|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Evolution cant prove the big questions! |
| Even though, I believe in evolution, I am a monkeys uncle |
|
23% |
[ 6 ] |
| I believe evolution happens, but I am not a monkeys uncle |
|
34% |
[ 9 ] |
| I am undecided. there is just not enough evidence to choose a side |
|
3% |
[ 1 ] |
| I believe in god. |
|
19% |
[ 5 ] |
| I am a buddhist. |
|
3% |
[ 1 ] |
| you are all wrong. |
|
15% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 26 |
|
| Author |
Message |
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Here is a review of The Creator in the Courtrom by Norman L. Geisler which I just wrote for the Amazon site:
| Quote: |
I never thought I'd give a 5-star rating to a book written by a Creationist, but I did.
This book is about a Federal case in 1981, testing the Constitutionality of a recent law requiring balanced instruction in Creation Science and Evolutionary Science in the Arkansas public schools.
In an issue as heated as the Creationism and Evolutionism, the author is probably as unbiased as anyone can get. The author is of the opinion that the judge was prejudiced against Creationism from the beginning, and even devotes a chapter to that position, but balances this by publishing the judge's decision.
The author says that the Creationist position was unjustly treated by the news media, and offers news clippings to prove it.
The author also contends that the Attorney General did an unsatisfactory job in handling the case, but balances his view with an essay written by the Attorney General in his own defense.
Testimony by the witnesses is recounted impartially, as far as I can see. Readers of either persuasion can learn something by reading this book.
Now if you will excuse me, I must get back to writing a manuscript on Creationism and Evolution. I can't wait to see if a Creationist gives ME a 5-star rating! |
I oppose Creationism, not Creationists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
No one here has said that evolution is the reason for our existence.
|
Really... maybe you didn�t but tell that to the dawkin street brats...
| Quote: |
Evolutionary theory is simply a tool, like math or physics. As long as it's useful we keep it around or change it as we see need to do so.
Do you deny that evolutionary theory is useful? |
I think it�s useful but I also think religion is useful! Both have their good points!
And both have bad points...
| tomato wrote: |
Itaewonguy, are you going through an existential crisis? |
Hahahahahahhahah... you know I�m really beginning to like you... 
But no ...
| Quote: |
Is your stay in Korea somehow the cause or result of this existential crisis?
If it is, maybe we can relate to that, too--IF you stop attacking us
I am not attacking you... I am defending the deists! From Atheists and Anti god extremists like some of you lot... |
It all started when to name a few! hale, Ed, mm2, and the other extremists from the original thread were saying there was no GOD!
And Christians came in saying "YES THERE IS" and atheists/ evolutionists were saying no there isn�t! And evolution can show you how we don�t need a god to have evolved!
And then I came in and said NO EVOLUTION CANT PROVE THAT! Here we are 1 year later...
Also I dont see why atheists need to belittle others for their beliefs!
If someone wishes to believe in god, I don�t see why atheists need to come out guns blazing! Yes Christians bother me too especially when they go on and on... but that�s their choice in life... but athiests just love to attack them!! Easy targets or not! It�s not right!
You can�t anymore disprove god than I can prove god!
No evidence in any current theory can disprove god! Or prove god... but hey...
Atheists want to say deist�s lack of evidence of god is enough to disbelieve in god...
The same people who wish to be free of god say this, but there is evidence proving god but people don�t want to see it... it just cant be proven! (God doesn�t have to be a person) god is the generator of life
Let�s step away from god for a moment and get to the issue which you guys have... and that�s evolution without god! Proving that evolution actually works, telling me that we have enough evidence to prove evolution works... OK that�s great... I agree with that...
But... evolution theory itself is missing a beginning...
And without that how can you all just be sold as atheists? Sure the process works, we know evolution works, and I think eventually most theists will admit to this, and will all became advocates for ID: lol: .. BUT
No mutated transitional fossils, no understanding of the first life generated to start the origin of species...
Do you guys understand where I am coming from?? So many other missing links...
I mean is it me?? Should I just be sold into this theory without key points?
Or am I just seeking answers in the wrong places?
When I should just be content like a chirstian (god did it) an evolutionists (we evolved)
I mean is that it!? Should I just stop asking questions and pick A or B?
