Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Dolphin May Have 'remains' Of Legs


Amethyst

Recommended Posts

Would you like more?

You have more? I hope so. That was only around 80 by count, and I can tell you that most likely well over half of them are NOT EVOLUTION-DENIERS. Once again, you quote Stephen Jay Gould, whom I quoted exentsively for you as not being a Creationist.

 

So let's be overly gracious and say that 50 of those above actually believe Magic created life, rather than just being scientists who have problems with certain areas of the ToE. 50 does not equal MANY. 50 is tiny. Less than FEW. Lets be overly conservative and say there are only 100,000 scientists in the world. Do you still say 50 is MANY? Hardly.

 

Like Neverclear said, like I've said, the BoC (Belief of Creationism) has been evaluated scientifically along with 100's of other hypothesis and has be rejected as good science. The other scientists are dealing with the rejection of their other ideas, why aren't you? Does God have to be proven scientifically for you to believe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Slamdunk

    37

  • Antlerman

    28

  • Legion

    17

  • neverclear5

    15

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I counted 5 quotes from Stephen Jay Gould in that list of 80 quotes. Again I pointed out before how Evolution Deniers are famous for misquoting, taking out of context, or misapplying the words of scientists to falsely support their own pseudo-science. This is a fact that Stephen Jay Gould himself pointed out. I quoted HIS words about this to you, and yet you continue to misrepresent him. Slam, this is why people are questioning your intergrety, and your honesty. This is not just an error you made, it's an error that was pointed out to you by the words of Gould himself, and despite that you ignore it and keep quoting him.

 

Just because scientists have differing theory's about how evolution works in speciation, does not in any way negate or invalidate the ToE. Morever, it most certainly does not support a Bible-based, Garden of Eden level mythology.

 

Regarding PE:

Confusion with other rapid modes of evolution

 

Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with George Gaylord Simpson's quantum evolution, Richard Goldschmidt's saltationism, pre-Lyellian catastrophism, and the phenomenon of mass extinction. Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually more appropriately understood as a form of gradualism[2] (in the strict and literal sense of biological continuity). This is because even though evolutionary change aggregates "quickly" between geological sediments—relative to the species' full geological existence—change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that:

Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales.[3]

The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record.

 

<snip>

 

Relation to Darwinism

 

The sudden appearance and lack of substantial gradual change of most species in the geologic record—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin (1859:301, 1871:119-120) who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation. Nevertheless, with the influence of catastrophism, Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution. It is often incorrectly assumed that he insisted that the rate of change must be constant, or nearly so. In The Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." (1872:619) Thus punctuationism in general is consistent with Darwin's conception of evolution, and with the independent proposals of natural selection by William Charles Wells, Patrick Matthew, and Alfred Russel Wallace.

 

According to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, "peripheral isolates" are considered to be of critical importance for speciation. However, Darwin wrote, "I can by no means agree…that immigration and isolation are necessary elements. . . . Although isolation is of great importance in the production of new species, on the whole I am inclined to believe that largeness of area is still more important, especially for the production of species which shall prove capable of enduring for a long period, and of spreading widely." (1859:105-106)

 

Darwin explained the reasons for this belief as follows:

"Throughout a great and open area, not only will there be a greater chance of favourable variations, arising from the large number of individuals of the same species there supported, but the conditions of life are much more complex from the large number of already existing species; and if some of these species become modified and improved, others will have to be improved in a corresponding degree, or they will be exterminated. Each new form, also, as soon as it has been improved, will be able to spread over the open and continuous area, and will thus come into competition with many other forms ... the new forms produced on large areas, which have already been victorious over many competitors, will be those that will spread most widely, and will give rise to the greatest number of new varieties and species. They will thus play a more important role in the changing history of the organic world." (1859:107-108)

Thus punctuated equilibrium contradicts some of Darwin's ideas regarding the specific mechanisms of evolution, but generally accords with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

 

(from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium )

Let me ask this of you. How does PE proposed by Stephen Jay Gould whom you quote to support your position, align in any way with a God? If it doesn't then why are you quoting him and most of the others? It is dishonest of you to continue to do so.

 

So you understand, I intend to use the term Evolution Deniers going forward in exactly the same context as the Holocost Deniers who ignore overwhelming evidence in favor of an ideological belief. This is not an alternative theory. It has been debunked completely. It's true nature is anti-science. It is ideological only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop and think for a moment. What creature are you aware of that fits the description of behemoth in verses 15-24? What creature could stand in a raging river and not be swept away? What creature do you know that has a tail that sways like a cedar? What creature do you know that has bones like beams of bronze and whose strength and power are in its hips and stomach muscle?

