This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Hundmutter on 30 December 2013 - 03:12
I would submit, Shtal, that you are your own (biblical) definition
of a 'fool' - even if you have reasonable levels of intellect (?), you
are so blinded by your New Earth views that you choose to ignore
anything that anyone poses as evidence against those views.
If you can't find one of your cod philosophers' vids to pose what you
want to reply in your defense, you simply refuse to deal with the
questions (preferring to hide behind such nonsense as 'tares' not being
worthy of reply to) or you threaten to pick up your ball and go home.
Unfortunately, you never actually DO the latter.
Nobody ever said you cannot quote your Bible, in trying to justify your
position. On your faith, or on other matters e.g. evolution. But that is
not the same as bombarding us with your paragraphs and paragraphs
of 'cut & paste' - especially when, as is so often the case, you are trying
to make up in volume what these 'quotes' lack in content. (Relevant to
whatever question is being debated).
The evolution of this planet, and all the animals on it including the human
population, is like a great jigsaw puzzle. We discover some bits, that
leads to other discoveries. Without the research on fossilisation and micro-
biology and cell division and nuclear physics, and a thousand and one other
paths of discovery, we would not have the medical knowledge and abilities
to improve or save lives that we have today. Think about that if you ever have
a heart attack. It follows that if one path 'works', the paths on which it is based
have to have made sense also ...
of a 'fool' - even if you have reasonable levels of intellect (?), you
are so blinded by your New Earth views that you choose to ignore
anything that anyone poses as evidence against those views.
If you can't find one of your cod philosophers' vids to pose what you
want to reply in your defense, you simply refuse to deal with the
questions (preferring to hide behind such nonsense as 'tares' not being
worthy of reply to) or you threaten to pick up your ball and go home.
Unfortunately, you never actually DO the latter.
Nobody ever said you cannot quote your Bible, in trying to justify your
position. On your faith, or on other matters e.g. evolution. But that is
not the same as bombarding us with your paragraphs and paragraphs
of 'cut & paste' - especially when, as is so often the case, you are trying
to make up in volume what these 'quotes' lack in content. (Relevant to
whatever question is being debated).
The evolution of this planet, and all the animals on it including the human
population, is like a great jigsaw puzzle. We discover some bits, that
leads to other discoveries. Without the research on fossilisation and micro-
biology and cell division and nuclear physics, and a thousand and one other
paths of discovery, we would not have the medical knowledge and abilities
to improve or save lives that we have today. Think about that if you ever have
a heart attack. It follows that if one path 'works', the paths on which it is based
have to have made sense also ...
by ggturner on 02 January 2014 - 09:01
Moons, I have been teaching for a long time. I actually do teach chapters on the theory of evolution at a Christian college prep school. My point was that no matter what, it is still a theory and no one in the scientific community calls it a fact. Prior to teaching, I was a lab supervisor in a pathology lab that did scientific research for NIH. So, I do know the difference between what constitutes a theory verses a scientific fact.
BTW: Many of my former students have gone into scientific careers such as nurses, veterinarians, pharmacists, physical therapists, and medical doctors. They keep in touch with me, come by the school to see me, and invite me to their weddings. I've taught thousands of kids over the years and believe it or not am well respected as an educator. Think whatever you want, but it won't change reality or affect me personally.
BTW: Many of my former students have gone into scientific careers such as nurses, veterinarians, pharmacists, physical therapists, and medical doctors. They keep in touch with me, come by the school to see me, and invite me to their weddings. I've taught thousands of kids over the years and believe it or not am well respected as an educator. Think whatever you want, but it won't change reality or affect me personally.
