16 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe answer is my next message... don't look for it here, it ain't here. No, look down the page, not up! I said the next message... MY next message!
If wikipedia doesn't know much about Bernd-Olaf Kuppers then how is it wiki "knows" so much about everyone else?
It depends how popular a person is or whether someone bothered to write something about them. All I am saying is that if you have any references to support the claim that he disputes evolution and is not a creationist, then please go ahead
16 Jun 13
I lost most of that last message because I put it in the wrong box.
Kuppers is an evolutionist. His views are in line with yours. He points to information theory to substantiate his claims about information in DNA arising naturally from inanimate matter. He doesn't have a problem linking information in DNA to information theory.
You don't need to rely soley on what wikipedia says. If you are expecting me to obey your instructions to only list creationists, or evolutionists who became creationists, or whatever your complaint was, then all I can say to you is tough tootsie rolls. Do your own research.
17 Jun 13
"I didn't say blood was flowing out of a dino bone"You're blaming RJ for your confusion?
[b]My mistake then, I thought you brought it up as evidence against evolution. It must have be RJ.
Blood wasn't flowing out from a dino bone OR from a frozen wooly mammoth. There were blood vessels and blood platelets found in a dino bone, and there was a pool of blood found beneath a frozen wooly mammoth. No one saw blood "flowing out" from either one of those creatures.
17 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseIf you want to talk about what I'm doing and saying please stop lumping
Religious folk try to force evolutionary scientists and people who think the evidence is strong to put that in the category of belief. If I hold up a rock 7 feet in the air and I think 'if I drop this rock on my foot I am going to get hurt' it is not based on belief but based on past evidence of the validity of gravitation. That is not belief, that is the certainty of past experimentation.
me with other people! I don't care how strong your evidence is, if you are
going to tell me about what happen millions or billions of years ago you are
playing in matters of faith. If you want to drop a rock and tell me about
what that will mean a millions/billions of years from now it faith.
It is not the same thing if you drop a rock in the present and tell me what it
means now.
Kelly
17 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyWell, I just don't believe it.But all your so called evidence of fact is based on assumptions that have not been proved.
That is OBVIOUSLY false. which “assumption”? The “ evidence of fact” are such things as the evidence of the fossil record and observed mutations and observed natural selection etc. What is the assumption there? We don't “assume” that physical evidenc ...[text shortened]... d all this physical evidence NOT be evidence for evolution and much of it for macroevolution?
The Instructor
17 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeWell I am afraid that as usual I don't understand what you are saying. I suspect though that you don't want to be understood because you know that whatever your point was, it did not shed any doubt on the theory of evolution.
I know what this means to me... you may draw your own conclusions.
17 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeIt doesn't matter which, he doesn't fit the profile we were discussing. We were specifically discussing deists who are not creationists.
I didn't know he was a creationist. Some sources say he is an old earth creationist, and others say he is a young earth creationist.
17 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeAnd your point is? Do you have a point, or are you just trying your best to fudge the thread until everyone forgets what the point was?
Kuppers is an evolutionist. His views are in line with yours. He points to information theory to substantiate his claims about information in DNA arising naturally from inanimate matter. He doesn't have a problem linking information in DNA to information theory.
You don't need to rely soley on what wikipedia says. If you are expecting me to obey your instructions to only list creationists, or evolutionists who became creationists, or whatever your complaint was, then all I can say to you is tough tootsie rolls. Do your own research.
You claimed that there was a large body of scientific writing by people who disputed evolution for scientific reasons and that I am unware of that body of writing. I admitted that I am unaware of it and asked whether you could present any such writing. You also claimed that there were many scientists who had studied evolution, found it wanting and had become deist, not creationist, as a result. I challenged you to present some names. You appeared to be trying to do so, but now it seems you know perfectly well that you were wrong all along, so your have been trying to lead me on a wild goose chase by presenting creationist, or people who actually accept evolution etc. If you wanted me to do all the research then why bother with your last few posts?
You complain that people have trouble understanding your, but then you write the most mixed up stuff imaginable.
17 Jun 13
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsYes, I know you don't believe that mountain of evidence that proves evolution. That's because you don't want to for religious reasons. You have no interest in knowing the truth but just your fairytale religion. You can shut your eyes and pretend the proof of evolution doesn't exist all you want, but, sorry! the proof is all there for all to see.
Well, I just don't believe it.
The Instructor
I on the other hand don't want evolution to be true thus wanting it to be true is not why I believe what I do because I am not wanting it to be true. What I want is just the truth regardless of what that truth is.
17 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyThat is hard for me to believe too.
Yes, I know you don't believe that mountain of evidence that proves evolution. That's because you don't want to for religious reasons. You have no interest in knowing the truth but just your fairytale religion. You can shut your eyes and pretend the proof of evolution doesn't exist all you want, but, sorry! the proof is all there for all to see.
I on the other ...[text shortened]... nting it to be true. What I want is just the truth regardless of what that truth is.
The Instructor
17 Jun 13
Originally posted by humySo you believe you know what occurred million of years ago do you and youWell depending on what you want to say is evolution I can say I agree with
it, and if you define it another way I'll disagree.
I have not changed the definition of evolution and I am only ever aware of one possible meaning to the word (which is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) so I have no idea what you are talking abou ...[text shortened]... to believe what I do but rather believe what I do purely on the bases of evidence and reason.
actually think what you think occurred back then is science not faith? Do
you have the honesty to accept you can be wrong?
So when someone suggests one creature is a relative for another due to
how close they are in the way their DNA looks you assume it due to
evolution and not a common design? You just know you are looking at all
things the way they should be looked at and not the way that promotes
what you have already claimed is true?
Kelly
17 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeBut one of you said something else, not sure which of you. I am not surprised that you changed your story once you realized you were wrong. At least your better than RJ who will stick to his story even when he knows he's talking total nonsense.
You're blaming RJ for your confusion?
Blood wasn't flowing out from a dino bone OR from a frozen wooly mammoth. There were blood vessels and blood platelets found in a dino bone, and there was a pool of blood found beneath a frozen wooly mammoth. No one saw blood "flowing out" from either one of those creatures.
17 Jun 13
Originally posted by KellyJaySince we know evolution is happening right now, and there is no evidence for design, the assumption that two similar (complex) species have a common ancestor seems quite reasonable to me. But I suppose the fairy man in the sky could have just made it look like evolution is responsible. This is the "Prankster God"-theory, which was eloquently described by Bill Hicks.
So when someone suggests one creature is a relative for another due to
how close they are in the way their DNA looks you assume it due to
evolution and not a common design?
17 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWe know evolution is happening right now....therefore that means all people
Since we know evolution is happening right now, and there is no evidence for design, the assumption that two similar (complex) species have a common ancestor seems quite reasonable to me. But I suppose the fairy man in the sky could have just made it look like evolution is responsible. This is the "Prankster God"-theory, which was eloquently described by Bill Hicks.
believe about evolution is true? Seriously, you are a person of faith if that
is the bar you have. No evidence for design, really? You see what you want
to see and ignore the rest.
Kelly