New film tackles evidence for evolution

[The Barbarian]

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.

Neither can particle physics. The difference is we can, by understanding evolution, see why morality is a favorable trait in some (but not all) species.

But your problem, I think is confusing efficient causes and final causes. God created us to be moral beings. Our evolution favored humans who had a moral sense.

Whether we became moral beings by evolutionary processes or because He gave each of us a soul at conception, is beside the point. He did it, even if He chose to use nature to do it.

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.

If you can do that, you've not shown us so far. Modern evolutionary theory, although quite different from the theory Darwin proposed, retains Darwin's basic points, which are even better-supported now than in Darwin's time.

If you spent a little time learning the theory, it might help you a lot in arguing about it.

 

[resurrected]

Resurrected is due to complain that people who accept evolution are raining all over the YEC parade here.

i am? :noid:


'fraid i'll have to be late :idunno:

 

[noguru]

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.

Barbarian already dealt with the first part of your fallacy. But this is what I think about the highlighted part:

:rotfl:

:mock: Stripe

:rotfl:

 

[noguru]

i am? :noid:


'fraid i'll have to be late :idunno:

Or just slow.

It is your usual strategy when you have exhausted all your other illogical ideas. Even though we know how barren that tool box is.

:rotfl:

 

[Lighthouse]

If science doesn't say that nothing became something and the inorganic became organic, what does it say? I notice the "science" adherents never state what the actual scientists say happened when they ridicule our caricatures of their pet beliefs.

 

[alwight]

If science doesn't say that nothing became something and the inorganic became organic, what does it say? I notice the "science" adherents never state what the actual scientists say happened when they ridicule our caricatures of their pet beliefs.

Religion exists pretty much because people choose adherence to it, usually their local convenient religion.
Science otoh could not exist if it was just adhered to, it has to be questioned, not simply obeyed, or it too becomes another religion.

 

[Lighthouse]

Religion exists pretty much because people choose adherence to it, usually their local convenient religion.
Science otoh could not exist if it was just adhered to, it has to be questioned, not simply obeyed, or it too becomes another religion.

:doh:

Only someone such as yourself would be dumb enough to assume that I meant adherence in that one stuck to specific beliefs like white on rice.

I also notice you didn't provide an answer.

 

[The Barbarian]

If science doesn't say that nothing became something and the inorganic became organic, what does it say?

Maybe it's time for you to do a little reading and find out for yourself? I'm pretty patient, but you've got a huge amount of catching up to do.

God, for example, says that the inorganic became organic. But if you want to find out how, you're going to have to put in a little time. It's not out of reach, but you're going to have to put in some effort.

I notice the "science" adherents never state what the actual scientists say happened when they ridicule our caricatures of their pet beliefs.

A caricature would imply you knew enough about the science to make fun of it. As you see, most of the creationist attempts at ridicule are hilariously funny. It's just that they aren't funny the way the creationists hoped.

If you have some specific questions, I'd be pleased to help you. But to a large degree, you have to be willing to help yourself. And that means a bit of effort to learn.

You up to that?

 

[6days]

Evolution. In biology it has a very precise meaning. "Change in allele frequency in populations over time."

Ok....then from now on when Barbarian uses the word 'evolution' we should add a foot note that he means there has been a change in allele frequency...and we dont know if he is referring to observational science or his belief system in a common ancestor.

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

Exactly... and evolutionists including you equivocate on terms all the time.

Yes. And new species evolving, and so on. That's what "evolution" means in biology

It seems to mean many things to you. Why not use the specific word 'speciation' rather than equivocate with ambiguous language.

Yes. And scientists have observed the evolution of new species.

Sure...you can use specific terms instead of being ambiguous. You could say "we have witnessed speciation events"

We observe some species that can rapidly adapt to various environments. *That is observational science and part of the Biblical creationist model. *Biblical scientists seem to be able to use specific terms such as speciation, adaptation, change in allele frequency etc. *Evolutionists blow smoke using meaningless words and equivocating on definitions.

 

[Lighthouse]

Maybe it's time for you to do a little reading and find out for yourself? I'm pretty patient, but you've got a huge amount of catching up to do.

As expected.