Mental manipulation for peace of mind is not a problem for me to sleep better at night... I can have my own FAITH too... but one thing I can�t do is deseave myself! I can�t choose a side without knowing all the facts!
So I sit on the fence... It doesn�t bother me, really, you probably think I have issues with it , I don�t, I�m just engaging in this thread that�s all..
And trying to get my point across, and remind you all that evolution lacks answers...it�s a theory nothing more, it�s a theory which demonstrates a process...
For me evolution comes up short, because the evidence is lacking (fossils, no more evolving animals, amino acids and a lot of other stuff which I read about everyday... I just started reading up on it more aggressively this year... I just always knew it was a theory with lack of evidence to back its claims... now im starting to know why,
I just wish some of the people on here who are educated on the topic would instead of defending it, actually point out the negatives and tell us what�s not right with it... but they dont want to do that... thats a shame..
Proud and don�t want to show a weakness I guess...
But one of the main reasons will be I don't see how lifeless matter, without proteins! could become life. So how can we rule out god as DAWKINS does without explaining the origin of life?
Theology and evolution need a creator!
They have only provided a theory which they say works without a GOD...
But at the same time can�t explain the origins of life for the theory to start.
You keep saying evolution doesn�t worry about that, but seriously without the beginning we don�t know if god did it or not... whats wrong with putting god as a possibility? Why are atheists so scared?
Remember I am not denying evolution, I never have... but when the debate turned into GOD VS NO GOD, evolution vs Christianity...
I had issues with it, and this is where I am at now...
I don�t rule out god! I believe in evolution! And I believe in mind body and soul! The world is a magical place and our very own existence is amazing, a miracle! So I just believe there is more than a puddle of hot water where life generated. I want to believe in some kind of god, I want to believe our life is more than it is... But it doesn�t bother me at the same time if we are just here by random chance!
| Quote: |
| The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens, does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.[150] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred.[151] Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[152][153] Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA,[154] and the assembly of simple cells. |
basically we JUST DONT NO!
evolution needs its god too |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:12 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Remember I am not denying evolution, I never have |
Even if a scientific explanation of the origins of life is established, that doesn't disprove the existence of god, gods, or other supreme beings.
The two primary arguments against evolution have been that either a) life, the universe, and everything was created 6000 years ago or b) mankind was created a few trillion years ago by Krishna's nostril.
The evidence for both of these "competing" theories is pretty much nonexistent.
So, you move the goalpost to origins of life. Say proof emerges. Then the goalposts will be moved to the origins of the universe. Say that also becomes established. Then the goalposts get moved to how time began.
But, as you've been told many times, evolution is separate from abiogenisis. As you've been told many times, there are theists who endorse evolution.
You choose to ignore these two aspects and repeat ad nauseam your appeal to ignorance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
In one of his books, Duane Gish ([1972] 1976: 122) calls Evolution "a purely atheistic, materialistic, and mechanistic explanation for origins to the exclusion of an explanation based on theism."
On the lecture circuit. he rubbed it in deeper. The majority of the audience was usually church groups who came to the event on church buses. Gish took advantage of the occasion to brainwash his listeners into believing that all Evolutionists are atheists.
In his debate with Saladin (1988a), Gish quoted Julian Huxley by calling Evolution "a single process of self-transformation.� He then dwelled on this:
| Quote: |
| Now, first of all, ladies and gentleman, please note, according to evolutionary theory, everything has come into being by a process of self-transformation. . . There was no creator, no biochemist, no intelligence, no purpose, everything just happened according to chemistry and physics." To drive home his point, Gish added that "the theory of evolution is a non-theistic theory. By definition, God is excluded from this process. He had nothing to do with it. |
In a 1982 debate with Dr. Russell Doolittle of the University of California (cited in Miller 1982), Gish said:
| Quote: |
| According to the theory of evolution--or, as we should more properly call it, "the evolution model"--everything in our universe has come into being through mechanistic processes, which are ascribed to properties inherent in matter. No supernatural intervention of any kind was involved. In fact, by definition, God is excluded. |
In the Saladin (1988a) debate, Gish even preceded this claim with a nice long segue:
| Quote: |
Now let's . . . take a look at the very, the vast complexity of life. We can just flippantly declare as Dr. Saladin has said that this happened, that happened, and so forth and so on, we got this and we got that. Well you can subject that to scientific scrutiny. May I have the next slide?
