|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 142 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-29-10 | | whatthefat: <The fossil record is a huge problem.> Can you at least be honest enough to admit that you know zilch about the fossil record? |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | GravityWave: "There's no proof of evolution!"
Wrong. There's plenty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experi...
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
Etc....
If you cant accept evolution you are either part of a religious sect that opposes it, which is fine, or have a misconception about the theory. Even the the Vatican accepts it, which is surprising. |
|
Apr-29-10
 | | chancho: <Nako> No, She's not married.
I did the best I could raising her.
She's close to getting her degree in microbiology at Mayaguez University when she returns from Germany. She's studying German there.
(at Giessen Universitat.) |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | cormier: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_as... _______ practice make's perfect ..... tks |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan: <YouRang: What predictions does the creation model make by which scientists could test and affirm that model? > OCF: An explosion of fossils in the archaeological record.> Yes, what does that mean? You would need to given some parameters by which scientists could say "yes it passed the test" or "no it didn't". Otherwise it is not a test at all. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this isn't a prediction at all. You are merely taking the *already known* fact of many fossils, and claiming *after the fact* that the creation model *would have* predicted it. Isn't that what you are really doing? <OhioChessFan: <YouRang: In what ways would it advance their understanding of nature? >OCF: They could quit wasting time trying to produce life from nonlife in a laboratory setting.> So your reasoning is that scientists will advance their knowledge by NOT doing research, and instead, they should accept your word that it can't be done. No advancement of understanding here. <OCF: They could quit positing outlandish claims of human behavior predicated on trillions of years of evolutionary processes.> Outlandish according only to your bald assertion. And why say "trillions of years"? Are you attempting to "support" your bald assertion by way of exaggeration? No advancement of understanding here. <OCF: I'm not sure what you want here, though it strikes me as something "Are they really hurting anybody?"> And your whole point seems to be that science should simply accept your interpretation of the Bible and stop doing research that conflicts with it. But for the record, I don't think scientific inquiry into matters of the origins of life is hurting anyone. If anything, it will be beneficial, as science has generally proven to be historically. <<YouRang: Why should scientists believe that their current methods are unsuccessful?>OCF: The fossil record is a huge problem. Their inability to produce life from nonlife in an organized laboratory setting, never mind observe it in nature. The fact that human recorded history is only a few thousand years old. The fact the oldest observed living organisms are only a few thousand years old.> Regarding the fossil record and recorded human history and living organisms, would you care to support your claims or cite your sources? I'm guessing some creation-science website? Or is it just more bald assertions? As for life from nonlife, you again seem to argue that "they haven't shown how it could be done yet, therefore they should conclude that it can't be done". With that reasoning, science would never advance. Do we really have to explain the illogic of your argument? |
|
Apr-29-10
 | | OhioChessFan: <Or is it just more bald assertions?> Yeah, just some bald assertions I made up out of thin air. |
|
Apr-29-10
| | OhioChessFan: Give me a number, <whatthefat> How many scientists must I quote regarding other evidence than controlled experiments? Give me a number, <YouRang> how many scientists I must quote who reference "no doubt" about evolutionary theory. |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | GravityWave: <cormier>
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. He "claims" to not need food or water. Wait for the results of the study before spouting this out as evidence of your mystical energy. You remind me of the homeless guy on the corner screaming the bible at innocent people. |
|
Apr-29-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang:I said "accept" both times. > What part of "I misread it" isn't sinking in?
