No. And I really don't care much one way or the other how you feel about bible verses. You may in the future. But you may as well remove any reference of Christianity toward yourself at this point in time. You are in no way a Christian.
Evolution... Do we believe?
- Thread starter PopeFrancieLXIX
- Start date
No. And I really don't care much one way or the other how you feel about bible verses. You may in the future. But you may as well remove any reference of Christianity toward yourself at this point in time. You are in no way a Christian.
Did you say something or was that meaningless noise?
Jose Fly
New member
Thank you for the correction. You definitely aren't.
Meaningless noise (though coherent).....think about it. :think:
Can't be meaningless and be coherent at the same time.
Sure it can.
:chuckle: And it is worth nothing.
"The cow jumped over the moon." meaningless yet, coherent ...no?
Because it was answered in the other thread. You ignored it then as you will ignore it again. Also, you are just asking questions to avoid the challenge issued to your precious evolutionism.
C'mon Jose, answer Stripe, he always answers questions posed to him in a prompt and coherent manner.
Pardon me, I just choked on my beer. Waste of good beer.
Jose Fly
New member
No you didn't. Again, what is the difference between "rapid adaptation" and populations evolving via mutation and natural selection?
I keep asking the same questions because you and the other creationists here can't answer them, and it's funny to watch you do everything in your power to duck, dodge, and evade the issues they raise.
You'd think if creationism was based on "The Word of God" it would be pretty clear and consistent. Yet you creationists can't even agree on whether it includes basic things populations evolving, speciation, and natural selection.
So let's see if we can figure this out.
6days says populations evolve, speciation happens, and natural selection is real. He also says those things are within the framework of the "Biblical model of creation".
Is he wrong?
Jose Fly
New member
These sorts of exchanges are good illustrations of why creationists always lose in court. In that setting, they can't dodge questions. In places like this, they can dodge and evade for months. In a court, eventually the judge will order them to answer.
alwight
New member
No nothing like it. Do you really think that people only become scientists because they are atheists or materialist, what nonsense?
I wouldn't trust a scientist who smoked and was employed by the tobacco industry to inform me honestly about all the risks of smoking.
More nonsense 6days, science offers rational material explanations based on facts and evidence. It really doesn't matter if they are in fact wrong, their conclusions aren't simply believed on faith, their conclusions exist to best match the evidence. If a better one comes along then fine, science will have probably been helped to move just a bit closer to the truth. The objective is not to have a religious belief, it is simply to acquire real knowledge whatever that might be.
If he used the scientific method and was rigorous as perhaps leader of team then why shouldn't he get into a secular journal? Any YEC affiliations he might have don't matter unless a literal adherence to Genesis replaced genuine facts and evidence.That explains why scientists such geneticist John Sanford has been published about 70 times in secular journals and a dozen times in creationist journals. We could say... he understands the science. He says based on genetics that "evolution (common ancestry) is impossible".So what? Rigorous honest science gets published by respected scientific organisations, presenting testable facts and evidence, while YEC pseudoscience gets published by AiG or ICR etc and is widely ignored by honest scientists, except for entertainment value perhaps.
Respected scientists generally keep any supernatural beliefs they have to themselves, not try to incorporate them into their work.
6days
New member
Et tu Brute??
Barbaraian resorts to dishonesty rather than admit he was was wrong... You too Jose?
The ability to interbreed is A criterion.... it is not THE criterion as you were previously saying.
Now... You still have not answered why you are so obsessed with a Biblical definition of 'kind' when you can't provide a concise definition to 'species'.
You're smarting because your "geneticst" turned out to be an agronomist. Tell the truth, and you won't have to make excuses.
As you learned, evolutionary theory predicts that there will be no possible universally-applicable definition of "species." Darwin himself pointed this out. Creationism requires that there be one. The fact that you can't provide one illustrates another reason why scientists don't accept creationism.
ya know, i used to think adamantly there is no fathomable way that the age of earth and the universe we know of can ONLY be 7 or 8 or 10 or 12 thousand years old. even 1,000,000 seems way too short. after hearing both sides i'm not as adamant, but then again, what do i really know? i have only been here four decades - :deadhorse:
Jose Fly
New member
What are the other criteria?
I'm a biologist; I already know biology. I'm curious about creationism.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Evolution doesn't always lead forward. Bees which don't puke honey can have offspring which do, if they are not exposed to smoke. Devolution is also another way of saying the same stupid thing: The "unfolding evolution."