*Woosh*

quote:

Originally posted by LuisGarcia:
*Woosh*

Yeah, kinda what I was thinking

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by Joliet:

You invariably avoid directly answering questions put to you. Or when you do you make some glib and nonsense comment which you then refuse to debate or defend.

But the squirrels always fly south in summer, on an easterly breeze... but I have no evidence and I don't really want to talk about it... oh hang on a minute, you may have a point!!

quote:

From the example of your posts - Trolls?

Don't believe in 'em and never seen 'em!! They're made up Joliet, didn't you know?

quote:

quote:

but answers to my questions I have received but few!

Don't lie, every question you have posed regarding ToE has been answered - all checkable. That you have refused to accept those answers as valid because they contradict what you have chosen to believe is just gainsaying. As an OP stated to you we can provide the answers but cannot provide the understanding.

There is no real, obervable evidence for ToE, only evidence for variation and adaptation. Oh except for cockroach milk and webbed feet that is... and a computer programme generated by Mr Dawkins to make non-moving 'biomorphs' that are only identifiable as looking like something we already know!

I have received some answers, but no real evidence... oh the fruit flies in the laboratory that developed non-working wings (an extra set - duplicate information) that would not have bred in the wild etc etc!

Anyway, shall continue this one on the ID topic!

Thank you, RJ, you do us a great service in being so blatantly unable to defend your position without lying.

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:

I have received some answers, but no real evidence... oh the fruit flies in the laboratory that developed non-working wings (an extra set - duplicate information) that would not have bred in the wild etc etc!

Anyway, shall continue this one on the ID topic!

Seriously, why do the creationists think that evolution is a topic that can learned in a discussion forum like this one. "I have received some answers but no real evidence" says this guy. He actually said that.

Do you perchance imagine having a discussion forum on geography, chemistry or physics, and some clone of RedJooles stating: "I have received some answers about the claim that nucleophilic reactions are favoured in a basic medium, but no real evidence; in fact there is this religious website that claims it is not true"?

People would reply: "grab the books, mate, grab the books and read them; go to a library, or find some reliable chemistr website in the web, and educate yourself; religious websites or discussion forums are not the place to learn about science".

But no, creationists think that Answersingenesis or any other demented religious site are legitimate sources to learn science. It is amazing.

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by Joliet:

You invariably avoid directly answering questions put to you. Or when you do you make some glib and nonsense comment which you then refuse to debate or defend.

But the squirrels always fly south in summer, on an easterly breeze... but I have no evidence and I don't really want to talk about it... oh hang on a minute, you may have a point!!

quote:

From the example of your posts - Trolls?

Don't believe in 'em and never seen 'em!! They're made up Joliet, didn't you know?

quote:

quote:

but answers to my questions I have received but few!

Don't lie, every question you have posed regarding ToE has been answered - all checkable. That you have refused to accept those answers as valid because they contradict what you have chosen to believe is just gainsaying. As an OP stated to you we can provide the answers but cannot provide the understanding.

There is no real, obervable evidence for ToE, only evidence for variation and adaptation. Oh except for cockroach milk and webbed feet that is... and a computer programme generated by Mr Dawkins to make non-moving 'biomorphs' that are only identifiable as looking like something we already know!

I have received some answers, but no real evidence... oh the fruit flies in the laboratory that developed non-working wings (an extra set - duplicate information) that would not have bred in the wild etc etc!

Anyway, shall continue this one on the ID topic!

Fossils dear boy...fossils!!

quote:

Originally posted by CDarwin:

Fossils dear boy...fossils!!

What: Those fossils formed during the great flood?
What do they prove?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

quote:

Originally posted by CDarwin:

Fossils dear boy...fossils!!

What: Those fossils formed during the great flood?
What do they prove?

1) There was no great flood.
2) That there have been several major extinctions where nearly everything died.
3) That evolution is true.