I would say an elephant fits that perfectly. Big, strong, heavy bones, eats vegetation and its tail sways from side to side like a cedar. The quote is often mis-read as "a tail like a cedar" and therefore it is thought of as a big thick tail, but the bible simply says "sways like a cedar", which simple side to side movement matches.

 

I'm just trying to envision what this creature must have looked like with little or no hair, four stumpy legs and a head that looked life a whale or dolphin.

You've pretty much described a hippo word for word. A land animal that spends more time in the water than out, lost its hair, stumpy legs, and a head that looks alot like some types of whales.

The other creature to look at is the manatee, looks like a water living hippo. Its not hard to imagine such creatures when we can see them in nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goodness... if this doesn't make my case going all the way back to the beginning of my discussions with Slam... I just found this quote from Henry Morris of the Creation Institute that pretty much sums up the value of the Scientific Method to the Creationist:

 

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.

Shall we play a game of quotes?? :wicked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.

I think this is a fantastic quote Antlerman. I can't help but think that this is precisely why it is futile to argue or debate with some.

 

This is how you feel, isn't it Slam? Be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To tie a little bow on all those who approach science from the camps of those that Slam likes to respect as having scientific integrity, lets go with a few more quotes, shall we?

Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith
and beliefs based on argument and
evidence
, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa.

It the bible is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice,
as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.

No geological difficulties, real or imagined,
can be allowed
to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of scripture
.

When science and the Bible differ,
science has obviously misinterpreted its data
.

The data of geology, in our view, should be interpreted in light of the scripture,
rather than distorting scripture to accommodate current geological philosophy.

The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that
Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth,
regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed
.

I cannot even begin to express the utter disdain I feel towards those who posit the intellectual travesty that is inherent in this doctrine! And you wonder why reasonable people will not allow these religious fanatics to pollute our science class rooms with their anti-scientific approach to knowledge??!!?? My god, open your eyes man! Read my new signature below and weep. Creationsim is utterly useless. It's only contribution to humanity is ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you like more?

 

Sorry mate, but compared to the scientists supporting evolution thats a drop in the ocean. Even if it turns out evolution alone wasn't responsible. Intelligent design is just not feasible. Placing doubt on the current idea doesn't help yours because yours was discounted years ago. What evidense there is disproves your idea and so we are now formulating the best theory possible from the information. Its the same thing that was done with gravity and thermodynamics. We may adapt or find more accurate models but we'll never go back to those, ignorant, badly thought out ideas that came before because we have seen them for what they were and found more accurate theories. The same way we have with young earth creationism, which, by definition, is also a theory, just an old and incorrect one.

 

[slam] You are missing the point. All evolutionists believe it happened but disagree about the fossil record. The most prominent names in evolution don't find in the fossil record what education teaches, namely, there is a gradual progression of life evolving up from a common ancestor and that that progression represents macro-evolution. If you belief that you are out of step with the likes of Eldredge, Gould, Stanley, Patterson, Raup, Pilbeam and many others.

 

What the fossil record does show is the sudden appearance of major kinds. This is a common statement made by those who know the fossil record.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the fossil record does show is the sudden appearance of major kinds. This is a common statement made by those who know the fossil record.

 

 

sudden in fossil terms slam. Sudden as in, over a hundred thousand years, rather than over a million. I'm curious, how does any of this support your idea that the earth is 6000 years old??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You have more? I hope so. That was only around 80 by count, and I can tell you that most likely well over half of them are NOT EVOLUTION-DENIERS.

 

[slam] I never said they denied evolution. What they deny is the fossil record supporting gradualism. How many times must I repeat this? What prominent evolutionist can you site who believes the fossil record supports macro-evolution? And just so there is no confusion what I'm talking about, where one major group GRADUALLY evolved into another major group (invertebrates into vertebrates, land animal into whales or dolphins, reptiles or dinosaurs into birds, etc.) That kind of GRADUAL evolution.

 

Once again, you quote Stephen Jay Gould, whom I quoted exentsively for you as not being a Creationist.

 

[slam] I have never said that he was. All I wanted you to see from him is that he did not believe the fossils supported GRADUALISM. He was just on to something else that is as mythical as gradualism (Punctualism). Why would you think I believed he was a creationist?

 

So let's be overly gracious and say that 50 of those above actually believe Magic created life,

 

[slam] I did not see where any one of them they believed "Magic"(it bugs you to say God) created life. I don't know what they believe. Perhaps punctuated equilibria. BUT THE SALIENT POINT IS THAT THEY DON'T BELIEVE THE FOSSILS SHOW MACRO-EVOLUTION AS NOTED ABOVE.

 

rather than just being scientists who have problems with certain areas of the ToE. 50 does not equal MANY. 50 is tiny. Less than FEW. Lets be overly conservative and say there are only 100,000 scientists in the world. Do you still say 50 is MANY? Hardly.

