Preserved for 520 million years?!?

[Mikeenders]

Jorge - if you saw a fellow write

'the solution to "x² = 4" is x=3'

would you not assume he 'did not understand' algebra?

Utterly Worthless analogy. how does a supposition of what would happen in the future given a hypothetical equate to a mathematical solution? The fact that Rogue applies that piece of rhetoric to a future hypothetical forevers proves its just that - empty rhetoric.

The fact that you cannot admit as Jorge succinctly put it (that you can use it for anyone that does not agree with your position) that as a device its not intellectually honest is no surprise.

[Jorge]

Is Christianity invalidated if evolution is true?

That would depend on how "evolution" is being defined.

The "Evolution" of Atheists, Humanists, TEs and others is most definitely incompatible with the Christianity that one finds in the Bible (AKJV 1611). Even Atheist Extraordinaire Richard Dawkins has figured that out and he did it at the tender age of 16.

Jorge

[Mikeenders]

Jorge - if you saw a fellow write

'the solution to "x² = 4" is x=3'

would you not assume he 'did not understand' algebra?

And would you not also continue to assume he had a fundamental misunderstanding of algebra until he could on his own deduce that the solution was in fact x = +-2?



Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

More irony. Have you looked up 'conversational writing' yet Mikey?

[oxmixmudd]

Utterly Worthless analogy. how does a supposition of what would happen in the future given a hypothetical equate to a mathematical solution? The fact that Rogue applies that piece of rhetoric to a future hypothetical forevers proves its just that - empty rhetoric.

The fact that you cannot admit as Jorge succinctly put it (that you can use it for anyone that does not agree with your position) that as a device its not intellectually honest is no surprise.

The application is simple Mike, though you will refuse to grasp it.

If a subject matter is itself logically self consistent and well supported by the evidence, then those that see it as illogical or not supported by the evidence simply don't understand it. And when they continually present as 'problems' for that system elements that clearly are not 'problems' for that system, one can also know that they do not understand it. So just as a fellow that keeps repeating x²=4 -> x=3 is showing his lack of understanding, so are all your supposed 'problems' with evolution showing YOUR lack of understanding.

If however, they speak in ways and question elements of that theory that do not contradict a basic knowledge of the subject matter, then one could conclude they do in fact understand it.


Your problem, and Jorge's problem, is that you BOTH do not understand evolution AND you do not believe your understanding is flawed. Even when specific examples are given to you of where you fail to understand, you simply either fail to listen (because of your arrogant disdain for those trying to help you understand) or you fail to be able to comprehend your own failure at comprehension.

Case in point: a fellow whose field is biological research tried to help you understand why your comments about HGT and its implications for Evolutionary theory were flawed.

You instead of listening, arrogantly assumed that since he disagreed with you, he must not be the expert he claimed to be.


For this to change, you will have to actually listen to those that are trying to help you understand, and consider it is possible they know more than you do. And for that to happen you have have to accept it is at least possible there is something about these topics you don't understand. It wouldn't take long. Just a few minutes listening to what is actually said, a few questions that are genuine about what you've been told. An a few minutes of actual respect for someone other than yourself.

But that is never going to happen.

Jim

[Jorge]

Jorge - if you saw a fellow write

'the solution to "x² = 4" is x=3'

would you not assume he 'did not understand' algebra?

And would you not also continue to assume he had a fundamental misunderstanding of algebra until he could on his own deduce that the solution was in fact x = +-2?

Jim

I am forced to ask you one and only one question:

Are you challenging R06 for the title of Master Straw Man Maker?

Until your post above R06 has had no one to even approach challenging him.

But that has now changed ... you are definitely in the running for the title.

*****************************

Okay, enough (deserved) sarcasm.

Speaking for myself, I am no "expert" on Evolution nor will I ever be (it's like trying to hit a fuzzy, moving target) since I have bigger fish to fry.

Having said that, I most definitely do understand Evolution WELL ENOUGH to be able to grasp what is actually going on. Heck, I was in my teens when the light bulb went "on". Since then it's been a matter of accumulating more and more evidence by observation and study. I could not have done the works that I've done (e.g., contributed significantly to Without Excuse) unless I had enough understanding of 'evolution', biology, chemistry, physics, etc.

In short, you guys really need to get off that dead horse 'coz it's not going anywhere regardless of how hard you flog it.

Things do indeed change -- allele frequencies in populations do change over time -- and if THAT'S what you mean when you use the term 'evolution' then the dispute is over right now - pack up and go home, I'll do the same!

But you know better than that, right?