God, for example, says that the inorganic became organic. But if you want to find out how, you're going to have to put in a little time. It's not out of reach, but you're going to have to put in some effort.

God created, because He is capable of such. Science that denies God claims nothing became something and inorganic became organic with no help at all.

A caricature would imply you knew enough about the science to make fun of it. As you see, most of the creationist attempts at ridicule are hilariously funny. It's just that they aren't funny the way the creationists hoped.

And yet all you do is deny they're accurate without ever telling us what is accurate.

If you have some specific questions, I'd be pleased to help you. But to a large degree, you have to be willing to help yourself. And that means a bit of effort to learn.

You up to that?

I already asked my question, and you haven't answered yet. Forgive me if I don't believe you will.

 

[alwight]

If science doesn't say that nothing became something and the inorganic became organic, what does it say? I notice the "science" adherents never state what the actual scientists say happened when they ridicule our caricatures of their pet beliefs.

Religion exists pretty much because people choose adherence to it, usually their local convenient religion.
Science otoh could not exist if it was just adhered to, it has to be questioned, not simply obeyed, or it too becomes another religion.

:doh:

Only someone such as yourself would be dumb enough to assume that I meant adherence in that one stuck to specific beliefs like white on rice.

I've got white, brown and yellow rice btw, then again white isn't really a colour anyway.
Anyway "adherence", however much you try to equivocate, rudely or otherwise, means that change can't happen unless what is being adhered to changes. I personally wouldn't ever want to treat science as a religion, which is perhaps why you might want to choose to pejoratively infer it was for those more interested in science than a literal Genesis.

I also notice you didn't provide an answer.

Does science conclude that the universe came from nothing?
I don't think that science even concludes what "nothing" actually is.

 

[Lighthouse]

I've got white, brown and yellow rice btw, then again white isn't really a colour anyway.

And neither is black. What does that have to do with anything? I used a colloquialism, get over it.

Anyway "adherence", however much you try to equivocate, rudely or otherwise, means that change can't happen unless what is being adhered to changes. I personally wouldn't ever want to treat science as a religion, which is perhaps why you might want to choose to pejoratively infer it was for those more interested in science than a literal Genesis.

The beliefs of scientists change, as you were so fond of pointing out.

Does science conclude that the universe came from nothing?
I don't think that science even concludes what exactly "nothing" actually is.

And there we have it, an admittance that there is no answer.

 

[alwight]

And neither is black. What does that have to do with anything? I used a colloquialism, get over it.

I was just adding a little colour to our debate LH , lighten up, don't be such a grouch. :AMR:

The beliefs of scientists change, as you were so fond of pointing out.

I don't know about individual ones and last time I checked we never did return to Geocentrism, but science moves with the times, with better information and equipment.
Science corrects its own errors as it gets ever closer to the truth imo.

And there we have it, an admittance that there is no answer.

I'd say that the answer is currently an unknown, not that there isn't a rational and perhaps natural answer too.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ok....then from now on when Barbarian uses the word 'evolution' we should add a foot note that he means there has been a change in allele frequency...and we dont know if he is referring to observational science or his belief system in a common ancestor.

In the same sense that when someone used the word "gravity", you know he means the attraction that matter exerts on other matter...and you don't know if he is referring to observational science or the orbit of Pluto.

Barbarian, regarding 6day's equivocation regarding evolution:
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

So, you and other creationists pretend that the word means the big bang, abiogenesis, and a host of other things that scare you. Your equivocation is to blur the meaning of the word.

Exactly... and evolutionists including you equivocate on terms all the time.

Keep in mind, we constantly have to remind you that the word used in biology (and by the odd guy in Stipe's video) refers to a change in allele frequency over time. Just as gravity means the attraction of matter for other matter, it can apply to dropping a spoon or the motion of the planets.

By attempting to make "evolution" into everything else, you equivocate. And of course, you're pretty unhappy when we call you out on it.

Barbarian observes:
Yes. And new species evolving, and so on. That's what "evolution" means in biology

It seems to mean many things to you.

In the sense that gravity can mean a falling spoon, the orbit of a comet, or the collapse of galactic dust clouds. All functions of gravity; although they are very different things, they all are caused by the same thing.

