 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Scorp
Goldfish
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 58
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| admin wrote: | | Scorp, is it just diversity of life that is the intention? |
If you believe in God and believe that we are here because He intended it to be, then it would follow that diversity was intended also.
| Quote: | | If so, then humans are not at the center of it? Do you think this contradicts scripture? |
I think life is at the center of it, and God has given us the cognizance to recognize that. Why would God take the time to allow such diversity of living creatures to evolve if they were not as important as the human?
Do you think humans could exist without the existance of other forms of life? We could not exist in such a desolate place. In fact, no one species could.
And no it does not contradict scripture at all.
| Quote: | | In using the word "Creationism" I assume it to mean that a designer had an intention and the human race is the point of it all (according to scripture). |
When I use the word "creationism" and btw, I didn't use it in my last post, I am speaking of a political movement to wedge Biblical teachings into the secular education of children which is provided by the State. That would make our public schools teach the same as our Christian churches. That would violate the Constitution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bouncer
Alley Cat
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryck wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Ryck wrote: | | No, this is called - "Macro Evolution". And as far as I can tell no evolutionist mentioned an expiration date for Evolution to stop running and produce experimental transitional forms. |
I've yet to see anyone propose a barrier to microevolution causing macroevolution over time, have you?
|
No. I've seen evolutionists try to bridge the gap from microevolution to macroevolution without valid success.
| FFT wrote: |
And it's not that it's stopped, it's that for large organisms the time scales are too large to observe. And then when presented proof that it happens in microorganisms the response tends to be "but they're still bacteria."
|
Oh, you mean the idea that a biological imperative that required, for example, a pre-bat animal to develop wings in order to survive and those time scales are "too large to observe" the transitional examples of the pre-bat becoming a bat?
News flash: If the pre-bat and all the various stages of pre-bat took millions of years to develop wings to survive and prosper, and by some mysterious process none of those pre-bat fossils survived so we can see evolution in action, by the time the bat got wings he didn't need them to survive and prosper. LOL!
Ditto for the pre-giraffe to develop his giraffe neck.
Where are the transitional forms? There should be lots of them.
| FFT wrote: |
| Ryck wrote: | That's why Evolution is (still) a theory. So why is it made to talk as a "fact", walk as a "fact", and quack as a "fact"???  |
There is the fact of evolution: "populations change over time."
There is the theory of evolution: "populations have changed in this way over time in the past and for these reasons."
The fact is the observation. The theory is the explanation.
|
That's microevolution. Sure, if a herd is chased by lions eventually the speed of the herd is improved because the slower ones would have served as meals for the lions and whatever genetic defect that made them slower would unlikely to have passed on to their offspring. But that improves the herd, doesn't change the herd into another species! LOL!
I said macroevolution, FFT. Yes, there is a difference. And I'm sure you know that.  |
How can one be assured you would know what you were looking at if you were shown a known transitional?
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1
Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer
"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bouncer wrote: | | Ryck wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Ryck wrote: | | No, this is called - "Macro Evolution". And as far as I can tell no evolutionist mentioned an expiration date for Evolution to stop running and produce experimental transitional forms. |
I've yet to see anyone propose a barrier to microevolution causing macroevolution over time, have you?
|
No. I've seen evolutionists try to bridge the gap from microevolution to macroevolution without valid success.
| FFT wrote: |
And it's not that it's stopped, it's that for large organisms the time scales are too large to observe. And then when presented proof that it happens in microorganisms the response tends to be "but they're still bacteria."
|
Oh, you mean the idea that a biological imperative that required, for example, a pre-bat animal to develop wings in order to survive and those time scales are "too large to observe" the transitional examples of the pre-bat becoming a bat?
News flash: If the pre-bat and all the various stages of pre-bat took millions of years to develop wings to survive and prosper, and by some mysterious process none of those pre-bat fossils survived so we can see evolution in action, by the time the bat got wings he didn't need them to survive and prosper. LOL!
Ditto for the pre-giraffe to develop his giraffe neck.
Where are the transitional forms? There should be lots of them.
| FFT wrote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | That's why Evolution is (still) a theory. So why is it made to talk as a "fact", walk as a "fact", and quack as a "fact"??? |
There is the fact of evolution: "populations change over time."
There is the theory of evolution: "populations have changed in this way over time in the past and for these reasons."
The fact is the observation. The theory is the explanation.
|
That's microevolution. Sure, if a herd is chased by lions eventually the speed of the herd is improved because the slower ones would have served as meals for the lions and whatever genetic defect that made them slower would unlikely to have passed on to their offspring. But that improves the herd, doesn't change the herd into another species! LOL!
