noguru
Well-known member
Well that is because you assume that what is inside your head is also inside other people's head.
New film tackles evidence for evolution
- Thread starter Stripe
- Start date
- Status
Well that is because you assume that what is inside your head is also inside other people's head.
alwight
New member
http://roosterteeth.com/members/journal/entry.php?id=343058
9 years old and just one person found it funny?
I wonder who that was? :think:
Is Kent Hovind a Dr. as he claims?
Apparently any mail addressed to "Dr. Kent Hovind" received by his prison mailroom will be returned to sender as unknown. :chuckle:
I'd like to see the accounts of where and when this has been observed.
It's not science, it's bewildering speculation.
Which is the exact tactic of some so-called "scientists."
What is rational about a series of random occurrences which, suddenly, attain a purposeless and simultaneously directed will?
:darwinsm: Perhaps someday, by the grace of God, you may see the irony.
noguru
Well-known member
:darwinsm:
Please explain to me the irony you see. But I bet you won't. It would mean trudging through that quagmire you think is your belief system.
noguru
Well-known member
Not true at all. Some try other ways. Yet because of your own mental limitations the only thing you folks can see is ridicule, whether or not intentional/necessary.
Let me ask you Frank, how do you treat someone who refuses to listen to clear reason? Do you try to sugarcoat your words when their own emotional makeup has them seeing ridicule when there was none? Is that even possible if one needs to make a point regarding reason and reason does not work on such individuals, these individuals who when confronted with reason on a certain subject, claim their revelation trumps reason?
Would you even know the difference between sincere correction on such a matter and "ridicule"? Could it be that your feeling of absolute knowledge, through "revelation", makes "sincere correction" and "ridicule" appear the same to you?
Last edited:
You find it bewildering because you weren't paying attention in 7th grade science class. To be fair to you, the details are still hard to see; while evolution is well-understood in most things, abiogenesis is not; we still aren't precisely sure how the earth brought forth life.
But for a Christian, God's word should be sufficient. Why isn't it good enough for you?
Last edited:
noguru
Well-known member
And he has the trump card they label "revelation" to hide his ignorance behind.
noguru
Well-known member
That is like asking "What is rational about the hydrologic cycle, and how does evaporating and condensing H2O which produces rain, rivers, lakes, oceans...attain a purposeless and simultaneously directed will?"
now you clowns think the hydrologic cycle attains a purposeless and simultaneously directed will?
:darwinsm:
well, i spose if you gave it millions and millions of years, it might evolve one :chuckle:
Last edited:
"Looks designed; must be um... complex specified information.."
That or temperature gradients and gravity. One of those.
noguru
Well-known member
You don't have the slightest clue about which you are posting. You are obviously the clown.
Asking why natural processes produce what they do in terms of "purposeless" and "simultaneously directed" is the same question for all of them. But you are too stupid to have the critical thinking skills to see this. This is exactly why reasonable people laugh at you folks and why you must gather in degenerate websites that falsely claim to be about "truth". Because you can always slap the label "divine revelation" on your absurd and disgusting strategies of life, without critical thought from your choir of morons.
Last edited:
Alate_One
Well-known member
No, the problem is you take every "evolutionist" and try to force them to defend the positions of every other "evolutionist".
Trying to explain morality with evolution is actually quite a few steps removed from the scientific theory itself. I think you are still trying to equate anything naturalistic with evolution.
It doesn't challenge me, but your "argument" ignores theistic evolution.
Except that hasn't been your argument. And either one is refuted by theistic evolution.
The only way "objective" morality and evolution being true are incompatible is if evolution *must* be atheistic. There is no reason to assume that.
And the other problem is even if the proposition is right that evolution provides no basis for morality, that doesn't make it wrong as a scientific theory. It garners a big "So What?"
6days
New member
Barbarian said:
What are you talking about? Evolution is an ambiguous word. There is chemical evolution, stellar evolution, micro and macro biological evolution (also meaningless terms) and much more. Evolutionists (including Barbarian) always equivocate on terms. For example I think you have said 'evolution has been observed'. *
Did you mean we have observed how organisms adapt? Did you mean you have observed planets forming? Did you mean you have observed an allele change?*
When evolutionists say "evolution has been observed"...we know they are blowing smoke, trying to sell their belief system.
"I will wipe out from the earth the men whom I have created, and
not only the men, but also the beasts and the creeping things and
the birds of the air, for I am sorry that I made them."
In the eyes of God the earth was corrupt and full of lawlessness.
When God saw how corrupt the earth had become, since all mortals
led depraved lives on earth, he said to Noah: "I have decided to put
an end to all mortals on earth; the earth is full of lawlessness be-
cause of them. So I will destroy them and all life on earth.
"I, on my part, am about to bring the flood on the earth, to destroy
everywhere all creatures in which there is the breath of life; every-
thing on earth shall perish.
"Seven days from now I will bring rain down on the earth for forty
days and forty nights, and so I will wipe out from the surface of the
earth every moving creature that I have made."
All creatures that stirred on earth perished: birds, cattle, wild an-
imals, and all that swarmed on the earth, as well as all mankind.