 

[slam] As one of the evolutionists I sited, many non-paleontologists are in the dark about the true nature of the fossil record. It has become so ingrained by repitition that they just assume gradualism is there. Name me one PROMINENT evolutionist, with supporting data, who believes the fossil record supports GRADUAL evolution between the precambrian and cambrian, invertebrates and vertebrates, dinosaurs and birds. MAKE SURE HE PROVIDES THE GRADUAL SERIES OF LIFE FORMS BETWEEN THE GROUPS HE BELIEVE EVOLVED.

 

Like Neverclear said, like I've said, the BoC (Belief of Creationism) has been evaluated scientifically along with 100's of other hypothesis and has be rejected as good science. The other scientists are dealing with the rejection of their other ideas, why aren't you? Does God have to be proven scientifically for you to believe?

 

[slam] If gradual evolution and punctuated equilibria were disproven to your satisfaction, how would you explain the appearance of life on earth? If the evolutionists I have sited can convince you that the fossil record does not support GRADUALISM, then you are left with PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA, which is in just as much trouble as gradualism. It is a theory resorted to because the fossils don't show GRADUALISM. The switch from gradualism to punctualism is only the desperation of some wvolutuionists who know the fossils don't support gradualism and still reject an intelligent creator/designer whom we call (gasp.....) GOD. "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God." (Ps. 14:1)

 

 

 

 

sudden in fossil terms slam. Sudden as in, over a hundred thousand years, rather than over a million. I'm curious, how does any of this support your idea that the earth is 6000 years old??

 

 

[slam] Yes, sudden as in the fossils don't support gradualism which indirectly means that life forms appear on earth abruptly. If there is no evolution between the major kinds, then they must have been created as the Bible says.

 

The sudden appearance of life doesn't address the age of the earth. That is another matter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sudden in fossil terms slam. Sudden as in, over a hundred thousand years, rather than over a million. I'm curious, how does any of this support your idea that the earth is 6000 years old??

 

 

[slam] Yes, sudden as in the fossils don't support gradualism which indirectly means that life forms appear on earth abruptly. If there is no evolution between the major kinds, then they must have been created as the Bible says.

 

The sudden appearance of life doesn't address the age of the earth. That is another matter.

 

 

The fossils we have support gradualism to a point. We don't have enough to watch every animal evolving but we have enough to see transitions in some cases. Once again, they don't say we have changes between major kinds, we have a kind splitting into two different kinds.

 

2nd, FUCK YOU is it a different issue! If the fossils don't show exactly what happened over the billions of years we've been here fine. But they sure as hell show that the earth is older than 6000 years and that sure as hell shits all over the earth being 6000 years old and god making all the animals at once in 6 fucking days! You are working my last fucking nerve here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slam, I believe I may be coming to a point where I feel that it is probably fruitless to try and debate with you over the veracity of evolution. That does not in my mind imply that we cannot have fruitful conversations in other areas of discourse. We seem to agree that 1) organisms reproduce with heritable variation, 2) many more organisms are born than will survive to reproduce, and that this implies that a change in the organisms expressed will occur. I suppose we could call it descent with modification. Where we seem to disagree is that these changes can accumulate to the point where speciation can occur. You have thus given me reason to inquire into the nature of speciation and for that I thank you.

 

Here is what Darwin wrote in “The Origin of Species”, the final chapter “Recapitulation and Conclusion.”

 

"Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume under the form of an abstract, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists, whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as the 'plan of creation', 'unity of design', etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject my theory. A few naturalists, endowed with much more flexibility of mind, and who have already begun to doubt on the immutability of species, may be influenced by this volume; but I look with confidence to the future, to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality. Whoever is led to believe that species are mutable will do good service by conscientiously expressing his conviction; for only thus can the load of prejudice by which this subject is overwhelmed be removed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off Slam, please learn to use the quote function already. It’s a simple thing to understand. What are we supposed to think? If you can’t learn how to do that, then honestly, how can we expect you to understand something much more complex like Puncuated Equalibirum?? So far you’re showing yourself as bad at that as you are with the quote function. :twitch:

 

To my response:

 

[slam] I never said they denied evolution. What they deny is the fossil record supporting gradualism. How many times must I repeat this?

You only need to prove it once, which you haven’t.

 

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled 'Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax' states: 'The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.'"

Stephen Jay Gould,

"Evolution as Fact and Theory"

How many times must I requote this?

 

What prominent evolutionist can you site who believes the fossil record supports macro-evolution? And just so there is no confusion what I'm talking about, where one major group GRADUALLY evolved into another major group (invertebrates into vertebrates, land animal into whales or dolphins, reptiles or dinosaurs into birds, etc.) That kind of GRADUAL evolution.