I said macroevolution, FFT. Yes, there is a difference. And I'm sure you know that. |
How can one be assured you would know what you were looking at if you were shown a known transitional? |
I'm quite willing to look at the best that evolutionists would like to offer as a transitional. But I won't be the first one. The father of evolution - Charles Darwin - looked his best for transitionals. Did he find them? No.
Remember that Charles Darwin remarked that if all the species have descended from other species by changes, he couldn't understand why we don't everywhere see innumerable transitional forms. Why is not all species in nature in a state of transitional confusion instead of the species being well defined, as we see them? That boggled his mind! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryck wrote: | | I'm quite willing to look at the best that evolutionists would like to offer as a transitional. But I won't be the first one. |
Nor the last.
| Ryck wrote: | | The father of evolution - Charles Darwin - looked his best for transitionals. Did he find them? No. |
So? The theory of evolution isn't founded on fossil transitionals.
| Ryck wrote: | | Remember that Charles Darwin remarked that if all the species have descended from other species by changes, he couldn't understand why we don't everywhere see innumerable transitional forms. Why is not all species in nature in a state of transitional confusion instead of the species being well defined, as we see them? That boggled his mind! |
Uh. | Charles Darwin wrote: | | But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. |
| Charles Darwin wrote: | | But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time. |
| Charles Darwin wrote: | | These causes [the imperfection of the fossil record, the limited exploration of the record, poor fossilization of certain body types, etc.], taken conjointly, will to a large extent explain why -- though we do find many links -- we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all extinct and existing forms by the finest graduated steps. It should also be constantly borne in mind that any linking variety between two forms, which might be found, would be ranked, unless the whole chain could be perfectly restored, as a new and distinct species; for it is not pretended that we have any sure criterion by which species and varieties can be discriminated. |
Don't try to quote Darwin as if something he said supports a creationist view.
And if you actually wanted evidence of transitionals, it would be easy to point out the fossil record of titanotheres as it shows a clear progression from lack of horns to large horns along with skeletal adaptations. I mean really, just read this page. Without going "pish posh it's talk origins" as if that somehow justifies your views.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: |
| Charles Darwin wrote: | | But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. |
| Charles Darwin wrote: | | But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time. |
| Charles Darwin wrote: | | These causes [the imperfection of the fossil record, the limited exploration of the record, poor fossilization of certain body types, etc.], taken conjointly, will to a large extent explain why -- though we do find many links -- we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all extinct and existing forms by the finest graduated steps. It should also be constantly borne in mind that any linking variety between two forms, which might be found, would be ranked, unless the whole chain could be perfectly restored, as a new and distinct species; for it is not pretended that we have any sure criterion by which species and varieties can be discriminated. |
Don't try to quote Darwin as if something he said supports a creationist view.
|
Goes to show that Darwin had a great deal of 'religious faith' in Evolution in spite of the severe lack of evidence. Sure, he expresses his frustrations and lack of evidence but he hopes that the fossil record will back him up. He repeats his theories in the complete vacuum of evidence. Those hopes are seen when you turn to the next page where he says:
| Charles Darwin wrote: |
By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of
each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the
present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly
connected with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common
ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all
living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be
true, such have lived upon this earth.
|
If Darwin didn't have religious hopes for his theories, then I don't know what religion is! 
Oh, remember, what you quoted is in chapter 9 of his book entitled "On the imperfection of the Geological Record". Imagine that! After all his assertions in the previous eight chapters when it came to presenting the facts to support his case, he has to admit that one of his best witnesses to speak for his case for evolution says nothing.
I appreciate his candor. Yet it doesn't alter the fact that the transitional forms his theories depended on were not found in the fossil record. But again you overlooked the other point he remarked about which I mentioned too.
| Ryck wrote: |
Remember that Charles Darwin remarked that if all the species have descended from other species by changes, he couldn't understand why we don't everywhere see innumerable transitional forms. Why is not all species in nature in a state of transitional confusion instead of the species being well defined, as we see them? That boggled his mind!
|
It is presumed that evolution doesn't have an expiry date so it is a continuous process with all life NOT in their final form but still in transition. What does the living record show? The distinct varieties of things now alive offer no support to the theory of evolution.
That is why the fossil record became so important. It was felt that at least fossils would provide the confirmation that the theory of evolution needed.
But as I mentioned before, that was only part of the body of evidence. The other part is that the living is living proof of evolution in the the constant state of evolutionary transformation.