Evolution is far, Far, FAR more than that to Atheists, Humanists, TEs and others. And it is what the term 'Evolution' encompasses that makes it a lie, a scam, a con job, and, worse of all, an ideology that opposes what God says in His Holy Word.

Embracing Evolution is, in many ways, opposing God - can I possibly make it any clearer than that?

In order to avoid this (because many people want to continue with God), what people do is to re-interpret, distort, change, add, subtract ... etc ... whatever needs to be done to God's Word so that both ideologies (Evolutionism and Christianity) may be retained.

But that's NOT possible! As I've stated many times, in some areas God allows us multiple choices: vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, lemon, ... lots of choices. But in other areas God is perfectly, unambiguously clear: you are either with Him,, or you are against Him - no other choices are available nor is there a middle ground. This is one of those areas.

I've strayed a bit from your original question but the connection is there.

This is about the 80th time I've conveyed this message to you ... I am expecting no different results.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Your problem, and Jorge's problem, is that you BOTH do not understand evolution AND you do not believe your understanding is flawed.

Jim

There it is AGAIN !!! Hey, I know what I'm going to do ...

I'll set up a kind of 'Toll Booth' so that EVERY SINGLE TIME that they use
the "You just don't understand Evolution" mantra, I get to collect a toll.
Heck, in no time at all I should be a wealthy man!

Now why didn't I think of that sooner? Shucks!

Jorge

[klaus54]

That would depend on how "evolution" is being defined.

The "Evolution" of Atheists, Humanists, TEs and others is most definitely incompatible with the Christianity that one finds in the Bible (AKJV 1611). Even Atheist Extraordinaire Richard Dawkins has figured that out and he did it at the tender age of 16.

Jorge

Biological evolution as defined by the vast, vast majority of those in the biological sciences.

So your answer is "no".

BTW, I'm sure this has been pointed out to you before, but New Atheists and Fundy YECs wear the exact same blinders when they approach the Bible. Ergo, your agreement with Dawkins.

Hey, you agree with an atheist!



P.S. "AKJV 1611" duly noted. Jor is the COMPLETE package...

[oxmixmudd]

I am forced to ask you one and only one question:

Are you challenging R06 for the title of Master Straw Man Maker?

Until your post above R06 has had no one to even approach challenging him.

But that has now changed ... you are definitely in the running for the title.

Your capacity to handle abstraction never has been particularly good. Perhaps my response to Mike can help you there a bit.

Speaking for myself, I am no "expert" on Evolution nor will I ever be (it's like trying to hit a fuzzy, moving target) since I have bigger fish to fry.

Having said that, I most definitely do understand Evolution WELL ENOUGH to be able to grasp what is actually going on. Heck, I was in my teens when the light bulb went "on". Since then it's been a matter of accumulating more and more evidence by observation and study. I could not have done the works that I've done (e.g., contributed significantly to Without Excuse) unless I had enough understanding of 'evolution', biology, chemistry, physics, etc.

And per my analogy, the very fact you contributed to "Without Excuse" is itself evidence you do not understand Evolutionary Theory. However, if Evolution itself were flawed, then that would resolve to circular reasoning. So the real evidence you don't understand would then come down to whether or not the case against Evolution presented in "Without Excuse" showed evidence of understanding. Writing a book against evolution does not demonstrate understanding any more than your paper on steam explosions shows you understand the evidence used to classify impact craters.

In short, you guys really need to get off that dead horse 'coz it's not going anywhere regardless of how hard you flog it.

Things do indeed change -- allele frequencies in populations do change over time -- and if THAT'S what you mean when you use the term 'evolution' then the dispute is over right now - pack up and go home, I'll do the same!

But you know better than that, right?

Yep - the evidence in the fossils is for a progression of life over hundreds of millions of years. You don't get to get off the hook just because you admit there are changes possible.

Evolution is far, Far, FAR more than that to Atheists, Humanists, TEs and others. And it is what the term 'Evolution' encompasses that makes it a lie, a scam, a con job, and, worse of all, an ideology that opposes what God says in His Holy Word.

Only in your mind. How can the actual history of the world oppose what "God says in His Holy Word", unless you are misunderstanding what God is saying in the Bible.

Embracing Evolution is, in many ways, opposing God - can I possibly make it any clearer than that?

It is absolutely clear that is your opinion. The problem for you is that there is more history and time recorded in the fossils than is possible as you interpret the scriptures. And worse, there is no feasible way that scientific conclusion can be wrong enough to accommodate your interpretation. So you are stuck remaining scientifically ignorant or gaining some understanding regarding the fact Genesis is written in such a way that it has many possible meanings in terms of the 'how' of creation.