Answer: Stephen Jay Gould. You need to read and address this post you skipped over before I will address any response to this post. Read Here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=238420

 

Just so I know you don’t miss it, I’ll requote it here for you to deal with:

 

Confusion with other rapid modes of evolution

 

Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with George Gaylord Simpson's quantum evolution, Richard Goldschmidt's saltationism, pre-Lyellian catastrophism, and the phenomenon of mass extinction. Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually more appropriately understood as a form of gradualism[2] (in the strict and literal sense of biological continuity). This is because even though evolutionary change aggregates "quickly" between geological sediments—relative to the species' full geological existence—change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that:

Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales.[3]

The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record.

 

<snip>

 

Relation to Darwinism

 

The sudden appearance and lack of substantial gradual change of most species in the geologic record—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin (1859:301, 1871:119-120) who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation. Nevertheless, with the influence of catastrophism, Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution. It is often incorrectly assumed that he insisted that the rate of change must be constant, or nearly so. In The Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." (1872:619) Thus punctuationism in general is consistent with Darwin's conception of evolution, and with the independent proposals of natural selection by William Charles Wells, Patrick Matthew, and Alfred Russel Wallace.

 

According to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, "peripheral isolates" are considered to be of critical importance for speciation. However, Darwin wrote, "I can by no means agree…that immigration and isolation are necessary elements. . . . Although isolation is of great importance in the production of new species, on the whole I am inclined to believe that largeness of area is still more important, especially for the production of species which shall prove capable of enduring for a long period, and of spreading widely." (1859:105-106)

 

Darwin explained the reasons for this belief as follows:

"Throughout a great and open area, not only will there be a greater chance of favourable variations, arising from the large number of individuals of the same species there supported, but the conditions of life are much more complex from the large number of already existing species; and if some of these species become modified and improved, others will have to be improved in a corresponding degree, or they will be exterminated. Each new form, also, as soon as it has been improved, will be able to spread over the open and continuous area, and will thus come into competition with many other forms ... the new forms produced on large areas, which have already been victorious over many competitors, will be those that will spread most widely, and will give rise to the greatest number of new varieties and species. They will thus play a more important role in the changing history of the organic world." (1859:107-108)

Thus punctuated equilibrium contradicts some of Darwin's ideas regarding the specific mechanisms of evolution, but generally accords with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

 

(from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium )

 

To help drive this point home further for you to show that Puncuating Equalibrium does not imply “God” in magical acts of divine creation, here’s Stephen Jay Gould for you again:

 

Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1940, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as "hopeful monsters." (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium—see essays in section 3 and my explicit essay on Goldschmidt in The Pandas Thumb.) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the "punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory" and tells his hopeful readers that "it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor." Duane Gish writes, "According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced." Any evolutionists who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism—with God acting in the egg.

Stephen Jay Gould,

"Evolution as Fact and Theory"

To translate this for you, Stephen Jay Gould is calling creationists’ interpretation of his words, tantamount to lying. Lying is a sin, Slam. “Though shalt not bear false witness”, (the God you claim to honor).

 

So let's be overly gracious and say that 50 of those above actually believe Magic created life,

[slam] I did not see where any one of them they believed "Magic"(it bugs you to say God) created life. I don't know what they believe. Perhaps punctuated equilibria. BUT THE SALIENT POINT IS THAT THEY DON'T BELIEVE THE FOSSILS SHOW MACRO-EVOLUTION AS NOTED ABOVE.

I have no problem saying God. I used the word “Magic” in the context of a discussion of NATURE to emphasize how ridiculous sounding the Creationists “theories” are. That is what you are saying. Not natural processes, but “supernatural” ones – a.k.a. “magic”. “poof” sort of absurdities!

 

To respond in kind so you don’t miss it yet once more, THEY DO BELIEVE THE FOSSILS SHOW MACROEVOLUTION – RTFP!

 

[slam] As one of the evolutionists I sited, many non-paleontologists are in the dark about the true nature of the fossil record. It has become so ingrained by repitition that they just assume gradualism is there. Name me one PROMINENT evolutionist, with supporting data, who believes the fossil record supports GRADUAL evolution between the precambrian and cambrian, invertebrates and vertebrates, dinosaurs and birds. MAKE SURE HE PROVIDES THE GRADUAL SERIES OF LIFE FORMS BETWEEN THE GROUPS HE BELIEVE EVOLVED.

If I do will you renounce God and serve the dark lord Satan along with all those decieved scientists? Or will you continue to serve God in your twisted and oh-so-appealing way, by blocking your mind to facts?

 

Gradualism is one theory – not the only one. So what does this prove to you? That creationism is a valid one?? Where’s your evidence for that? Put up or shut up, as they say. Creationsim is founded on nit-picking faults, not offering any sort of usable therories. –READ MY SIGNATURE BELOW.