When the evidence for transitional forms where lacking among the living, Darwin hoped that in later years fossil research would reveal the record of transitional forms. Well, 149 years later with countless evidence searchers looking in countless ways in countless areas of the Earth the evidence for transitional forms is lacking, period.
| Quote: |
And if you actually wanted evidence of transitionals, it would be easy to point out the fossil record of titanotheres as it shows a clear progression from lack of horns to large horns along with skeletal adaptations. I mean really, just read this page. Without going "pish posh it's talk origins" as if that somehow justifies your views. |
So? You have horses with long legs and horses with short legs. You could probably chart their skeletons - from short to long, presumably. But the fundamental problems persists: you still have horses. Ditto with cattle as you have breeds with long horns, short horns, and no horns at all. But they are all the same: cattle. You are focusing on variation traits allowable in the genes of the animal and confuse them as evolution. Horns and lack of horns is the best evidence of transitional forms for all life on earth after 149 years of searching? LOL!
The living and dead evidence are simply not there. I'll tell you what evidence I do see: The grasping-at-straws is evidence of lack-of-evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryck wrote: | Goes to show that Darwin had a great deal of 'religious faith' in Evolution in spite of the severe lack of evidence.
...
If Darwin didn't have religious hopes for his theories, then I don't know what religion is! |
Ah yes, the old "bring them down to your level then beat them with experience" tactic. Not particularly impressive.
| Ryck wrote: | | Sure, he expresses his frustrations and lack of evidence but he hopes that the fossil record will back him up. |
It won't, ever. Not in the way you short-sightedly request it to. And it doesn't matter for the theory of evolution. Creationists insist that they must see a finely graduated lineage from the first fish to man before they could possibly accept the theory of evolution. This is completely irrelevant, because the theory of evolution is not reliant on fossils.
| Ryck wrote: | | Oh, remember, what you quoted is in chapter 9 of his book entitled "On the imperfection of the Geological Record". Imagine that! After all his assertions in the previous eight chapters when it came to presenting the facts to support his case, he has to admit that one of his best witnesses to speak for his case for evolution says nothing. |
The theory of evolution would likely eventually have developed even in a complete absence of fossils. Discovering DNA and the similarities between species would have done it even if just looking at life hadn't. Fossils just gave it a kickstart.
| Ryck wrote: | | I appreciate his candor. Yet it doesn't alter the fact that the transitional forms his theories depended on were not found in the fossil record. |
The theory of evolution is not reliant on the fossil record.
| Ryck wrote: | | It is presumed that evolution doesn't have an expiry date so it is a continuous process with all life NOT in their final form but still in transition. What does the living record show? The distinct varieties of things now alive offer no support to the theory of evolution. |
Life tends towards stability. When the environment changes, life changes with it until it is adapted, then changes happen more slowly.
| Ryck wrote: | | That is why the fossil record became so important. It was felt that at least fossils would provide the confirmation that the theory of evolution needed. |
You don't actually understand the theory of evolution. Fossils are for showing to people that can't quite grasp the actual evidence. Again, the theory of evolution is not reliant on fossils (except, I suppose, for publicity). Do they help? Yes.
| Ryck wrote: | | But as I mentioned before, that was only part of the body of evidence. The other part is that the living is living proof of evolution in the the constant state of evolutionary transformation. |
Which is the case. Why aren't you aware of the numerous speciation events that have been observed?
| Ryck wrote: | | When the evidence for transitional forms where lacking among the living, Darwin hoped that in later years fossil research would reveal the record of transitional forms. Well, 149 years later with countless evidence searchers looking in countless ways in countless areas of the Earth the evidence for transitional forms is lacking, period. |
I posted a link describing some transitional fossils, but surprise, surprise:
| Ryck wrote: | | So? You have horses with long legs and horses with short legs. You could probably chart their skeletons - from short to long, presumably. But the fundamental problems persists: you still have horses. Ditto with cattle as you have breeds with long horns, short horns, and no horns at all. But they are all the same: cattle. You are focusing on variation traits allowable in the genes of the animal and confuse them as evolution. Horns and lack of horns is the best evidence of transitional forms for all life on earth after 149 years of searching? LOL! |
Complete misunderstanding of the evidence closed with an "LOL!" Pretty much what I expected.
Here's a page on the transitional vertabrate fossils. Starts with jawless fish, ends with modern mammals, birds and fishes.
| Ryck wrote: | | The living and dead evidence are simply not there. I'll tell you what evidence I do see: The grasping-at-straws is evidence of lack-of-evidence. |
Sometimes I wish ignorance such as yours still astonished me.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Beloved Admin
Joined: 28 Sep 2000
Posts: 1815
Location: Macau, China
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Great posts all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Big Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 959
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| admin wrote: | | Interesting question. Started responding and after 45 minutes realized I have much to say. Will work on that and get back to you. |
Still working on this?