You're using a lot of atheistic arguments these days RS. Is there something you're trying to tell us?

quote:

Originally posted by blast99:
You're using a lot of atheistic arguments these days RS. Is there something you're trying to tell us?

Well, actually, Blast, I'm still trying to get into Mizdemeanour's knickers, and I've had no luck as a Christian: Do you think I'd fare any better as an atheist?

quote:

Originally posted by CDarwin:
Fossils dear boy...fossils!!

Not only that: There is plenty of paleontological and molecular evidence. But also: THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION.

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K:

quote:

Originally posted by CDarwin:
Fossils dear boy...fossils!!

Not only that: There is plenty of paleontological and molecular evidence. But also: THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION.

Go on then, Milan:
Tell us what the molecules tell us.

There IS another explanation, actually.

In fact, I think that it was one of the early supporters of the ToE who said something like the theory was pretty preposterous and couldn't logically explain how we got where we are today, but that he believed it anyway, because the alternative was to believe in God, which he apparently couldn't bring himself to do.

So that makes sense.

If you refer to Darwin, this...

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
In fact, I think that it was one of the early supporters of the ToE who said something like the theory was pretty preposterous and couldn't logically explain how we got where we are today, but that he believed it anyway, because the alternative was to believe in God, which he apparently couldn't bring himself to do.

So that makes sense.

...is a lie.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K:

quote:

Originally posted by CDarwin:
Fossils dear boy...fossils!!

Not only that: There is plenty of paleontological and molecular evidence. But also: THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION.

Go on then, Milan:
Tell us what the molecules tell us.

There IS another explanation, actually.

In fact, I think that it was one of the early supporters of the ToE who said something like the theory was pretty preposterous and couldn't logically explain how we got where we are today, but that he believed it anyway, because the alternative was to believe in God, which he apparently couldn't bring himself to do.

So that makes sense.

Ha, ha. Yes, and Darwin recanted in his deathbed.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
What: Those fossils formed during the great flood?
?

Why do theists feel it necessary to argue with evolution and insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis?

1/Genesis is quite plainly not written as history/biology/geography - it is mythology/allegory.
2/A literal interpretation of Genesis was not a consistent part of Christian tradition - it was the reformed evangelicals in America last century who really latched onto this.
3/The Hebrew for "the flood covered the whole earth" could just as easily be translated as "the flood covered the land all around that you could see from standing on a hill". There is no reason to presume a universal flood.
4/What difference does evolution make to faith? Even if we fill in all the gaps including the very difficult one that gets us from molecular soup to biological information chain this would not make the slightest difference to my theistic beliefs.

Luis: How about our little bargain? Joliet has posted a thread that is quite plainly prejudiced and sociopathic but I havn't heard a protest from you yet

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Why do theists feel it necessary to argue with evolution and insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis?

)

Because the theory of evolution is manifestly so full of holes and self inconsistencies, is "supported" by some pretty dodgy "science", and is, statistically speaking, so unlikely, as to be utterly impossible.
That's why I feel it necessary to argue with evolution.

If you believe in God, and believe that He is The all powerful being, then I don't see a problem with supposing that He could have created the universe in six days, if that was what He wanted to do. Supposing then, that He could do it, but didn't, then why do you suppose that He said He did?
So if you disbelieve creation, you disbelieve the flood, you disbelieve Sodom and Gomorrah, the parting of the Red Sea....blah blah, blah.... then how do you decide to believe the resurrection? Or even the crucifixion?
And then if you don't believe that, then what are you doing imagining that you're a Christian?

That's why I believe that Genesis is actually true.

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Luis: How about our little bargain? Joliet has posted a thread that is quite plainly prejudiced and sociopathic but I havn't heard a protest from you yet

Yeah, you've got a point there, sorry, my bad.

Ok, let me be clear. I think the OP is unfair on greenbelt. I protest.

