07 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsYou have said and repeated a lot of things many times and it is not made more convincing by repetition. You have not engaged with my arguments in the slightest.
I have said many times I have no problems with adaptations. Also I would be happy if we replaced the theory of evolution with the theory of genetic change.
But I repeat [b]there is no such thing as biological evolution and there never will be.[/b]
07 Jun 12
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganYou did not respond to this video until I presented the other video that no one has responded to. And even then you ignored the main point of the video and concentrated on side issues, that for the most part I do not even contest, nor does the video you are responding to. It is not clear to me that you even understand how the DNA information and the cell works. I presented a thread dedicated to presenting this imformation with some simplified videos in the hopes that people would watch them so we might then have some meaningful debates. It does not seem to have caught on very well.
Why bother when you ignore the responses? It is a lie that nobody watches or responds to your videos.
Originally posted by RJHinds
I think you will find the following video informative and worth your while in viewing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN1dy1lHcC0&feature=related
Why do I rise to the bait you may ask? Maybe just to show I am herwise they go uncontested.
Thread: Chance or by Design ? Forum: Spirituality
P.S. You still did not respond with what is wrong with this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=O2eIF9h0tus
07 Jun 12
Originally posted by finneganIn his blinded self cauterized mind all he has to do is fall back on 'god did it'. End of argument, at least according to the great RJ.
You have said and repeated a lot of things many times and it is not made more convincing by repetition. You have not engaged with my arguments in the slightest.
07 Jun 12
4 edits
void getData(*data[i ]);
char* research(float[] data);
int i = 0;
char *process[];
char *data[];
while(i++) {
char *explanation;
printf("Theist: look at this wonderful %s we don't understand!\n", process[i ]);
printf("Scientist: let me get back to you on that.\n" );
getData(*data[i ]);
explanation = research(data[i ]);
printf("Scientist: Here's the explanation: %s\n", explanation);
printf("Theist: hmmm. let me get back to you on that.\n" );
}
07 Jun 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitThis is an example of how incompetent humans are in comparison to God. Your program stinks. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏
void getData(*data[i ]);
char* research(float[] data);
int i = 0;
char *process[];
char *data[];
while(i++) {
char *explanation;
printf("Theist: look at this wonderful %s we don't understand!\n", process[i ]);
printf("Scientist: let me get back to you on that.\n" );
getData(*data[i ]);
explanation = research(data[i ]);
printf("Scientist: H ...[text shortened]... \n", explanation);
printf("Theist: hmmm. let me get back to you on that.\n" );
}
07 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsJust what does your denial actually amount to?
I have said many times I have no problems with adaptations. Also I would be happy if we replaced the theory of evolution with the theory of genetic change.
But I repeat [b]there is no such thing as biological evolution and there never will be.[/b]
You have no problem with adaptations. That is all there is to it really so where is the problem?
I recall you saying that you do not agree that creatures of one "kind" can change into creatures of another "kind." Ignore quibbling over what a "kind" is. An 'evolutionist' would completely agree with you! An organism in one family (say horses) cannot change into an organism in a quite different family (say birds). Can't be done. End of story. Only quite modest change is capable of being achieved in quite long timescales. You call these "adaptations" and that's good enough.
However, if you look into the distant ancestry of a family (say horses) then you will find that there is a distant ancestor of the racing horse, the cart horse, the zebra, and others of that "kind" that we know today, and that now extinct ancestor did not have a family of horse like animals to belong to. They had not yet appeared. Yet it did have a family of fairly similar animals that it was related to - in this sense, that there was a distant ancestor which it shared in common with them.
I fear that your confusion is the inability to see that shared / common ancestry relates to creatures living in the past and now typically long extinct. And in the past, the "kinds" that we know today just did not yet exist.
You have to think in terms of a tree, where the species living today are twigs at the outside of the tree and the common ancestors are branches and ... Oh work the rest out.
Once you accept genetics and adaptation you have accepted evolution.
07 Jun 12
Originally posted by finneganNow you start out very good with things we agree on. But then you start speculating on the distant past and what might have been the case. I guess you also ASSUME the distant past goes back millions or billions of years. This is why ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME.
Just what does your denial actually amount to?
You have no problem with adaptations. That is all there is to it really so where is the problem?
I recall you saying that you do not agree that creatures of one "kind" can change into creatures of another "kind." Ignore quibbling over what a "kind" is. An 'evolutionist' would completely agree with you! ...[text shortened]... st out.
Once you accept genetics and adaptation you have accepted evolution.
08 Jun 12
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsPeople in Europe started out assuming the age of the Earth was not much different to the Bible account. In the late Eighteenth Century though, rational people did start out wondering how the hell we got fish fossils on mountain tops. Lyell's Principles of Geology 1830-34 assembled a mass of evidence that demanded an explanation in terms of a much more ancient planet.
Now you start out very good with things we agree on. But then you start speculating on the distant past and what might have been the case. I guess you also ASSUME the distant past goes back millions or billions of years. This is why ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell
As regards assumptions, you will see that
The central argument in Principles was that the present is the key to the past - a concept of the Scottish Enlightenment which David Hume had stated as "all inferences from experience suppose ... that the future will resemble the past",
The assumption is just that, as in the assumption that the sun will rise tomorrow (a hopeful one in this country!), though it is clearly a very reasonable assumption, but the evidence supporting the assumption is mountainous and deep. If you want to contest all this you have your work cut out for you as the onus is on you to refute the findings, which have virtually universal support even among people of Christian and other faiths.
I am not an ass. Speak for yourself. Your inability to use simple reasoning leaves you exposed to a series of manipulative hoaxes all motivated by the same fundamentalist delusion and curiously centred in certain American right wing institutions already referenced many times. It is sad and also tiresome. One day you will recognise just how readily you have been manipulated and you will be mad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement#Criticisms_of_the_movement
Your biggest problem is not that you believe the Bible tells the truth, but that you believe you know what that truth consists in.
08 Jun 12
Originally posted by finneganProof the Earth is about 6000 years old:
People in Europe started out assuming the age of the Earth was not much different to the Bible account. In the late Eighteenth Century though, rational people did start out wondering how the hell we got fish fossils on mountain tops. Lyell's Principles of Geology 1830-34 assembled a mass of evidence that demanded an explanation in terms of a much more ancie ...[text shortened]... believe the Bible tells the truth, but that you believe you know what that truth consists in.
A modern young David slaying the Goliath of evolution.
09 Jun 12
Originally posted by sonhouseYour ears have become too dulled to hear the truth of the word of God. So all you hear is BLEAT BLEAT BLEAT BAHHH BAHHHH BAHHHH. But there is one who loves you and is willing to save you from your sins, if you will only allow Him to come into your heart. You know who that one is. Why don't you let Him in?
He has posted that assshole kid at least 4 times as his new poster boy for YEC's and I responded at least 3 times to him and all he has to say is BLEAT BLEAT BLEAT BAHHH BAHHHH BAHHHH.
09 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you admit I have actually posted refutations to that assshole kid at least 3 times now, which you have no answer.
Your ears have become too dulled to hear the truth of the word of God. So all you hear is BLEAT BLEAT BLEAT BAHHH BAHHHH BAHHHH. But there is one who loves you and is willing to save you from your sins, if you will only allow Him to come into your heart. You know who that one is. Why don't you let Him in?