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Ryck wrote: | Goes to show that Darwin had a great deal of 'religious faith' in Evolution in spite of the severe lack of evidence.
...
If Darwin didn't have religious hopes for his theories, then I don't know what religion is! |
Ah yes, the old "bring them down to your level then beat them with experience" tactic. Not particularly impressive.
|
No, it's observing wishful thinking in action for an unsubstantiated theory that continues unsubstantiated.
He hopes that evolutionists in the future, not unlike yourself, would prove him right. How glad for him he didn't hold his breath.
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | Sure, he expresses his frustrations and lack of evidence but he hopes that the fossil record will back him up. |
It won't, ever. Not in the way you short-sightedly request it to. And it doesn't matter for the theory of evolution. Creationists insist that they must see a finely graduated lineage from the first fish to man before they could possibly accept the theory of evolution. This is completely irrelevant, because the theory of evolution is not reliant on fossils.
|
Really? Evolutionists have been digging into the fossil record for 149 years because they feel this is VERY important. Museums are filled with all sorts of bones which they dutifully claim evolutionary progress.
Did they work the fossil record in vain in your eyes? I guess some evolutionists as yourself would rather dimiss the lack of fossil evidence as a technical annoyance that should be overlooked - presumably for another 149 years. 
That's like the inverse of purposely overlooking chocolate evidence on a child's face when he denies when asked if he ate the chocolate cookie. LOL
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | Oh, remember, what you quoted is in chapter 9 of his book entitled "On the imperfection of the Geological Record". Imagine that! After all his assertions in the previous eight chapters when it came to presenting the facts to support his case, he has to admit that one of his best witnesses to speak for his case for evolution says nothing. |
The theory of evolution would likely eventually have developed even in a complete absence of fossils. Discovering DNA and the similarities between species would have done it even if just looking at life hadn't. Fossils just gave it a kickstart.
|
That was one of my points. If evolution is an ongoing process we should see all species in transition. Yet the living record is lacking in evidence as the fossil record.
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | I appreciate his candor. Yet it doesn't alter the fact that the transitional forms his theories depended on were not found in the fossil record. |
The theory of evolution is not reliant on the fossil record.
|
Living things on earth today are not seen to be evolving into something else. Instead, they are all complete in form and distinct from other types. And you just threw-out the fossil record. So what's left?
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | It is presumed that evolution doesn't have an expiry date so it is a continuous process with all life NOT in their final form but still in transition. What does the living record show? The distinct varieties of things now alive offer no support to the theory of evolution. |
Life tends towards stability. When the environment changes, life changes with it until it is adapted, then changes happen more slowly.
|
For that you need the fossil record - which you casually dismissed as immaterial.
Darwin’s theory has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils. As I mentioned before, Darwin had faith that future investigation would provide the evidence his theory needs. And probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of Darwin's interpretations of the history of life on earth. But the geologic record did not then and still does not yield today that finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution which Darwin hoped for, you claim, and you ironically dismiss.
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | That is why the fossil record became so important. It was felt that at least fossils would provide the confirmation that the theory of evolution needed. |
You don't actually understand the theory of evolution. Fossils are for showing to people that can't quite grasp the actual evidence. Again, the theory of evolution is not reliant on fossils (except, I suppose, for publicity). Do they help? Yes.
|
Let me see if I got this straight.
I "don't understand" the theory of evolution because you assert there is no fossil evidence to show nor prove the theory?
LOL!
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | But as I mentioned before, that was only part of the body of evidence. The other part is that the living is living proof of evolution in the the constant state of evolutionary transformation. |
Which is the case. Why aren't you aware of the numerous speciation events that have been observed?
|
I'm aware of some claims to that effect.
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | When the evidence for transitional forms where lacking among the living, Darwin hoped that in later years fossil research would reveal the record of transitional forms. Well, 149 years later with countless evidence searchers looking in countless ways in countless areas of the Earth the evidence for transitional forms is lacking, period. |
I posted a link describing some transitional fossils, but surprise, surprise:
|
Horn and no horn for the same animal does not a new species make. Just like cattle with long horns is not a new species of cattle from those with short horns which, in turn, is not a new species of cattle from those with no horns.
Let's see transformation of how this animal was to how this animal became to where this animal is now, if living.
