and approximately linear from the earliest years of testing to the present. For the Raven's Progressive Matrices test, a study published in the year 2000 found that subjects born over a 100-year period were compared in Des Moines, United States, and separately in Dumfries, Scotland. Improvements were remarkably consistent across the whole period, in both countries.[1][better source needed] This effect of an apparent increase in IQ has also been observed in various other parts of the world, though the rates of increase vary.[2][better source needed]
There are numerous proposed explanations of the Flynn effect, as well as some skepticism about its implications. Similar improvements have been reported for other cognitions such as semantic and episodic memory.[3] Recent research suggests that the Flynn effect may have ended in at least a few developed nations, possibly allowing national differences in IQ scores[4] to diminish if the Flynn effect continues in nations with lower average national IQs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
This is clearly not evolutionary, but it reflects a remarkable increase in intelligence worldwide. The score needed to make 100 has increased markedly over the last few decades. (IQ scores are set so that 100 is the average in the population)
(Barbarian checks)
https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
Ultra-Darwinists. What Gould (an orthodox Darwinist) calls "hyperselectionists." People who try to push Darwinism into some kind of worldview unlike anything Darwin himself advocated.
Pretty much, other than the comment I made.
Pope John Paul described them as Neo-Darwinians who denied any role to God in the formation of living things. Which is pretty close.
In the same sense that Marxism is a Christian heresy. Without Christianity, there would not have been Marxism. Not because Christianity in any sense supports Marxism, but because Marxism is very much like Christianity with all the God taken out of it.
I'm still working though it. Obviously, he's been trained as a philosopher. The title is a play on Dennett's book, of course.
I haven't read enough to decide what I think, but this guy knows things about the intellectual basis of a theism that accepts physical reality as God-given. I'll post more about this as I go on. If you have a chance to read the book, I'd encourage you to do it. Right or wrong, Cunningham seems to have found a way around the impasse so many scientists and Christians have become tangled into.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Veritas veritate is less well informed than he thinks he is. He even believes water boils by sheer willpower. Dunning-Kruger is alive and well.