by Shtal on 02 January 2014 - 12:01
Even I am done but I can still give support to ggturner:
Evolution has many faulty assumptions: number they assume a world billions of years old: number two, evolution is based on assumption that you can get order from chaos, they completely overlook or ignore the question where did the matter come from? Where the laws come from? Where did the order come from? Now.....And they are based an assumption we have increasing complexity, that you can go from simple form to more complex forms, that has never been observed, there is no evidence in the fossil record, any animal changing into any other kind of animal; no evidence today and no evidence in the fossil record at all. They are based on assumption by logical evolution that there are beneficial mutations but no one has ever observed one beneficial mutation, they aren’t any. Evolution is based on assumption that similarity proves a common ancestry because apes and humans are similar they conclude we must be having common ancestor. I would say similarity proves common creator just like a Honda Civic and Honda Accord has some similarities that proves they both made by the same company, it doesn’t prove that they both evolved from a Chevy……lol the argument can go either way, so similarity does not necessarily prove common ancestry. That was just my two cents worth in support ggturner in regarding evolution is just a theory but not a FACT……
Evolution has many faulty assumptions: number they assume a world billions of years old: number two, evolution is based on assumption that you can get order from chaos, they completely overlook or ignore the question where did the matter come from? Where the laws come from? Where did the order come from? Now.....And they are based an assumption we have increasing complexity, that you can go from simple form to more complex forms, that has never been observed, there is no evidence in the fossil record, any animal changing into any other kind of animal; no evidence today and no evidence in the fossil record at all. They are based on assumption by logical evolution that there are beneficial mutations but no one has ever observed one beneficial mutation, they aren’t any. Evolution is based on assumption that similarity proves a common ancestry because apes and humans are similar they conclude we must be having common ancestor. I would say similarity proves common creator just like a Honda Civic and Honda Accord has some similarities that proves they both made by the same company, it doesn’t prove that they both evolved from a Chevy……lol the argument can go either way, so similarity does not necessarily prove common ancestry. That was just my two cents worth in support ggturner in regarding evolution is just a theory but not a FACT……
by Red Sable on 02 January 2014 - 13:01
We can argue about this till the cows come home, but fact of the matter is, if Moons keeps smoking up a storm and doesn't get enough exercise, he may know the truth for himself sooner than the rest of us.
None of us know what 2014 has in store. Probably a blessing.
None of us know what 2014 has in store. Probably a blessing.
by Shtal on 02 January 2014 - 17:01
RS, However, I still think that moons arguments are mere smokescreen and elephant-hurling attempts to avoid spiritual issues, and that the questions are therefore not worth answering.
by GSDtravels on 02 January 2014 - 18:01
ggturner, if you were any kind of teacher, you would know that evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains how it happened, just like gravity is a fact and the theory of gravity explains how it works. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it and there is no evidence that disputes evolution.
by Hundmutter on 02 January 2014 - 18:01
Shtal, the 'theory' of evolution isn't based in assumptions, faulty or otherwise; it isn't
a question of "assuming" Earth is billions of years old. The theory is BUILT on evidence;
the interpretation of that evidence is what you are calling into question - and what I am
saying is that the interpretation is built up, piece by piece, by rock & soil formations, by
archeological evidence, and sums, and calculations, and discoveries, and other science,
which all support each other and add up to the whole. What you do when you promote
nonsense about "carbon-dating fossils" [ho, ho!] is to take one section out of that whole,
and try to ridicule it in isolation.
a question of "assuming" Earth is billions of years old. The theory is BUILT on evidence;
the interpretation of that evidence is what you are calling into question - and what I am
saying is that the interpretation is built up, piece by piece, by rock & soil formations, by
archeological evidence, and sums, and calculations, and discoveries, and other science,
which all support each other and add up to the whole. What you do when you promote
nonsense about "carbon-dating fossils" [ho, ho!] is to take one section out of that whole,
and try to ridicule it in isolation.
by ggturner on 02 January 2014 - 20:01
I will leave you with the following web sites and won't respond any more.
Definitions of fact, theory, and scientific law: http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work
Description of evolution as a theory: http://ncse.com/evolution
Dr. James Tour, considered one of the top 10 chemists in the world today, on evolution: http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-%E2%80%9Ctheory%E2%80%9D-and-the-christian-creationist-and-his-%E2%80%9Cscience%E2%80%9D/
Dr. Michael Ham on evolution: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ham/i-dont-believe-in-evoluti_b_1579698.html
Recent interesting article:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/12/31/human-evolution-pew-poll-religion-column/4262047/
Definitions of fact, theory, and scientific law: http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work
Description of evolution as a theory: http://ncse.com/evolution
Dr. James Tour, considered one of the top 10 chemists in the world today, on evolution: http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-%E2%80%9Ctheory%E2%80%9D-and-the-christian-creationist-and-his-%E2%80%9Cscience%E2%80%9D/
Dr. Michael Ham on evolution: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ham/i-dont-believe-in-evoluti_b_1579698.html
Recent interesting article:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/12/31/human-evolution-pew-poll-religion-column/4262047/
by Ruger1 on 02 January 2014 - 20:01
Waves@ ggturner!,, !!,,lol,,,,;)
by Hundmutter on 03 January 2014 - 04:01
TO: GG and Shtal and any of the rest of you who believe in god and/or christ:
I am not trying to argue you out of your FAITH; you can believe in whatever
fairy stories you find comforting, for all I [as an atheist] care.
But I DO take vehement issue with the New Earth nonsense. You could have
'Devine Design' without it having to mean Earth is only a few thousand years
old.
I am not trying to argue you out of your FAITH; you can believe in whatever
fairy stories you find comforting, for all I [as an atheist] care.
But I DO take vehement issue with the New Earth nonsense. You could have
'Devine Design' without it having to mean Earth is only a few thousand years
old.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top