Here's a, here's a cell, living cell. Now, a cell, a living cell, whether it's a bacterium or an ameba, a human cell, it's not just a bag of chemicals. Oh, you do have thousands and thousands, tens of thousands of incredibly complex molecules in each cell, different kinds of molecules, hundreds and hundreds of different kinds of protein molecules, hundreds and hundreds of different kinds of DNA, and RNA molecules, with thousands of subunits arranged in precise order. And it's true of proteins. The average protein has four hundred amino acids in it. Some have more than two thousand, arranged in precise order.
Now these molecules aren't just gonna spontaneously get together and start organizing themselves into a living cell. Remember the Second Law of Thermodynamics? There's no natural tendency to do that. To suggest that is pseudoscience. Molecules don't do that. Molecules spontaneously deteriorate and break down, any system does that. How could this incredibly complex system organize itself even if you had proteins and DNA, and RNA, when the natural tendency is precisely to go in the other direction. Here we have a living cell with an incredibly complex membrane.
It has energy factories, protein factories, it's got all that genetic material, and put together in just a particular way, just like your watch. You can't get a watch by taking it all apart, putting it in a bag, and shaking up that bag. You'll never get a watch that way, it never happens. It takes a watchmaker to do that. And all these parts in that cell are precisely put together in just a unique fashion for life to exist. And evolutionists want us to believe that that just happened naturally and spontaneously on this earth. Ladies and gentlemen that's not science, that's pseudoscience. That's a nature myth that man has invented to explain this origin without God. |
Gish usually makes a cursory disclaimer. In the 1982 Doolittle debate (cited in Miller 1982), Gish said, "Thus, while not all evolutionists are atheists, the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory."
In the Saladin (1988a) debate, Gish said, "Now certainly, not all evolutionists are atheists; as a matter of fact most are not."
Here is how Evolutionists counter:
■ Other fields of study do fine without dealing with religion.
According to Miller (1982), "The reason evolutionary science does not make references to a creator is for the same reason that mathematics, cell biology, organic chemistry, and hydraulic engineering do not make references to a creator: none of these are theological subjects." Given Gish's premise, "elementary school teachers who instruct our children in nonmiraculous math are teaching 'a basic dogma of agnosticism, humanism and atheism.'"
Saladin (1988a) comments:
| Quote: |
| To say evolution is a non-theistic theory is no more relevant than to attack organic chemistry or trigonometry because they are taught without reference to divine intervention. Why doesn't Gish attack the educational establishment for teaching �atheistic, materialistic trigonometry�? Did his chemistry professors explain reaction kinetics theistically? |
■ Entire religious organizations oppose Creationism.
Saladin (1988b) lists the Episcopal General Convention, the Unitarian-Universalist Association, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church, the United Presbyterian Church of the USA, the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta, the Lexington Alliance of Religious Leaders, and the American Jewish Congress,
Lippard (n. d., 1994) lists the American Scientific Affiliation, the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, and Hugh Ross's Reasons to Believe Institute.
■ Some individuals claim to be theistic evolutionists.
Miller (1982) says:
| Quote: |
| I would like to add that Dr. Gish's suggestion that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive ideas is insulting to me personally (I am a Roman Catholic) as well as to the great majority of scientists of Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist and other faiths who understand quite well that biological evolution is a scientifically supported fact. The theory of evolution is not inconsistent with the belief in a created universe per se. |
■ Gish is confusing evolution with abiogenesis.
Saladin (1988a) explains, "The theory of evolution was not invented to explain the origin of life at all, but the history of life after its origin."
■ Evolutionary theory was founded by believers.
Saladin (1988a) accredits evolutionary theory to three founders, all three of whom were believers. Saladin first mentions Charles Darwin, "whose college training was in divinity, who had planned to enter the clergy, and whose Origin of Species concluded with the belief that life had originated with an act of divine creation.
Saladin next mentions Alfred Wallace, "who to his death believed evolution to be impossible without divine guidance and who was a devotee of spiritualism and supernaturalism."