Why not use the specific word 'speciation' rather than equivocate with ambiguous language.

You might as well say that Newton should have used the specific word "apple-falling" when he called it "gravity." I think you realize how foolish your argument is. Why not back up and think it over?

We observe some species that can rapidly adapt to various environments.

And form new species. The Institute for Creation Research now admits the evolution of new species, genera, and families. That's about halfway to common descent.

That is observational science and part of the Biblical creationist model.

No, that's a recent retreat, after the number of speciations became too great to deny. Admit it, you equivocate about evolution being all sorts of things besides changing populations.

Since you want to make "evolution" into something much more general than the word as it is used in biology, perhaps you should use Darwin's terminology "descent with modification."

Better?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Maybe it's time for you to do a little reading and find out for yourself? I'm pretty patient, but you've got a huge amount of catching up to do.

As expected.

That was a sincere offer, but of course, no one expected you do actually put out the effort to learn about it.

Barbarian observes:
God, for example, says that the inorganic became organic. But if you want to find out how, you're going to have to put in a little time. It's not out of reach, but you're going to have to put in some effort.

God created, because He is capable of such.

So why not just let Him be God, and accept the way He did it? Your pride is getting in the way of your relationship with Him.

Science that denies God...

...is a creationist fairy tale. Science can't deny God, nor can it affirm Him. It's too weak a method to do that. This again, goes back to the point that you don't know what you're talking about. If you took the time to find out what it is, you'd be much more effective here.

Barbarian observes:
A caricature would imply you knew enough about the science to make fun of it. As you see, most of the creationist attempts at ridicule are hilariously funny. It's just that they aren't funny the way the creationists hoped.

And yet all you do is deny they're accurate without ever telling us what is accurate.

I'm not the only person here who's taken the time (repeatedly) to disabuse you of your imaginary "science." But you never learn, do you?

Barbarian offers:
If you have some specific questions, I'd be pleased to help you. But to a large degree, you have to be willing to help yourself. And that means a bit of effort to learn.

You up to that?

I already asked my question, and you haven't answered yet.

You got a detailed answer. You just didn't like what it was. One of the first things you have to learn, if you want to understand His creastion, is to accept that not everything is the way you want it to be.

Again, my offer is sincere, but no reasonable person thinks you'll ever be willing to learn.

 

[The Barbarian]

No hate is involved, though. I'll be blunt: I don't consider Catholics to be Christians.

Jehovah's Witnesses, and a few other sects don't. We were told the world would hate us, and you do.

Want to know why? Two reasons: the false Catholic gospel,

Yours is ours; you just cut out a few things that contradicted your new doctrines. Some of you removed more of His word than others.

and because I've worked with several Catholics who themselves drew that distinction ("You Christians..." "We Catholics...")

You can make up all the stories you want, but anyone who thinks Catholic say that, knows nothing at all about Christianity. The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine makes it clear where we stand. I understand why you hate us. But it doesn't matter to anyone who matters.

But put that aside. Even the most devout Catholic priest is a worker of filth because the work of Christ is forever completed, forever perfect and freely accessible to any who simply believe it and come TO HIM, ALONE, in faith.

I know you want to believe this, but the Bible does not say that. In fact, it says we are saved by works and faith alike. And Jesus says that He will choose who goes with Him, and who goes to the Devil and his angels, based on our works. Because you're a cafeteria Christian, you pick out only the parts you like, and ignore the rest.

Okay, I'll play along. I'm asking you point blank, so give a point blank answer: since you do not believe I'm saved or on my way to being saved given what I currently believe, what must I do to be saved? Spare no detail.

Matthew 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”


...

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

And yes, I'm aware that Luther wanted to remove James from the Bible also, correctly arguing that it denied his new doctrine of "faith alone." But it is God's word, and you should not deny it. BTW, this is the second time I reminded you that I did not say you weren't saved. This is another reason why I don't believe you know any Catholics. This is what the Church says about non-Catholic Christians:

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood.
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI

Contrast that recognition of faith in Christ among non-Catholic Christians, with your sordid accusations. It says a great deal about the condition of your soul. Yet, no one but you and God can say if you're with Him or against Him.