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | So? You have horses with long legs and horses with short legs. You could probably chart their skeletons - from short to long, presumably. But the fundamental problems persists: you still have horses. Ditto with cattle as you have breeds with long horns, short horns, and no horns at all. But they are all the same: cattle. You are focusing on variation traits allowable in the genes of the animal and confuse them as evolution. Horns and lack of horns is the best evidence of transitional forms for all life on earth after 149 years of searching? LOL! |
Complete misunderstanding of the evidence closed with an "LOL!" Pretty much what I expected.
|
Dismiss the fossil evidence? No living evidence? Argument was caught under performing? No alternatives to lack of evidence but the usual jeers?
Predictable but I expected more from you. But I do enjoy your absurdities. If this was your intention, it worked!
Last edited by Ryck on Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:11 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| admin wrote: | | Great posts all. |
Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Beloved Admin
Joined: 28 Sep 2000
Posts: 1815
Location: Macau, China
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | admin,
Are you a theistic evolutionist or a atheistic evolutionist? |
Given the two choices I would have to currently say Atheistic Evolutionist - althought I don't like the term.
_________________
Cybermonsters (Most Beloved Admin)
Favorite Octopus Video! - My Site - Studio
Have a question or need help with your account? E-mail: forum @ askland.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bouncer
Alley Cat
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm quite willing to look at the best that evolutionists would like to offer as a transitional. |
Hang on there hombre' Would you know what you were looking at were you shown a transitional? Finding one is not hard. But, would it be a waste of the finder's time?
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1
Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer
"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryck wrote: | | No, it's observing wishful thinking in action for an unsubstantiated theory that continues unsubstantiated. |
Proving once again that you don't actually understand evolution. You're not really helping your case if you actually believe that the theory of evolution is unsubstantiated.
| Ryck wrote: | | He hopes that evolutionists in the future, not unlike yourself, would prove him right. How glad for him he didn't hold his breath. |
He had enough evidence available to him at that point to come up with the theory and there has been plenty more since.
| Ryck wrote: | | Really? Evolutionists have been digging into the fossil record for 149 years because they feel this is VERY important. |
Important to evolution? Sure! Is the theory of evolution reliant on fossils? No.
| Ryck wrote: | | Did they work the fossil record in vain in your eyes? I guess some evolutionists as yourself would rather dimiss the lack of fossil evidence as a technical annoyance that should be overlooked - presumably for another 149 years. |
There isn't actually a lack of fossil evidence. Who told you there was? Is there "not enough" according to people that don't understand the theory of evolution? Absolutely. Does this really mean anything? Nope!
| Ryck wrote: | | That was one of my points. If evolution is an ongoing process we should see all species in transition. Yet the living record is lacking in evidence as the fossil record. |
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Want to see species in transition? Wolves to domestic dogs to dingoes. It's quite fascinating, wolves and dogs can reproduce, dogs and dingoes can reproduce, but wolves and dingoes can not.
| Ryck wrote: | | Living things on earth today are not seen to be evolving into something else. |
Plenty of instances of speciation.
| Ryck wrote: | | Instead, they are all complete in form and distinct from other types. |
What makes you think that we'd have to see half-forms if the theory of evolution were true?
| Ryck wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Life tends towards stability. When the environment changes, life changes with it until it is adapted, then changes happen more slowly. |
For that you need the fossil record - which you casually dismissed as immaterial. |
Ah, so now you do believe the fossil record supports evolution?
| Ryck wrote: | | But the geologic record did not then and still does not yield today that finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution which Darwin hoped for, you claim, and you ironically dismiss. |
Hoping for something isn't the same as having faith that it exists.
| Ryck wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Which is the case. Why aren't you aware of the numerous speciation events that have been observed? |
I'm aware of some claims to that effect. |
So what's your problem with them?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Big Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 959
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| admin wrote: | | Given the two choices I would have to currently say Atheistic Evolutionist - althought I don't like the term. |
a·the·ist – noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
ev·o·lu·tion·ist – noun 1. a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, esp. in biology.
2. a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.
–adjective Also, ev·o·lu·tion·is·tic. 3. of or pertaining to evolution or evolutionists.
4. believing in or supporting a theory of evolution, esp. in biology.
As you see these two terms are independent one from the other. So if I may.....
Do you currently disbelieve in God due to your belief in evolution?
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When admin says "Atheistic Evolutionist" it's likely he means something closer to, say, "nontheistic evolutionist" as opposed to "theistic evolutionist." The latter believing that God guided evolution and the former not believing that God guided evolution.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