Saladin finally mentions Gregor Mendel, "who was an Austrian monk and latter the abbot of his monastery." Saladin adds that Mendel was "the founder of genetics; and Mendel realized the possible significance of his theory to the theory of evolution and sent his manuscript to Darwin for his consideration, though there is no [indication] Darwin got around to reading it."
Finally, Saladin comments:
| Quote: |
| I would dearly love to see some historical foundation behind Gish's ridiculous claim that evolutionary theory was invented to explain the origin of life without having to admit a belief in God! |
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gish, D. T. [1972] 1976. 2nd edition. Evolution: The fossils say NO! San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers.
Lippard, J. n. d.. Gish answers his critics--sort of.
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/criticsg.htm
_____. 1994. Review of Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics.
Perspectives in Science and Christian Faith 46, 3 (September): 193-195.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/gishreview.html
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/articles/gish_creation.html
Miller, K. 1982. Answers to the standard Creationist arguments. Creation/Evolution 3, 1 (Winter): 1-13.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8661_issue_07_volume_3_number_1__3_4_2003.asp#Answers%20to%20the%20Standard%20Creationist%20Arguments
Saladin, K. S. 1988a. Opening statement for the negative.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/gish1.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/evoatheism/articles/saladingish/two.html
_____. 1988b. Closing statement for the affirmative.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/saladin4.html
http://www.geocities.com/evoatheism/articles/saladingish/seven.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
| Quote: |
Sorry Grimalkin, but if your science teacher told you that theories ultimately become laws you were misled.
|
You're misunderstanding me. Sometimes theories are disproved and never become laws and are replaced by other theories.
tomato
I'm basing my judgement of Itaewonguy on more than just this thread. I could still be wrong though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:41 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
[
But, as you've been told many times, evolution is separate from abiogenesis. As you've been told many times, there are theists who endorse evolution.
You choose to ignore these two aspects and repeat ad nauseam your appeal to ignorance. |
How am I ignoring that? By talking about something completely different?
I think we are both discussing two different points here...
I don�t ignore the facts about evolution as a process, I never have!
I have been pointing out how the theory doesn�t have a beginning...
Not that the process itself doesn�t work... why discuss evolution if we dont mention the beginning? To me it�s pointless if we already know it works.
The most important question is how it started. And evolution still needs more facts and evidence in its corner to really prove it...still lacking!
And that is what I have been saying all along about how Atheists and evolutionists have nothing...
They just have a theory where they can prove the process!
Jesus!! Scientology can prove how we originated from Aliens! It�s not hard to show how a theory works!
Proving the origin is another thing! So until then everyone just has faith!
I mean if evolutionists are not concerned with abiogenesis, then why take on Christians in an argument about GOD when it�s clear from the evolutionists prospective that they can�t prove god and they are not concerned about it anyway... but that�s not the case is it!
Evolutionists enjoy bringing god into the picture! evos enjoying arguing with theists about GOD! So basically I see it as evolutionists want to find the source of the origin so they can once and for all nail Jesus�s coffin shut!. they really do go out of their way to bash christians and other religions! if they are not concerned about it.. why do it?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| The most important question is how it started. And evolution still needs more facts and evidence in its corner to really prove it...still lacking! |
It's not trying to prove how it started. You are the only one involved in this debate who thinks it should. Do you demand a physicist know the origin of matter? Do you demand a mathematician know the origin of numbers? Do you demand a potter know the origins of clay? Do you demand a watchmaker know the origins of time?
We take it for granted that certain things exist. If we all choose to ignore the world around us in pursuit of some kind of higher knowledge, not encompassed by the little that we know about the universe, how would we ever make any progress? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:11 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| The most important question is how it started. And evolution still needs more facts and evidence in its corner to really prove it...still lacking! |
It's not trying to prove how it started. You are the only one involved in this debate who thinks it should. Do you demand a physicist know the origin of matter? Do you demand a mathematician know the origin of numbers? Do you demand a potter know the origins of clay? Do you demand a watchmaker know the origins of time?
We take it for granted that certain things exist. If we all choose to ignore the world around us in pursuit of some kind of higher knowledge, not encompassed by the little that we know about the universe, how would we ever make any progress? |
QFT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:25 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| Evolutionists enjoy bringing god into the picture! |
We do what?
I have never seen anyone but Creationists bring God into the picture.