In order to avoid this (because many people want to continue with God), what people do is to re-interpret, distort, change, add, subtract ... etc ... whatever needs to be done to God's Word so that both ideologies (Evolutionism and Christianity) may be retained.

It's not an ideological question Jorge. Christians that accept evolution don't do so because the 'want' it to be true, or because they 'want' to agree with the 'world'. We accept it because we are confronted with the fact that is the way it is. And that just doesn't align with your chosen approach to Genesis. But it can and does align with other approaches. But the problem there is that these other approaches recognize what you can't admit - that Genesis as it describes the creation and the fall is not technical writing. It has significant symbolic or allegorical elements, and it is written from the perspective, and using the common terminology of the people that wrote it.

And for you, that means it can't possibly retain its status as the word of God, as inspired and Holy. That's where the rub is Jorge. You can't believe the Bible is inspired if God chose to use a method like that when He inspired Genesis. And all I can ask is - why not?

But that's NOT possible! As I've stated many times, in some areas God allows us multiple choices: vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, lemon, ... lots of choices. But in other areas God is perfectly, unambiguously clear: you are either with Him,, or you are against Him - no other choices are available nor is there a middle ground. This is one of those areas.

But it's not Jorge. It all hinges on whether or not Genesis is written as you presume it to be - some sort of direct revelation of exactly what God did in non-symblic form. And that is presumption. And it is contrary to not only evidence from the text itself, but to study of the history of the region in which it was written, and of course, the evidence for the history of the world recorded by the world itself.

I've strayed a bit from your original question but the connection is there.

This is about the 80th time I've conveyed this message to you ... I am expecting no different results.

Jorge

Thanks for taking the time to at least discuss the issue. My response is given in good faith. If you want to pursue this, I guess the most logical next step would be for you to define why it would be impossible for Genesis to be the word of God, inspired and Holy, if Genesis 1-11 was more allegory than history, based on real events, but not necessarily literal, technical history as you currently read it.

The reason that would be the next logical step is that it is clear how to read Genesis (and several new testament references to it building foundational doctrines of our Faith) is the 'core' issue for you. The 'appeal that science of long ages and evolution must be flawed' is your protective layer, your response to that core element, the way you explain the contradiction between science and what you believe to be the only correct way to read Genesis.


Jim

ETA: Jorge - your willingness to stick with what you believe to be true in spite of much derision and hostility is a good thing. A laudable characteristic. I want you to understand I find no fault with that. I do not want to cause you to 'compromise' what you believe to be true, but I would like to be able to reason with you about those beliefs so that IF what you believe to be true is not quite right, your laudable capacity to follow God against all opposition will not have been in vain as relates to these issues.

ETA2: And I understand that if I should expect in you the capacity to consider you might be wrong, I too must also reciprocate that same possibilty. I also understand the likelyhood of agreement is very low. But can we give a rational,calm discussion over some finite, but reasonably sized set of posts a chance?

[rogue06]

The above reminds me, unless you agree with these nitwits about Evolution
then there is no way that you can understand it. It goes like this:

If you "understand" Evolution, then you will accept it;
if you don't accept Evolution then it's because you don't "understand" it.
IOW, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to "understand" Evolution and not accept it.

It's a classic example of circular argumentation and they've mastered it!
I mean, they've nailed that puppy down to the last syllable.
I've had that argument tossed at me so many times over the decades
that I don't even blink any more when I see it.

Anyway, now you know. Enjoy and try not to pull ALL of your hair out.

Jorge

As I said previously there are many folks who have demonstrated a grasp of evolution but still have their doubts. That is to be expected. But when someone boasts of how they understand it and then proceeds to misrepresent even the most basic concepts, to create straw man arguments, then it can be said with certainty that they have no idea what they are talking about.

[Mikeenders]

More irony. Have you looked up 'conversational writing' yet Mikey?

oh look she's back after licking her wounds at being wrong over and over but no fun.......all she could come up wit his "Hey Mikey"

[Mikeenders]

The application is simple Mike, though you will refuse to grasp it.

Drivel not even worth reading further. Anyone that equates a mathematical solution to a hypothetical about the future as Rogue did is a nitwit.

[Mikeenders]

There it is AGAIN !!! Hey, I know what I'm going to do ...

I didn't even see it because I refused to read that tripe

When you have to got to the same well over and over and over again its because most everything else is as dry as chip

I am forced to ask you one and only one question:

Are you challenging R06 for the title of Master Straw Man Maker?