 

[slam] If gradual evolution and punctuated equilibria were disproven to your satisfaction, how would you explain the appearance of life on earth? If the evolutionists I have sited can convince you that the fossil record does not support GRADUALISM, then you are left with PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA, which is in just as much trouble as gradualism. It is a theory resorted to because the fossils don't show GRADUALISM. The switch from gradualism to punctualism is only the desperation of some wvolutuionists who know the fossils don't support gradualism and still reject an intelligent creator/designer whom we call (gasp.....) GOD. "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God." (Ps. 14:1)

Ok, so if you can disprove 98.8% of the worlds scientists by virtue of your faith-based quasi-science (of course using the Bible, instead of science), then will this indicate God? Answer: NO. Why would it? It just means we need more data. Not that Magic “poofings” out of thin air by some sort of “Super-God” is the explaination! For Pete’s sake! What, do you live in the Dark Ages? Does thunder happen because you made God mad by not paying your tithes?

 

Why should we make a leap from rationality into illogic and nonsense when we have so many tools at our disposal? What you are suggesting is that we throw away all our tools and believe in the words of the priests! No thank you! If it wasn’t for the Church, we’d be 2000 years further along technologically than we are now, thank you very much. You want to turn us back, don’t you Slam? Do you imagine that world more “safe” for your beliefs? Is that it? I think so.

 

On a personal note Slam: I know people who truely believe in God and I respect them. I support them in their faith. But honestly, your type of faith is not healthy. If there was a God, you should be able to worship him no matter what comes along that contradicts your ideas. You need to understand, from my perspective you are worshipping your beliefs, placing them ahead of facts. Over 50% of people who accept the Theory of Evolution believe in God. It doesn't affect their faith. Why does it seem to threaten you so much to go to such lengths as this. In kind, I'd like to ask you this question, what would happen to your faith if you could no longer deny the validity of what science is showing us? Would you loose it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it hilarious that this Slam character is quick to dismiss scientific evidence, yet he has yet to present a shred of evidence to support his creationism theory. In fact, while evolution can be observed, we have yet to see a species spring into existence from nothing.

 

What I want to know is, why does Slam presume that life needs to have been created? Isn't it possible, even plausable, that, while our individual lives are finite, life itself or the seeds of life exists infinitely and thus needs no creator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read Gould's theory about PE and gradualism in which he stated:

 

"Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually more appropriately understood as a form of gradualism[2] (in the strict and literal sense of biological continuity)."

 

"FORM OF GRADUALISM," but not the gradualism that we have been discussing all along and the kind of gradualism they're teaching your kids in the public schools. All Gould is saying is that "his form" of gradualism was a lot quicker than Darwinian evolution. He is just as misled as those who believe in hundreds of "millions" instead of hundreds of "thousands." Gould misreads the fossils just like the Darwinian diehards. They think variations within species and extinct species are transitionals without applying similarity of structure among different species. All he's doing is shortening the gaps which still exist between major kinds. Nice try, but Gould doesn't get it either.

 

To translate this for you, Stephen Jay Gould is calling creationists’ interpretation of his words, tantamount to lying. Lying is a sin, Slam. “Though shalt not bear false witness”, (the God you claim to honor).

 

[slam] It's "Thou" shall not... Gould can call people whatever he wants. They are not lying and Gould is merely misreading the fossils like most evolutionists do. The pathetic myth of evolution can't even get out of the starting blocks with no identifiable common ancestor or any evidence how that life form was created. In evolutionary science, life is just one big theory after another.

 

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

-Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher), Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

 

To respond in kind so you don’t miss it yet once more, THEY DO BELIEVE THE FOSSILS SHOW MACROEVOLUTION – RTFP!
[slam] They DO NOT believe in Darwinian evolution. I don't recall one of them ageeing with Gould either; perhaps they do. But if they don't, then their comments stand as being applied to Darwinian evolution. If they believe in Gould's theory then they are only believing the same myth in a shorter time span, which, ironically, reveals a closer picture to what actually happened - GOD CREATED THEM AS YOU SEE THEM. THAT'S WHY THERE ARE NO GAPS. GET IT:-)

 

MAKE SURE HE PROVIDES THE GRADUAL SERIES OF LIFE FORMS BETWEEN THE GROUPS HE BELIEVE EVOLVED.

 

If I do will you renounce God and serve the dark lord Satan along with all those decieved scientists? Or will you continue to serve God in your twisted and oh-so-appealing way, by blocking your mind to facts?