<I have been under the impression for some time that you have implied that you hold a certain position at one time, but later when that position is challenged, you deny it so that you can quickly dismiss the challenge rather than have to defend against it. This is a pretty clear example of that, IMO.> That's fine. The opinion is mutual. |
|
Apr-29-10
| | OhioChessFan: <Nako: You seem to be forgetting (or ignoring) that God would have to be millions of times more complex than DNA itself. Yet, it is perfectly okay to give him a free pass, even though his existence is infinitely less likely than DNA arising from an accident. > I like addressing the odds/chances/possibilities of the matter. And it's an appropriate point to raise. But do you really think an eternal God is less likely to exist than a series of random processes leading to a world of order? Less likely than life coming from nonlife? Less likely than consciousness and morality arising from inert physical material? I am reminded of the saying "If a Princess kisses a frog and the frog becomes a man, that's a fairy tale. If a frog becomes a man without a woman kissing it, that's evolution." See the difference? |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | YouRang: <playground player><Some of us are getting kind of testy about things like that. Just like secularists would be, if the politics changed and fundamentalist Christians owned the media and the schools and used them to bash non-Christians. Personally, I really don't believe that's what God wants us to do: I don't even believe it would be right to do. But day after day, when it's done to us, it wears kind of thin. Oh, well--Jesus warned us. Universal approval of our position would mean we were doing something wrong.> Well, I'm glad that you at least acknowledge that Christians don't do what the Bible says Christians *should* do. Aren't Christians supposed to be above the ways of the world? Aren't Christians to understand that God uses the meek to humble those who think they are wise? Aren't Christians supposed to love their enemies?
Aren't Christians to expect hostility and mocking from the world for the sake of the gospel? Mt 5:11-12 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." I fault Christians for ignoring the Bible on these important things. Instead, they engage in foolish disputes and false accusations which makes Christianity a target for ridicule -- and not the kind of ridicule that Jesus said to expect -- but the kind of ridicule that is well deserved. <But boy do they get crazy whenever anybody tries to introduce "Intelligent Design theory" into the schools!> Yes, but do Christians ever stop to consider that their objection is justifiable? The objection is that ID is taught as science, when it is in fact religious, and IMO one who denies that is religious is either naive or dishonest. It did not originate from the field of science, it is not scientifically testable, and it does not reflect the prevailing view of scientists. It originated from religious interests, and it reflects religious views. |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | whatthefat: <OhioChessFan: Give me a number, <whatthefat> How many scientists must I quote regarding other evidence than controlled experiments?> Well, so far you've yet to give a single example to the contrary, so let's start with 1. |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan: <Or is it just more bald assertions?>
Yeah, just some bald assertions I made up out of thin air.> Not surprised.
<OhioChessFan: <YouRang:I said "accept" both times. >
What part of "I misread it" isn't sinking in? > What exactly did you misread? It must have been the post back on Apr 04 where I said "accept miraculous explanations"? At that point you denied even thinking that scientists should accept miraculous explanations, presumably because you thought I used the word "consider" instead of "accept". So lets suppose that I said "consider" back on Apr 04. Then I guess your would have said "Yes, science is biased for refusing to *consider* miraculous explanations". And yet today, you told us what you mean by "consider": That is, scientists must render a verdict that the miraculous creation account works as well as evolution. In other words, they must "accept" a miraculous explanation. You are inconsistent either way. <That's fine. The opinion is mutual.> Except you don't have a nice example like this where I clearly flip-flopped to avoid having to defend my position. |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan><Give me a number, <YouRang> how many scientists I must quote who reference "no doubt" about evolutionary theory.> I take it that you didn't read, or at least didn't process my earlier post regarding doubt. If you did, you would realize your question is irrelevant. But let me summarize:
There is a point where a theory has been so strongly confirmed for so long, that it is perverse to continue to doubt that it will continue to be confirmed. At that point, a scientist will go forward and use it "without doubt". However, there is always *room for doubt* in science, in the sense that one can never rule out the possibility that a future observation will challenge the theory by not behaving as the theory predicted it should. Do you not understand this, do you disagree with it, or are you just unwilling to process it? |
|
| Apr-29-10 | | cormier: The favors of the LORD I will sing forever;
through all generations my mouth shall proclaim your faithfulness.
For you have said, “My kindness is established forever”;
in heaven you have confirmed your faithfulness.
“I have found David, my servant;
with my holy oil I have anointed him,
That my hand may be always with him,
and that my arm may make him strong.”
“My faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him,
and through my name shall his horn be exalted.
He shall say of me, ‘You are my father,
my God, the Rock, my savior.’”
<For ever I will sing the goodness of the Lord.