Not even possible. Rogue wins that one by a mile along with his first place trophy for irrational explanations for lying

[rogue06]

You have no sense. You never have and going to color pictures doesn't help your case. Only an idiot would conclude someone does not understand something based on a difference of opinion on what would happen in the future given a hypothetical. take a bow. You qualify. So you believe that all the evolutionists would throw their hands and give up if a crocodile duck creature showed up in the fossil record rather than beg a freak accident or reworking the theory and I don't..... big whoop. What else ya got??

Again and again you arrogantly parade your ignorance. A chimera of the sort which some evolution deniers insist that evolutionary theory says ought to be produced would be a terminal blow to evolution. It wouldn't matter if it was "a freak accident." It would send everyone back to the proverbial drawing board.

Try to focus . Like I told your female comrade . it will only hurt in the beginning if you think. Promise. no need to fear. The point was not that they would merely convert its that they would give up on evolution and convert. They wouldn't they would rework the theory

No, not even close. Even someone like Dawkins who said that evolution made it possible for him to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist," was already an atheist before coming across evolution. Folks like that would not change. And for the vast majority of atheists for who evolution played no role in their decision, falsifying evolution would have absolutely no effect whatsoever.

Go read up dude. you ARE clueless . Fossils finds have been put in drawers before and they will be again for future study and if the whole soft tissue Schweitzer controversy taught you any thing (if anything ever does) its that finds that are not expected do not always result in scientists climbing over anything.

Things get put away awaiting further study because they didn't look unusual compounded by a lack of trained paleontologists and taxonomists (it can take a decade's labor to prepare and analyze the material for just one lineage). But if the remains of a chimera of any sort were unearthed that would be completely different since it would be readily apparent that they were looking at something truly unusual. Press releases would be pouring out by the discoverers even before it was transported back to a lab if for no other reason to make sure they got credit for the find.

As for the soft tissue, I assume that you understand... No, strike that. You repeatedly indicate a complete lack of comprehension which when coupled with a cock sure attitude that you know it all makes it nearly impossible for you to learn anything.

The "soft tissue" was found inside the bone, not at the surface, so it wasn't like anybody could see it even after it had been prepped. Schweitzer had to quite literally break the femur in two in order to examine it. In contrast a chimera of any sort would be almost immediately noticeable or at the very least would peek interest enough to warrant an immediate examination which would reveal its nature in short order.

In the early days they ripped her a new one and Evo wasn't even on the line .

In every field of science when someone makes a controversial claim it is met with sharp skepticism. But she responded as a good scientist should and backed up her claims with further research that answered the skeptics objections.

If someone found a crocoduck he would have to consider long and hard if he could withstand the charges of forgery and fraud and what it would do to his career.

If the person who discovered it excavated it themselves they know that they would quickly be vindicated. If it was brought to them by others then they should have the common sense to examine it for that possibility since such an examination would show whether or not it is a fraud in short order.

People like you willing to create any old lie as an accusation (as you already did with me) would probably be the first in line asking if the researcher were creationists. Not only wouldn't such a find destroy evo heads believing in it their first order of business would be destroying the people who found it.

Having to resort to conspiracy theories to prop up your argument is never a good sign. And again, if it is real, an examination of it will quickly reveal it. A danger sign is when the discoverers refuse to allow anyone to ever look at it much less examine it.

What a history science nit. Those who overturned consensus always faced static unless you really are more atheist than theist (in the closet??) and think Theists are the only one that hold on to dogma and its not a general human condition.

And yet again insinuations that Christians who disagree with you must be closet atheists.

Of course they faced static. That is not knew or unique. So what? If the evidence is on their side they not only get the last laugh but the fame and recognition not to mention funding for whatever project comes along that strikes their fancy as well as a long line of the most qualified people available applying to work with you. Moreover, it is the doubters, if they still persist, who are more likely to find themselves ostracized.

What are you like ten years old with stars in your eyes that because someone is a scientist they have no biases.

Of course scientists being people have their biases. But there are two things that you are overlooking. First, in science, it is the evidence that matters. Second, not everyone has the same biases. In fact, many will have the exact opposite biases. While someone like a Dawkins might approach it from an atheistic perspective you'll also have a Mary Schweitzer, Simon Conway Morris and Robert Bakker (all three of whom are devout Christians with the latter also being a minister) who will have a Christian perspective. And this leads to the fact that a great many scientists love nothing more than showing that someone they disagree with, for whatever reason, is wrong. They will go over any claims with a fine-tooth comb. Of course this results in the static that you fret about but it also insures that claims aren't taken at face value.

Don't have to believe in any foolish conspiracy theory like you are trying to float.

You are the one implying cover ups and scientists cowering in fear afraid to speak up.