 

[slam] You will only present what someone has fooled you into believing, not what the fossils actually say. But please do present what you have so I can chop it to pieces:-)

 

Gradualism is one theory – not the only one. So what does this prove to you? That creationism is a valid one?? Where’s your evidence for that? Put up or shut up, as they say.
[slam] When you come around to seeing the light, if you ever do, the evidence is right before your lying eyes: If there are no transitionals, then some other mechanism accounts for all life forms. Of course, that mechanism is that God created all life forms allowing for variation within. It's so simple. How can you miss it?

 

Creationsim is founded on nit-picking faults, not offering any sort of usable therories. –READ MY SIGNATURE BELOW.

 

[slam] I have to chuckle. You say that creation is founded on nit-picking faults when the biggest "fault" of evolution zings right over your head: YOU DON'T GET LIFE FROM NON-LIFE. EVOLUTION CAN'T EVEN GET OUT OF THE STARTING BLOCKS.

 

But all you will say it that you're not concerned about that because it isn't evolution. In essence, you merely pass the ball to other branches of science, hoping one day they will discover how it did begin. As the scriptures says, "Vanity of vanities." Mark these words: IT WON'T HAPPEN. GOD DID IT ALL:-)

 

Ok, so if you can disprove 98.8% of the worlds scientists by virtue of your faith-based quasi-science (of course using the Bible, instead of science), then will this indicate God? Answer: NO. Why would it? It just means we need more data.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

cont'd

 

[slam] It's so simple. The in-between-species gaps have always been there which means another mechanism explains them. Of course, that mechanism was the flood. The day you understand that Evolutionism is only one way sinful man seeks to deny accountability to a personal Creator who has labeled all men sinners, who need Christ, is the day you will understand that you still need him.

 

Not that Magic “poofings” out of thin air by some sort of “Super-God” is the explaination! For Pete’s sake! What, do you live in the Dark Ages?

Does thunder happen because you made God mad by not paying your tithes?

[slam] My God doesn't get "mad" at his children,. BTW, thunder is the voice of God.

 

"He sends his lightening...to the ends of the earth. After it a voice roars: He thunders with his majestic voice...God thunders marvelously with his voice." (Job 37:3-5)

 

When science explains lightening and thunder, all they're doing is explaining God speaking. If only science would give God the glory, they would accomplish so much more.

 

Why should we make a leap from rationality into illogic and nonsense when we have so many tools at our disposal?

 

[slam] Was that tools, or fools:-)

 

What you are suggesting is that we throw away all our tools and believe in the words of the priests!

 

[slam] I think I'm on to something. Get rid of the "fools." "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." (Ps. 14:1)

 

I'm not saying throw away the tools of science. Readjust the thinking behind their use. Use the telescope to see the glory of God in heaven (Ps. 19:1). Use the microscope to see the same glory in the greatest example of intelligent design know to man. Use paleontological tools to uncover what was destroyed in a global flood. We all use the same tools but see different things. I explained above why I believe evolutionists see what isn't there.

 

No thank you! If it wasn’t for the Church, we’d be 2000 years further along technologically than we are now, thank you very much.
[slam] Please explain how the Church has impeded technology or science.

 

On a personal note Slam: I know people who truely believe in God and I respect them.

 

[slam] Please do tell me about true believers, having never been one. I've explained why based on Rom. 8:29,30 and all you say is you don't believe the Bible anymore. Well, your unbelief doesn't change anything. You won't even tell me what you think it means as an unbeliever. So I ask again, what does Rom. 8:29,30 mean as a non-believer.

 

I support them in their faith. But honestly, your type of faith is not healthy. If there was a God, you should be able to worship him no matter what comes along that contradicts your ideas.
[slam] True faith does not contradict true science, or vice versa.

 

You need to understand, from my perspective you are worshipping your beliefs, placing them ahead of facts. Over 50% of people who accept the Theory of Evolution believe in God.

 

[slam] Just believing in God does't mean squat diddly. The devil also believes (Jas. 2:19). Where is he headed? Is God the Lord of these 50%? Is he their Savior? Do they believe in the Deity of Jesus? Do they believe he is the God of Scritpure who created the universe in six literal days? Do they believe he brought a global flood on the world? Do they believe they are sinners because of Adam's fall? Or, do they think by saying they believe in God will somehow make points in heaven in the event they are wrong about evolution?

 

It doesn't affect their faith. Why does it seem to threaten you so much to go to such lengths as this. In kind, I'd like to ask you this question, what would happen to your faith if you could no longer deny the validity of what science is showing us? Would you loose it?

 

[slam] Nice try:-) You think you can weasel me into a corner with a false premise. There is no validity to evolution or an earth that became a sphere over "billions and billions" of years and from which non-living chemicals created a first life form. This truly belongs in the great archives of fiction as noted by Muggeridge. The next thing you'll tell me is that Santa Clause is real. Hope you have a Merry CHRISTmas:-)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it hilarious that this Slam character is quick to dismiss scientific evidence, yet he has yet to present a shred of evidence to support his creationism theory. In fact, while evolution can be observed, we have yet to see a species spring into existence from nothing.