*Note to mods. I do not think this thread or anything in it should be removed as I disagree with that practice, thanks*

quote:

Originally posted by LuisGarcia:
If you refer to Darwin, this...

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
In fact, I think that it was one of the early supporters of the ToE who said something like the theory was pretty preposterous and couldn't logically explain how we got where we are today, but that he believed it anyway, because the alternative was to believe in God, which he apparently couldn't bring himself to do.

So that makes sense.

...is a lie.

But I wasn't referring to Darwin: A plurality of much more highly decorated scientists have voiced similar opinions in more recent years, having the benefit of a greater volume of more modern data than was avialable to Darwin.
Darwin's original premise was, in any case, fundamentally in error.

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K:

quote:

Originally posted by CDarwin:
Fossils dear boy...fossils!!

Not only that: There is plenty of paleontological and molecular evidence. But also: THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION.

Go on then, Milan:
Tell us what the molecules tell us.

There IS another explanation, actually.

In fact, I think that it was one of the early supporters of the ToE who said something like the theory was pretty preposterous and couldn't logically explain how we got where we are today, but that he believed it anyway, because the alternative was to believe in God, which he apparently couldn't bring himself to do.

So that makes sense.

Ha, ha. Yes, and Darwin recanted in his deathbed.

Whatever.
So what do the molecules tell us about evolution?

Mr Woolf:

I know exactly where you're coming from..but..why do questions about the truth of Genesis and the Flood have any bearing on the resurrection ?

The bible was not dictated in its entirety by God to man - that was never a part of Christian tradition.It has always been assumed to have a human element of interpretation. Genesis and the gospels are completely different kinds of books written hundreds of years apart by different people for different purposes. The early Christian councils considered that both were "divinely inspired" but that doesn't mean that Genesis has to be approached as historical truth. Mythology is not the disparaging category that it is often considered on this forum. The textual evidence is that Genesis was repeatedly revised over tens to hundreds of years by at least 3, possibly 5 or more Jewish authors to incorporate what they saw as "spiritual truths". Mythology, allegory and apocalyptic were common writing styles within the cultural context. What is there to suggest that they were trying to document geological and biological fact ? Even if they were, the state of human knowledge at the time was completely inadequate to hold the concept of evolution and what we have is what you might expect for the period.
Evolution is no threat to Christian belief - try the director of the human genome project -Francis Collins ( sorry, can't remember the title right now).
If you want to challenge evolution, you need to do it on scientific grounds but be careful!!! There are gaps but they are being filled and you may end up with a "God of the gaps" who just gets squeezed smaller and smaller. Evolution may not be perfect but it is the best we have, it doesn't exclude God and scriptural literalism is no substitute. A lot of the intelligent design material is shoddy science and assumes an a priori position. Terms like "intelligent design" and "creationist" have now been so hijacked by the fundamentalist movement that scientifically literate Christians have had to completely abandon them. Don't stake your faith on this - you don't need to!

Sorry, Greenbelt, but you're starting to sound like the voice of Stan

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K:

quote:

Originally posted by CDarwin:
Fossils dear boy...fossils!!

Not only that: There is plenty of paleontological and molecular evidence. But also: THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION.

Go on then, Milan:
Tell us what the molecules tell us.

There IS another explanation, actually.

In fact, I think that it was one of the early supporters of the ToE who said something like the theory was pretty preposterous and couldn't logically explain how we got where we are today, but that he believed it anyway, because the alternative was to believe in God, which he apparently couldn't bring himself to do.

So that makes sense.

Ha, ha. Yes, and Darwin recanted in his deathbed.

Whatever.
So what do the molecules tell us about evolution?

I've said before that these forums are not the place to obtain an education in the sciences. And neither are crazy religious websites such as Answeringenesis and the like. If you want to know about evolution, there are many books that can give you a very good introduction to the subject.

That, of course, if you are really interested in educating yourself, instead of spouting puerile stupidities as you always do.