Everything on dry land with the faintest breath of life in its nostrils
died out. The LORD wiped out every living thing on earth: man and
cattle, the creeping things and the birds of the air; all were wiped
out from the earth. Only Noah and those with him in the ark were
left.
Genesis 6:7, 11-13, 17, 7:4, 21-23
not only the men, but also the beasts and the creeping things and
the birds of the air, for I am sorry that I made them."
In the eyes of God the earth was corrupt and full of lawlessness.
When God saw how corrupt the earth had become, since all mortals
led depraved lives on earth, he said to Noah: "I have decided to put
an end to all mortals on earth; the earth is full of lawlessness be-
cause of them. So I will destroy them and all life on earth.
"I, on my part, am about to bring the flood on the earth, to destroy
everywhere all creatures in which there is the breath of life; every-
thing on earth shall perish.
"Seven days from now I will bring rain down on the earth for forty
days and forty nights, and so I will wipe out from the surface of the
earth every moving creature that I have made."
All creatures that stirred on earth perished: birds, cattle, wild an-
imals, and all that swarmed on the earth, as well as all mankind.
Everything on dry land with the faintest breath of life in its nostrils
died out. The LORD wiped out every living thing on earth: man and
cattle, the creeping things and the birds of the air; all were wiped
out from the earth. Only Noah and those with him in the ark were
left.
Genesis 6:7, 11-13, 17, 7:4, 21-23
God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the
ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.
This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of
dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience,
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven
and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers
subject to him.
1st Peter 3:20-22
ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.
This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of
dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience,
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven
and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers
subject to him.
1st Peter 3:20-22
noguru
Well-known member
You are an idiot. The word is ambiguous just like any word. That is why there are descriptive words around it and/or its context. Those descriptive words are designed by humans to narrow down the vague penumbra. You demonstrate with almost every one of your posts (in your own words) what a complete and utter moron you are. Keep it up my friend. Keep showing the world the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of your socio-political agenda.
Evolution is the idea that all living things are descended from a single common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection.
This process cannot account for morality.
I am utterly justified in expecting evolutionists to stick to their own fundamentals. The problem is, they can't. Most cannot even properly describe what they believe as I can.
:darwinsm: The Classic Darwinist response: Accuse the challenger of exactly what the evolutionists is so fond of doing.
Then quit arguing. :up:
Reading is a struggle, isn't it? :chuckle:
This is called begging the question. You can't dodge the challenge by assuming evolution to be true.
The challenge did nothing to demand any explanation of the nature of evolution.
Which is just you looking for something else to say to draw attention away from the rest of your nonsense. :idunno:
If you don't care, quit arguing. :up:
noguru
Well-known member
Right, and as many have pointed out, there are many aspects of science that do not account for human morality. You are an idiot to expect that evolution, the hydrologic cycle, atomic theory...or any other of the vast number of ideas in science should account for human morality. The problem is your understanding of science, not the science behind evolution.
Barbarian chuckles at Stipe's attempt to equivocate:
This from a guy who we have to repeatedly show that evolution is not about the origin of life, or the big bang
Evolution. In biology it has a very precise meaning. "Change in allele frequency in populations over time." Creationists often throw up a smoke screen by using the word as it's used in other disciplines.
Yep. Like that. No matter how often we remind you guys, you persist in equivocation
Perhaps you don't know what "equivocation" means. Let me help:
Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).
Wikipedia
As you see, it's what you just did, and what Stipe got called out for doing.
Yes. And new species evolving, and so on. That's what "evolution" means in biology. Notice that the strange guy in Stipe's video was using it in that sense, at least part of the time. Didn't watch all of it, so he might have been equivocating the way you and Stipe did it.
Yes. And scientists have observed the evolution of new species.
Nice try. But the equivocation game is always a loser for creationists. It's merely necessary to show that the word has a very specific meaning in evolutionary theory.
This from a guy who we have to repeatedly show that evolution is not about the origin of life, or the big bang
Evolution. In biology it has a very precise meaning. "Change in allele frequency in populations over time." Creationists often throw up a smoke screen by using the word as it's used in other disciplines.
Yep. Like that. No matter how often we remind you guys, you persist in equivocation
Perhaps you don't know what "equivocation" means. Let me help:
Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).
Wikipedia
As you see, it's what you just did, and what Stipe got called out for doing.
Yes. And new species evolving, and so on. That's what "evolution" means in biology. Notice that the strange guy in Stipe's video was using it in that sense, at least part of the time. Didn't watch all of it, so he might have been equivocating the way you and Stipe did it.
Yes. And scientists have observed the evolution of new species.
Nice try. But the equivocation game is always a loser for creationists. It's merely necessary to show that the word has a very specific meaning in evolutionary theory.
noguru
Well-known member
Resurrected is due to complain that people who accept evolution are raining all over the YEC parade here. He would rather that they could avoid accurate critical analysis of their claims and continue spreading their deceit.
And Stripe is due to request that we look only at the evidence. :rotfl:
And Stripe is due to request that we look only at the evidence. :rotfl:
- Status