 

[slam] If you're talking about "micro"evolution being observed, you are correct. Macro-evoution is another matter. If the fossil bones of a whale appear in the fossil record with no transitional fossils from ancestral life forms, how would you explain its existance?

 

What I want to know is, why does Slam presume that life needs to have been created?

 

[slam] Huh? How could life come into existance without being created???

 

Isn't it possible, even plausable, that, while our individual lives are finite, life itself or the seeds of life exists infinitely and thus needs no creator?

 

[slam] Why couldn't it be just as plausible that an infinite God created finite man just the way scripture records?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it hilarious that this Slam character is quick to dismiss scientific evidence, yet he has yet to present a shred of evidence to support his creationism theory. In fact, while evolution can be observed, we have yet to see a species spring into existence from nothing.

 

[slam] If you're talking about "micro"evolution being observed, you are correct. Macro-evoution is another matter. If the fossil bones of a whale appear in the fossil record with no transitional fossils from ancestral life forms, how would you explain its existance?

 

What I want to know is, why does Slam presume that life needs to have been created?

 

[slam] Huh? How could life come into existance without being created???

 

Isn't it possible, even plausable, that, while our individual lives are finite, life itself or the seeds of life exists infinitely and thus needs no creator?

 

[slam] Why couldn't it be just as plausible that an infinite God created finite man just the way scripture records?

 

Slam, the fact of the matter is, nobody has seen a new species spring into existence. While new species have been discovered, their existence always pre-dates our discovery of them. You would think that if species were created, we'd see this happening today. The simple fact of the matter is, we do not. Nor have we ever. There is absolutely not a single shred of evidence to support the scripture records.

 

The law of conservation of matter and energy states that neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed; only changed from one state to another. This is a scientific law which can be tested and observed. Something that cannot be created nor destroyed must exist infinitely then, which negates the need for a creator. As such, our universe, with all matter and energy within it, must have always existed, and always will exist, infinitely. Even after I "Die" and my consciousness ceases to exist, my body will continue to exist; if I am cremated, then it will be turned into energy and mostly carbon.

 

The creator of modern man is ourselves; or more specifically, our ancestors. This is obvious, since to this day people are created when two people choose each other as mates and decide to produce offspring. Where did it all start? First you must answer, why does it need a start or a beginning? Just because your consciousness is finite doesn't mean that everything is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to understand, from my perspective you are worshipping your beliefs, placing them ahead of facts. Over 50% of people who accept the Theory of Evolution believe in God.

 

It doesn't affect their faith. Why does it seem to threaten you so much to go to such lengths as this. In kind, I'd like to ask you this question, what would happen to your faith if you could no longer deny the validity of what science is showing us? Would you loose it?

 

[slam] Nice try:-) You think you can weasel me into a corner with a false premise. There is no validity to evolution or an earth that became a sphere over "billions and billions" of years and from which non-living chemicals created a first life form. This truly belongs in the great archives of fiction as noted by Muggeridge. The next thing you'll tell me is that Santa Clause is real. Hope you have a Merry CHRISTmas:-)

I asked a legitimate, honest, and sincere question. You asked me the same hypothetical. I answered you, you refused to. You did not answer what would happen to your faith if the ToE was proven to you beyond a shadow of a doubt. You avoided that answer. That is your answer.

 

You have a terribly weak and unsure faith that is set to crumble. You are stretching it so tight, and so thin in your clutching to pseudo-science that it is about to snap. Your "beliefs" are not faith. They are not based on love in your heart (your offensive replies to me show me just how NOT born-again you are), they are not based on a love for life, they are not based on the ideals of human dignity and respect.

 

No, your faith is based on fear. Fear of being wrong. Fear of being exposed. Fear of needing to consider others – the hard part of your religion (Slam you have offended me twice now, and have yet to apologize – THIS speaks endless volumes louder than all you Creationist arguments about truth in your life). You hide behind God. You have not been changed by him. You are not changed at all. You are using the name of God as a mask. You are a liar. You are a fraud. You are weak. You are not saved.

 

“But someone may [well]say, ‘You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.’” James 2:18

You’re actions betray your lack of real faith. You show offense without remorse. You claim the truth, without considering other’s. You judge. You condemn. You offend the very name of the God whom you claim to serve, as you judge your fellow believers based on their doctrines, and not their hearts:

"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.” Mt. 7:1,2

You are now in danger of judgment by your fellow Christians, whom you have judged as false, and by the God whom falsely claim to serve. You are exposed. May God have mercy on your weak, naked soul!