Alleluia.> |
|
| Apr-30-10 | | cormier: the bible is in our favor ... the laws of the bible are established by the Kingdom of Love ... we have a Helper-Defender of Higher-Qualities ... we do love the sinners and we hate sins ... adversity is faced by offering(giving the circonstances at hand anytime anywhere) our day, life and asking(praying& praising etc...) if needed in our heart ... Science is contrary to war .....tks |
|
| Apr-30-10 | | cormier: faith is to be asked and use properly, others having faith already can obtain miracles and shielding for the one who do not have faith ... is antichrist whatever is against God ... the antichrist is not human ... already by doubting about it it means(say's) so that it ain't human ... God is good and stay's good & pure ..... tks |
|
Apr-30-10
| | OhioChessFan: <OhioChessFan: <YouRang:I said "accept" both times. > What part of "I misread it" isn't sinking in? > <YouRang: What exactly did you misread?> I misread <accept> as <consider> this time.. <OCF: That's fine. The opinion is mutual.> <YouRang: Except you don't have a nice example like this where I clearly flip-flopped to avoid having to defend my position.> The bifurcation of discovered and undiscovered errors will do nicely, thank you. Perhaps there's someone else who believes your explanation. |
|
Apr-30-10
| | OhioChessFan: <whatthefat: Do you mean there is a certain point in time at which a whole bunch appear? If so, how are you dating the fossils?> Yes. I think they give an indication of a catastrophic event that caused a lot of life forms to die quickly. |
|
Apr-30-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: You are merely taking the *already known* fact of many fossils, and claiming *after the fact* that the creation model *would have* predicted it. Isn't that what you are really doing?> Historically, there really was very little objection to the Creation model. Do you want me to go back in time and insist those who held that position write scientific papers? As far as what science is really doing, aren't they assuming life came from nonlife as fact, and then claiming *after the fact* that what we see now is a result? Don't you see this? |
|
Apr-30-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: But for the record, I don't think scientific inquiry into matters of the origins of life is hurting anyone. If anything, it will be beneficial, as science has generally proven to be historically.> It's just sheerest coincidence the relationship between belief in Darwinism and atheism? You think atheism is a positive for a society? You think kids shooting up schools has no basis in thinking there is no God and ultimately no consequences beyond this life time? |
|
Apr-30-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: As for life from nonlife, you again seem to argue that "they haven't shown how it could be done yet, therefore they should conclude that it can't be done". With that reasoning, science would never advance. Do we really have to explain the illogic of your argument?> *Double Standard Alert* I see. If I do that, it's after the fact reasoning. If Science does it, it's taking a hypothesis and testing it. Got it. |
|
Apr-30-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: But let me summarize:
There is a point where a theory has been so strongly confirmed for so long, that it is perverse to continue to doubt that it will continue to be confirmed. At that point, a scientist will go forward and use it "without doubt". However, there is always *room for doubt* in science, in the sense that one can never rule out the possibility that a future observation will challenge the theory by not behaving as the theory predicted it should. Do you not understand this, do you disagree with it, or are you just unwilling to process it?> Let me summarize. You think there is a one in a gazillion chance Science is wrong on this, but you can still trumpet the wonderful thought that science thinks doubt is good. Got it. Could you name some example of a future observation that would challenge the theory? |
|
Apr-30-10
| | OhioChessFan: I have had a change in heart and realize I must be open to doubt. Therefore, I will preface all future statements by "I strongly believe, but I am so intellectually honest I have to accept the possibility of doubt, and that is a *wonderful* thing for me to do, but I admit there is one in a gazillion chance I'm wrong........." |
|
Apr-30-10
| | OhioChessFan: I strongly believe, but I am so intellectually honest I have to accept the possibility of doubt, and that is a *wonderful* thing for me to do, but I admit there is one in a gazillion chance I'm wrong, but I have read a paper written on the California Berkeley webpage that lists ahem, 4 evidences for evolution: 1. Fossil evidence
2. Homologies
3. Distribution in time and space
4. Evidence by example |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 142 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
rreusser/...