When did an Evolutionist bring up the subject of God in THIS thread?
| Quote: |
| So basically I see it as evolutionists want to find the source of the origin so they can once and for all nail Jesus�s coffin shut! |
"The source of the origin"?
What the blazes is that?
Are you talking about the first living being?
Evolutionists don't bring that up either.
It's the Creationists.
In every transcript I've read, it was Duane Gish who brought these subjects up, not his opponents.
In this thread, it was not us who brought these subjects up, it was you.
Now stop projecting onto us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Itaewonguy
There are times I think you are the closest thing we have on Dave's to a village idiot.
1) You don't seem to understand that there are different branches of science and that a lot of the questions you have posed don't fall within the purview of biology.
2) Secondly you don't seem to realise that even within the same science there are different disciplines and that the theory of evolution does not address the question of the origin of life no more than in mathematics probability theory can be used to calculate the area under a curve.
3) You clearly don't get that the concepts of the origin of species and the origin of life are two completely different concepts.
4) If you genuinely want an answer to the questions that you posed which are addressed by the theory of evolution Richard Dawkins has written a large number of books that answers those questions and his books are easily understood by people who have no scientific education (or even those who fell asleep in science class). Read them and then come back to us with any questions you still have.........unless of course all you're really doing here is trolling. |
Thank you. 
Evolution is a fact in the sense that it has been observed happening in various species - the evolution of HIV comes to mind - and it has been observed in humans during the historical record:
| Quote: |
Lactose Tolerance in East Africa Points to Recent Evolution
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: December 11, 2006
A surprisingly recent instance of human evolution has been detected among the peoples of East Africa. It is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, conferred by genetic changes that occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, a team of geneticists has found.
The finding is a striking example of a cultural practice � the raising of dairy cattle � feeding back into the human genome. It also seems to be one of the first instances of convergent human evolution to be documented at the genetic level. Convergent evolution refers to two or more populations acquiring the same trait independently.
Throughout most of human history, the ability to digest lactose, the principal sugar of milk, has been switched off after weaning because the lactase enzyme that breaks the sugar apart is no longer needed. But when cattle were first domesticated 9,000 years ago and people later started to consume their milk as well as their meat, natural selection would have favored anyone with a mutation that kept the lactase gene switched on.
Such a mutation is known to have arisen among an early cattle-raising people, the Funnel Beaker culture, which flourished 5,000 to 6,000 years ago in north-central Europe. People with a persistently active lactase gene have no problem digesting milk and are said to be lactose tolerant.
Almost all Dutch people and 99 percent of Swedes are lactose tolerant, but the mutation becomes progressively less common in Europeans who live at increasing distances from the ancient Funnel Beaker region.
Geneticists wondered if the lactose tolerance mutation in Europeans, identified in 2002, had arisen among pastoral peoples elsewhere. But it seemed to be largely absent from Africa, even though pastoral peoples there generally have some degree of tolerance.
A research team led by Dr. Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Maryland has now solved much of the puzzle. After testing for lactose tolerance and genetic makeup among 43 ethnic groups in East Africa, she and her colleagues have found three new mutations, all independent of one another and of the European mutation, that keep the lactase gene permanently switched on.
The principal mutation, found among Nilo-Saharan-speaking ethnic groups of Kenya and Tanzania, arose 2,700 to 6,800 years ago, according to genetic estimates, Dr. Tishkoff�s group reports today in the journal Nature Genetics. This fits well with archaeological evidence suggesting that pastoral peoples from the north reached northern Kenya about 4,500 years ago and southern Kenya and Tanzania 3,300 years ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/science/11evolve.html?_r=2&\1ref=science&\1oref=slogin&oref=slogin |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:19 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| tomato wrote: |
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| Evolutionists enjoy bringing god into the picture! |
We do what?
I have never seen anyone but Creationists bring God into the picture.
When did an Evolutionist bring up the subject of God in THIS thread?
. |
Ohh come on now.. You must admit that racetraitor, Ed, Justin HALE, mm2 have looked down on theists! whenever a theists writes something from the bible they don�t take it seriously they try to belittle them, degrade the book, and then call them bible thumpers and morons for believing in such books! When a thread is started on evolution by an atheist! Basically they are looking for theists to come in so they can attack them! It�s like they enjoy it because they feel their theory is far superior to theirs so they are easy targets! And they do get nasty about it! Name calling etc...