If the things you said here are any indication, may He have mercy on your soul.

 

[noguru]

:doh:

Only someone such as yourself would be dumb enough to assume that I meant adherence in that one stuck to specific beliefs like white on rice.

I also notice you didn't provide an answer.

You are calling him dumb?

:rotfl:

Your face is next to dumb in the dictionary.

 

[noguru]

Barbarian suggests:
Maybe it's time for you to do a little reading and find out for yourself? I'm pretty patient, but you've got a huge amount of catching up to do.



That was a sincere offer, but of course, no one expected you do actually put out the effort to learn about it.

Barbarian observes:
God, for example, says that the inorganic became organic. But if you want to find out how, you're going to have to put in a little time. It's not out of reach, but you're going to have to put in some effort.



So why not just let Him be God, and accept the way He did it? Your pride is getting in the way of your relationship with Him.



...is a creationist fairy tale. Science can't deny God, nor can it affirm Him. It's too weak a method to do that. This again, goes back to the point that you don't know what you're talking about. If you took the time to find out what it is, you'd be much more effective here.

Barbarian observes:
A caricature would imply you knew enough about the science to make fun of it. As you see, most of the creationist attempts at ridicule are hilariously funny. It's just that they aren't funny the way the creationists hoped.



I'm not the only person here who's taken the time (repeatedly) to disabuse you of your imaginary "science." But you never learn, do you?

Barbarian offers:
If you have some specific questions, I'd be pleased to help you. But to a large degree, you have to be willing to help yourself. And that means a bit of effort to learn.

You up to that?



You got a detailed answer. You just didn't like what it was. One of the first things you have to learn, if you want to understand His creastion, is to accept that not everything is the way you want it to be.

Again, my offer is sincere, but no reasonable person thinks you'll ever be willing to learn.

I am pretty sure OutHouse does not want to understand. It would disturb his little wooby world.

 

[Yorzhik]

Alate_One: isn't morality one of the properties of man?

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't know about individual ones and last time I checked we never did return to Geocentrism, but science moves with the times, with better information and equipment.
Science corrects its own errors as it gets ever closer to the truth imo.

Congratulations on missing the point.

I'd say that the answer is currently an unknown, not that there isn't a rational and perhaps natural answer too.

Precisely.

Barbarian suggests:
Maybe it's time for you to do a little reading and find out for yourself? I'm pretty patient, but you've got a huge amount of catching up to do.

That was a sincere offer, but of course, no one expected you do actually put out the effort to learn about it.

Barbarian observes:
God, for example, says that the inorganic became organic. But if you want to find out how, you're going to have to put in a little time. It's not out of reach, but you're going to have to put in some effort.

So why not just let Him be God, and accept the way He did it? Your pride is getting in the way of your relationship with Him.

...is a creationist fairy tale. Science can't deny God, nor can it affirm Him. It's too weak a method to do that. This again, goes back to the point that you don't know what you're talking about. If you took the time to find out what it is, you'd be much more effective here.

Barbarian observes:
A caricature would imply you knew enough about the science to make fun of it. As you see, most of the creationist attempts at ridicule are hilariously funny. It's just that they aren't funny the way the creationists hoped.

I'm not the only person here who's taken the time (repeatedly) to disabuse you of your imaginary "science." But you never learn, do you?

Barbarian offers:
If you have some specific questions, I'd be pleased to help you. But to a large degree, you have to be willing to help yourself. And that means a bit of effort to learn.

You up to that?

You got a detailed answer. You just didn't like what it was. One of the first things you have to learn, if you want to understand His creastion, is to accept that not everything is the way you want it to be.

Again, my offer is sincere, but no reasonable person thinks you'll ever be willing to learn.

You are so full of yourself you're just not worth listening to.

If you can put aside the puffed up pride for a post and not litter it with "Barbarian observes" or Barbarian offers," etc. I might consider giving you a chance. But no reasonable person expects you to be able to stop being wrapped up in yourself or to be able to actually give an answer to the question.

You are calling him dumb?

:rotfl:

Your face is next to dumb in the dictionary.

This from the epitome of brainless wonder.