New film tackles evidence for evolution

[resurrected]

i forgot the code for scrolling left and right and up and down


i don;t think we have a blinking one - that would be cool

 

[musterion]

But the fact is, YE creationism does not fully accept God's word in Genesis. That's not debatable. They not only add their own ideas, they also deny some of God's word.

Translation: You Bible Only believers need to stop taking it at face value and follow the lead of people like me, who double filter the Word of God through a filthy false priesthood and the babblings of ever-changing science (so-called).

Change your name to Bizarro, you have everything backward.

Because your beliefs are conditional on your political ideas, you have compromised on faith.

I was unaware I superimposed any political beliefs I have upon the Bible. Just the opposite, in fact -- my faith informs my politics.

Accept Him without conditions; you'll be happier and better off.

By joining your church?

 

[musterion]

i don;t think we have a blinking one - that would be cool

No, we're better off without it. We both know you'd use it to induce seizures.

 

[Lon]

Um, I think you kinda missed the point. Why doesn't our legal system recognize "God told me to do it" as a valid justification for murder (let alone genocide)?

Because you have to know somebody to know what they'd say.


If you didn't know me, you'd not know a thing about what I said -second-hand information and all that.

Don't know Him = Don't know what He said.

Its ignorance.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
But the fact is, YE creationism does not fully accept God's word in Genesis. That's not debatable. They not only add their own ideas, they also deny some of God's word.

Translation: You Bible Only believers need to stop taking it at face value and follow the lead of people like me, who double filter the Word of God through a filthy false priesthood

So you hate Christians who don't follow your particular sect. I got that. Would your frothing abate a bit if I told you that there are extreme right-wing Catholics, and even Catholics who don't accept evolution?

and the babblings of ever-changing science (so-called).

Rational creationists don't try that one, any more. And there's at least one one nutso creationist group cautioning their followers not to try it:
“The phrase ‘science falsely so called’ in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.” To develop a Scriptural model properly, we must understand what the author intended to communicate to his intended audience, which in turn is determined by the grammar and historical context. We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint. The original Greek word translated ‘science’ is gnosis, and in this context refers to the élite esoteric ‘knowledge’ that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have changed their meanings over time. The word ‘science’ originally meant ‘knowledge’, from the Latin scientia, from scio meaning ‘know’. This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern translations correctly render the word as ‘knowledge’ in this passage.
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

Barbarian observes:
Because your beliefs are conditional on your political ideas, you have compromised on faith.

I was unaware I superimposed any political beliefs I have upon the Bible. Just the opposite, in fact -- my faith informs my politics.

If so, you wouldn't have made faith a political issue. No, it's quite clear that your faith is subject to your political beliefs.

Barbarian suggests:
Accept Him without conditions; you'll be happier and better off.

By joining your church?

Become a Christian without reservations. Let Him be God. And God doesn't care if you're a catholic or a Catholic (look up the term and learn why).

 

[glorydaz]

And that is perfectly fine, since strictly speaking, under evolution a member of a particular species doesn’t suddenly “produces” a full blown member of another species. So we shouldn't expect to see that. Rather, every species produces after it’s own "kind" and it is the slow and gradual accumulation of small changes by virtue of descent with modification that eventually leads to speciation and the branching out of species.

With this in mind, the verses you listed need not bet at odds with evolution and could be understood in such a way that they are consistent with it.


Evo

That's right. We shouldn't expect to see that because it doesn't happen and there has never been any evidence of it happening.

Slow and gradual? Really? Where are the results of these "small changes" to be found? Certainly not in something outside of it's own kind. Pigs are forever pigs....they may be bigger or pinker, but they are still pigs. You never see flying pigs or pigs with gills or pigs with an elephant nose. You just don't see it...no matter how deep you dig or how far and wide you search.

 

[alwight]

That's right. We shouldn't expect to see that because it doesn't happen and there has never been any evidence of it happening.

You don't actually see it because we don't live very long in evolutionary terms.
The ToE is basically a rational explanation of the hard evidence that assumes no miraculous events were required, since no such events are ever actually demonstrably been seen, even if claimed by some.
There is no theoretical barrier to future versions of pigs evolving wings.

 

[glorydaz]

You don't actually see it because we don't live very long in evolutionary terms.
The ToE is basically a rational explanation of the hard evidence that assumes no miraculous events were required, since no such events are ever actually demonstrably been seen, even if claimed by some.
There is no theoretical barrier to future versions of pigs evolving wings.

No, there isn't a record in the ground, either. There is no record, anywhere, of any transition animals of any kind. There is no evidence at all of evolution. If there was any evidence, then they'd be able to say evolution is a law instead of just a theory. Pigs will never evolve and grow wings....nor will they fly. NO evidence whatsoever.