Why not just look at Teachers original thread and see the evos on full attack on the deists!
Can you handle a debate with Christians preaching the bible as fact?
How long before you start to call them names?? When you believe something to be so absurd you can�t help but to be sarcastic! And then the sarcasm escalates! Just can�t help it I guess. And now after years of doing it, most extreme atheists here can�t endure 2 posts before they have to say something smart to new theists who has joined the thread and preached the bible! If you seriously wish to engage in a debate with deist evos would take it seriously... can you guys take R teacher seriously?
Come on don�t try and tell me you guys are all innocent ok!!
It takes two to tango ok!!
But from what I have seen, it�s the Christians and deists who are under attack a lot here..
i. Christians being bad Christians thread...
Just look through Daves! The atheists stick together here and they love to go after Christians... come on now...
| Quote: |
"The source of the origin"?
What the blazes is that?
Are you talking about the first living being?
Evolutionists don't bring that up either.
It's the Creationists.
In every transcript I've read, it was Duane Gish who brought these subjects up, not his opponents.
In this thread, it was not us who brought these subjects up, it was you.
Now stop projecting onto us! |
The blazes is, evos don�t bring it up because they can�t! It would be suicide for their argument if they even tried too...
Well creationists bring it up because it is their argument! Hahahaha
IM not projecting onto you... but come on dont try and tell me athiests are not out for attack!
Maybe you are not Tomato! But some of the guys are not as rational as you.. They are just arrogant trolls!
Everyone on daves throws out their fair share of insults! Lets be honest about that! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:20 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| You must admit that racetraitor, Ed, Justin HALE, mm2 have looked down on theists! |
Yes, I admit that.
| Quote: |
| whenever a theists writes something from the bible they don�t take it seriously they try to belittle them, degrade the book, and then call them bible thumpers and morons for believing in such books! |
But which party brings up the subject?
Remember, your accusation was that Evolutionists bring up the subject of God.
| Quote: |
| When a thread is started on evolution by an atheist! Basically they are looking for theists to come in so they can attack them! |
Why did YOU start YOUR thread?
It couldn't have been because you wanted answers to your questions.
When we gave you answers, you ignored them.
| Quote: |
| It�s like they enjoy it because they feel their theory is far superior to theirs so they are easy targets! And they do get nasty about it! Name calling etc... |
Maybe so, but the Creationists' record isn't as white as snow. In his book Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, Gish takes every advantage to call an adversary an atheist, humanist, or Marxist.
| Quote: |
| Can you handle a debate with Christians preaching the bible as fact? |
I might. From that information alone, I don't know whether or not we have any common ground.
| Quote: |
| can you guys take R teacher seriously? |
Not very easily. Taking a wielder of Hindu fairy tales seriously is as difficult as taking a wielder of Biblical fairy tales seriously.
| Quote: |
| It takes two to tango ok!! |
I'm glad you finally realized that.
When are you going to write a post taking Rteacher to task for calling us all atheists, materialists, and carinivores?
| Quote: |
| But from what I have seen, it�s the Christians and deists who are under attack a lot here.. |
You and Rteacher and Junior/Julius/Meegook don't attack us?
| Quote: |
| Well creationists bring it up because it is their argument! Hahahaha |
WHAT'S their argument?
I didn't realize Creationists had any arguments except out-of-context quotes, outdated quotes, spurious dinosaur tracks, and logical fallacies.
Anyway, I think you've forgotten your original claim that it is Evolutionists who bring up the subject of abiogenesis.
And just in case you bring that claim up again, I can give you plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Now if you will excuse me, I must go to work on my next post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
At the Arkansas case, according to Norman Geisler in [b]The Creator in the Courtroom[b], Michael Ruse said that Evolutionary theory does not say anything pro or con about the existence of God or inquire into the origin of life (69).
Francisco Ayala said that Evolutionary theory did not presuppose the non-existence of a Creator (83).
Stephen Jay Gould said that "Evolutionary theory functions either with or without a creator, so long as the creator works by natural laws." (91)
Norman Geisler is a Creationist. If there were any bias in his book, it would be in favor of Creationism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