 

BTW, I gave you a second chance. You are a pitiable man whom I find offense to both mind and spirit. You are truly lost, mentally and spritiually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slam, the fact of the matter is, nobody has seen a new species spring into existence. While new species have been discovered, their existence always pre-dates our discovery of them.

 

[slam] When you say new species, you mean those that are not "new," rather have not been discovered. Not new in the sense of having evolved up from a different species.

 

You would think that if species were created, we'd see this happening today.
[slam] Why couldn't major kinds be created and allow for variation within them? That's what the fossil record shows.

 

The simple fact of the matter is, we do not. Nor have we ever. There is absolutely not a single shred of evidence to support the scripture records.

 

[slam] If species haven't changed into different species, then how would you explain their origins?

 

The law of conservation of matter and energy states that neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed; only changed from one state to another.
[slam] This is true after the universe came into being. Since it's formation was supernatural, matter and energy could have been created from nothing.

 

This is a scientific law which can be tested and observed. Something that cannot be created nor destroyed must exist infinitely then, which negates the need for a creator.

 

[slam] Since no one observed the moment of creation, science doesn't really know what happened. They assume a big bang because the universe is expanding. But whose to say an intelligent creator didn't create the universe outside known physical laws and caused it to expand?

 

As such, our universe, with all matter and energy within it, must have always existed, and always will exist, infinitely.

 

[slam] Then the matter and energy in the big bang must have always existed. But I think when we talk about the origins of the universe science may be making assumptions that aren't true.

 

Even after I "Die" and my consciousness ceases to exist, my body will continue to exist; if I am cremated, then it will be turned into energy and mostly carbon.
[slam] That would be true if the Creator didn't uncreate everything with the same supernatural force he used to create everything. Scripture says the old heaven and earth will be "uncreated" to make way for a new heaven and earth that will not be subject to natural law.

 

The creator of modern man is ourselves; or more specifically, our ancestors. This is obvious, since to this day people are created when two people choose each other as mates and decide to produce offspring. Where did it all start?

 

[slam] In a garden:-)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This conversation in this topic has completely degraded in my estimation. So I wanted to try my hand at a little insincerity and it goes a little something like this...

 

Slam you have convinced me. What a fool I've been. I could not see that the motive behind evolution was not a pure motive to understand the natural world, but rather it is an insidious lie designed to deny the credit that rightfully belongs to God. What evil people these scientists and teachers are! How could they deceive so many with so little? From here on, I will do as you do Slam. I will seek out those who believe this terrible lie and expose them to the Truth. I am now a warrior of God and righteous indignation will be my constant and beloved companion. Thank you Slam, thank you. God bless you for showing me the Truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked a legitimate, honest, and sincere question. You asked me the same hypothetical. I answered you, you refused to. You did not answer what would happen to your faith if the ToE was proven to you beyond a shadow of a doubt. You avoided that answer. That is your answer.

 

[slam] Since evolution is the greatest myth ever told, and therefore never happened, I cannot possibly answer the question. I am more certain of that than I am in ever responding to you again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This conversation in this topic has completely degraded in my estimation. So I wanted to try my hand at a little insincerity and it goes a little something like this...

 

Slam you have convinced me. What a fool I've been. I could not see that the motive behind evolution was not a pure motive to understand the natural world, but rather it is an insidious lie designed to deny the credit that rightfully belongs to God. What evil people these scientists and teachers are! How could they deceive so many with so little? From here on, I will do as you do Slam. I will seek out those who believe this terrible lie and expose them to the Truth. I am now a warrior of God and righteous indignation will be my constant and beloved companion. Thank you Slam, thank you. God bless you for showing me the Truth.

 

[slam] Thank you so much. You have no idea how much I appreciate your comments As a matter of fact, they are so convincing that something happened. I have seen the light. How could I have believed in such nonsense as creation and a young earth. I feel so ashamed. From now on I will be a warrior for the ToE and righteous indignation will be my response to any who dare oppose it. Thanks again:-)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[slam] Since evolution is the greatest myth ever told, and therefore never happened, I cannot possibly answer the question. I am more certain of that than I am in ever responding to you again.

Go ye therefore Slam and believe what you wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked a legitimate, honest, and sincere question. You asked me the same hypothetical. I answered you, you refused to. You did not answer what would happen to your faith if the ToE was proven to you beyond a shadow of a doubt. You avoided that answer. That is your answer.

 

[slam] Since evolution is the greatest myth ever told, and therefore never happened, I cannot possibly answer the question. I am more certain of that than I am in ever responding to you again.

I am certain you are an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does Slam's ID change over to jbthree on the last page or two of this thread? It's not like his inability to use the quote function wasn't confusing enough!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.