 

[alwight]

No, there isn't a record in the ground, either. There is no record, anywhere, of any transition animals of any kind. There is no evidence at all of evolution. If there was any evidence, then they'd be able to say evolution is a law instead of just a theory. Pigs will never evolve and grow wings....nor will they fly. NO evidence whatsoever.

There is more than enough evidence of which has never falsified the ToE, but if you think that the miraculous is more likely then that's your business.

 

[noguru]

No, there isn't a record in the ground, either. There is no record, anywhere, of any transition animals of any kind. There is no evidence at all of evolution. If there was any evidence, then they'd be able to say evolution is a law instead of just a theory.

:up:

Right, that's why anyone who does not have a strict adherence to a "literal" interpretation of Genesis can see the evidence. Though people such as you, who make a strict adherence to a "literal" Genesis as your first priority, cannot see the evidence.

Note: I deleted the part that was an absurd expectation in regard to evidence.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, there isn't a record in the ground, either. There is no record, anywhere, of any transition animals of any kind.

We can test that assumption. Name any two major animal groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional.

There are still some cases where the transitionals are not yet known. But the are getting fewer and fewer as time goes on, and we find more and more of them.

What would you like first?

And laws are weaker things than theories, because, although they make predictions as theories do, they can't explain things as theories do.

Hence Kepler's Laws of planetary motion could predict movement of the planets, but Newton's theory of gravitation could explain why they move as they do.

There are many, many laws in evolution, but none of them can explain why it happens. Evolutionary theory explains why it happens.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That suits me. I ought to be able to commit to a post at least every thee days, and sometimes more quickly, I would think, so we may not even need to go past two weeks, depending on how the timing ends up.

OK

I think that I would rather you begin, if that's alright.

Well chosen, then. No problem!

Just to be clear, we are focusing generally on the nature of morality, yes?
....
I believe we are.

Yes, we are.

I will contact Knight to make the arrangements if he is willing.

AMR

 

[Stripe]

i forgot the code for scrolling left and right and up and down i don;t think we have a blinking one - that would be cool

cool

 

[rocketman]

"Nature of Morality" Awesome! It will be good to see where moral relativists derive their standard...if there even is one. :chuckle:

 

[resurrected]

No, there isn't a record in the ground, either. There is no record, anywhere, of any transition animals of any kind. There is no evidence at all of evolution. If there was any evidence, then they'd be able to say evolution is a law instead of just a theory. Pigs will never evolve and grow wings....nor will they fly. NO evidence whatsoever.

according to barbie, if you take a large enough group of pigs and push them off a cliff, a couple of them will have proto-flying abilities and survive to pass on their genes

lather rinse and repeat enough times and eventually they'll sprout wings and soar :thumb:

 

[musterion]

So you hate Christians who don't follow your particular sect. I got that. Would your frothing abate a bit if I told you that there are extreme right-wing Catholics, and even Catholics who don't accept evolution?

Good job, lefty. Accuse your opponent of hate, even in the absence of any evidence of hatred, and the argument is halfway won. You and Granite have a lot more in common than you do with the Bible believers on this site. Does that bother you, or does it make you proud?

 

[The Barbarian]

Good job, lefty. Accuse your opponent of hate, even in the absence of any evidence of hatred

Describing Christians as "filthy" pretty much gave you away. I see the denial, but everyone sees your behavior.

You and Granite have a lot more in common than you do with the Bible believers on this site.

We've already established that you only believe the parts you like. That's not what a Bible believer does.

If you want to be a Christian, you're going to have to step up and do it.

 

[musterion]

Describing Christians as "filthy" pretty much gave you away. I see the denial, but everyone sees your behavior.

No hate is involved, though. I'll be blunt: I don't consider Catholics to be Christians. Want to know why? Two reasons: the false Catholic gospel, and because I've worked with several Catholics who themselves drew that distinction ("You Christians..." "We Catholics...") before I ever did. I know not all Catholics draw that distinction but many do...that shows what they really think about Rome's "separated brethren" lie.

As to "filthy," you'll note that comment was in specific regard to your idolatrous priesthood which dares to elevate itself to the office of mediatorship between men and Christ, even as a good number of them are drunks, sodomites or simply unbelievers. 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. By its very existence, your priesthood spits on the completed work of Christ and holds it in contempt as insufficient by itself. So yes...it's filthy, as is ANY man, woman, ministry, church, denomination, organization or institution claiming to be a necessary conduit between men and Christ.

If you want to be a Christian, you're going to have to step up and do it.

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.

 

[musterion]

So are you proud of your profound similarity to Granite and his ilk? You didn't answer.

 

[noguru]

So are you proud of your profound similarity to Granite and his ilk? You didn't answer.

And yet you have a similarity to Granite in another aspect. So what exactly does that tell you?