Like it or not admit it or not evolution is one of the top props of atheists (and no - since you have no sense and can't reason - thats not saying its wrong on that basis) and only in your little fairy tale short pants juvenile view of the world would they not be might y upset if you took it from them and they would be "oh so excited to overturn it"

I've run into far more atheists who used to be folks who ended up rejecting their faith when it crashed into reality. They get taught if a particular interpretation isn't true then the Bible is wrong and God is lying.

Moreover, historically speaking, there is a long list of scientific discoveries that have over the centuries been accused of promoting atheism or allowing people to justify it, starting with Copernicus/Galileo/Kepler's demonstrating that geocentric views were wrong and including Newton's Laws of Gravity.

Strange? ummm nope. My goodness you reaaaaallly do have ZERO capacity for thought. Wow no processing power as to why that might be? OF course the proponents would be willing to listt a whole range of things that falsify their theories (even if it didn't) IF THEY DIDN'T THINK THEY EXISTED OR WOULD EXIST. Then they would be be able to do what you and all the other brainwashed people do with that false list. Claim - aha this would falsify if it existed but it doesn't.

If that was truly how it worked then they really have set themselves up for a hard fall if any of those things were shown to exist. They now have no way out since they couldn't say that doesn't count in that they themselves already said it would. If that was truly how it worked they would simply have remained silent and if anything like that came up merely claim it didn't count.

Can't beleive I just had to explain such a simple thing to an adult that actually thought that was a solid point.

Can't really believe I just had to explain the ocean liner sized hole in your "reasoning."

And where have I denied I questioned people's Christianity on theological grounds?

You do it based on that and other grounds. For instance in your responses to me here you've insinuated that I'm not a Christian because I used TalkOrigins as a source.

You got caught lying about what I repeatedly said but never said once so now to save the egg on your face your claiming again that I said something I didn't. problem is that only leaves you with more egg on your face and what is becoming habitual lying as your MO.

This coming from someone who insists that I hate YECs. If I were a tenth as childish as you I would be peppering my posts with accusations of lying like you have. And I notice that you haven't retracted that oft made statement like I did when I incorrectly thought you were a YEC. In fact as can be seen below you have decided to double down on it. And you have the gall to lecture others about having no character.

and what do you think that does? absolves you? What if I had been a YEC? where would your accusation stand?

If you were a YEC would an "accusation" that you're a YEC stand? Do you even think before you type?

Hey person of no character - read over here - want to be forgiven for sins? - stop making excuses for them and exercise a little morality - seriously stop embarassing the name of Christ.

Are you really so ignorant that you don't understand the difference between making a mistake and lying? Lying is claiming something you know to be false. When I was told that I was wrong, I immediately retracted my statement.

You can't say most YECs are adamant against evolution

Which I didn't say. I said "nearly all those who are that adamant are YEC" not that "most YECs are adamant against evolution." I guess I should start repeatedly calling you a liar now, that is if I lowered myself to your level.

No thats more like the I am not a racist because in high school I had a black friend argument.

Actually he isn't "a friend" but my best friend for over 40 years. And if I hated YECs I would hardly stay at a church that is over half YECs.

Point of fact is you are down and still are trying to claim that thinking I was a YEC is an explanation for making up what you didn't know. Thats hate.

Thinking that you were a YEC is an explanation for making up that you're a YEC? Again, do you ever stop for a minute to think about what you're saying or do you just let the venom flow when you get yourself all worked up?

just as having a ton load of black friends and claiming you can make statement about them because you thought they were African american wouldn't dig you out of that either.

Still not thinking are you? The statement I would be making about them in your scenario would be that they're black. Nothing more.

I did have to fight the gag reflex when you said you had a soft spot for Jorge. Sheesh with the way you mock him I'd hate to see someone who you don't have a soft spot for

And yet, if I hated him or YECs in general then I would have never lifted a finger but instead have let him stew. I never said that Jorge doesn't frustrate me at times and that I don't strongly disagree with him. And yes, when he starts getting holier-than-thou I have no trouble knocking him down a peg or two.

As for mocking take a look at this post: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...532#post286532 I guess that must mean I really hate Sparko


I've wasted enough time responding to this post since most of what's left are just more screeching accusations that I lied about you being a YEC.

[rogue06]

Not even possible. Rogue wins that one by a mile along with his first place trophy for irrational explanations for lying

Yeah because in the outer limits of the Twilight Zone that you dwell in making a mistake and immediately rescinding it when informed that you're wrong is an "irrational explanation."

I guess the "rational" thing would be to continue making the claim. You know, like the way you do.