Information = ?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I dont understand. You either reject evolution or you don't. If you reject evolution then obviously you do hold to a "young Earth". Which one is it?

I reject evolution as the explanation for the variety of species we see before us today. In holding the biblical explanation for the same as the truth, I do not automatically hold to a young earth. In fact, the biblical account does not give an age for the earth, one way or another.

Hard to believe, given the reign of fundamentalism and all, but the biblical account actually speaks of creation, chaos and then re-creation, with an indeterminate amount of time given for chaos. The biblical account does not demand a young earth, nor does it demand an old earth.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It seems the site is experienceing heavy trafic and I have been unable to access the page.
Could you summarise his arguement for us?

I went right to it with the provided link just 45 seconds ago. The summary is on the first link. Try again.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I dont understand. You either reject evolution or you don't. If you reject evolution then obviously you do hold to a "young Earth". Which one is it?

Holding to an old earth while rejecting the neo-Darwinian concept of all animal life on earth having evolved from one common ancestor are mutually exclusive tenets how exactly?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Your hatred stems from an inability to quickly assimilate the salient points of a topic enough to formulate an argument consistent with your current perspective. When you observe a fundamentalist Christian do so with seeming ease, jealousy overtakes your emotional base, and you are left with feelings of inadequacies which, in turn, cause you to react towa ...[text shortened]... ce of all fundamentalists.

That's about as close as I can get to justifying your statement.

The thing is Freaky, you laden you expression with sophistication (credit to you there) but really, you dont say anything. You have not refuted what anyone else says. You just avoid other's arguments.

Originally posted by Halitose
Holding to an old earth while rejecting the neo-Darwinian concept of all animal life on earth having evolved from one common ancestor are mutually exclusive tenets how exactly?

For many reasons, I do not grasp what you are saying.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I reject evolution as the explanation for the variety of species we see before us today. In holding the biblical explanation for the same as the truth, I do not automatically hold to a young earth. In fact, the biblical account does not give an age for the earth, one way or another.

Hard to believe, given the reign of fundamentalism and all, but the b ...[text shortened]... for chaos. The biblical account does not demand a young earth, nor does it demand an old earth.

1. Why do you reject evolution?
2. Why do you accept the biblical account as true?
3. Why is everyone, who doesn't accept the biblical accounts, a fool?

4. Point taken. Accepting the biblical account does not necassarily mean accepting a young Earth (its just that so many Creationists seem to think that it does).

Originally posted by Conrau K
1. Why do you reject evolution?
2. Why do you accept the biblical account as true?
3. Why is everyone, who doesn't accept the biblical accounts, a fool?

4. Point taken. Accepting the biblical account does not necassarily mean accepting a young Earth (its just that so many Creationists seem to think that it does).

I've given my basis for rejection of evolution as a viable explanation for the variety of species we see here, in other threads. In short, it suffers from too many gaps of logic and cannot decide upon a basic mechanism to explain changes. You've probably read my several attempts at insisting the adherents categorize natural selection. You've likely also read their several posts avoiding doing the same. The closest any of them come to categorization is calling natural selection a "process." One can imagine the problems inherent with that formula:
NS creates NS
NS in turn creates (by some accounts) and/or changes and manipulates life according to--- you guessed it--- NS.

I accept the biblical account as true because no other system comes close to agreeing with the known truths of science.

The Bible tells us that the one who relies on man for his strength is a fool. To place faith in man's abilities or on man's ideas over and above the guidance offered from God is foolish.

Originally posted by Conrau K
For many reasons, I do not grasp what you are saying.

I told ya so. We have a mental block stretching all the way from our free will debate -- you are predetermined by physical forces beyond your control to be incapable of understanding me (be my point profound or not). 😀😀

Simply put:

1. The earth is quite possibly several billion years old.
2. All the animal life did not evolve from one common ancestor.

What made you think the two above claims were mutually exclusive?

Originally posted by Halitose
IWhat made you think the two above claims were mutually exclusive?

its usually what creationsist argue.

Good jibe aboute free will- I guess i'll forgive you since it really can't be your fault. 😀

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I've given my basis for rejection of evolution as a viable explanation for the variety of species we see here, in other threads. In short, it suffers from too many gaps of logic and cannot decide upon a basic mechanism to explain changes. You've probably read my several attempts at insisting the adherents categorize natural selection. You've likely also ...[text shortened]... an's abilities or on man's ideas over and above the guidance offered from God is foolish.

Perhaps my logic is skewed. So maybe you can explain the problems with this simple syllogistic reasoning:
1. Organisms have genes. Genes change, vary, mutate.
2. Bad variations do not survive. Good variation do (survival of the fittest).
Thus, through cumulative variations, fitter organisms will emerge. Therefore, evolution.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Perhaps my logic is skewed. So maybe you can explain the problems with this simple syllogistic reasoning:
1. Organisms have genes. Genes change, vary, mutate.
2. Bad variations do not survive. Good variation do (survival of the fittest).
Thus, through cumulative variations, fitter organisms will emerge. Therefore, evolution.

As I've already said, evolution cannot account for the variety of species we see today. There is, indeed, a natural strength developed through limited exposure to attacks on a system. This does not come close to supporting how all of life's species began with one organism.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As I've already said, evolution cannot account for the variety of species we see today. There is, indeed, a natural strength developed through limited exposure to attacks on a system. This does not come close to supporting how all of life's species began with one organism.

Yes it can.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As I've already said, evolution cannot account for the variety of species we see today. There is, indeed, a natural strength developed through limited exposure to attacks on a system. This does not come close to supporting how all of life's species began with one organism.

I still dont see why evolution can't account for the variety of species we see today. I also can't see why you believe that evolution began with one organism. And I dont understand why you believe there are only "limited attacks on a system". In fact I'm not sure what that means. I'm guessing your thinking that evolution is contingent on calamities which occur in the environment (which would be limited). However, evolution also occurs out of competition between individual species and between species and other species.

But you accept evolution up to a point, right (I'm guessing that when you said "natural strength" you meant NS)? And what point would that be?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I still dont see why evolution can't account for the variety of species we see today. I also can't see why you believe that evolution began with one organism. And I dont understand why you believe there are only "limited attacks on a system". In fact I'm not sure what that means. I'm guessing your thinking that evolution is contingent on calamities which o ...[text shortened]... sing that when you said "natural strength" you meant NS)? And what point would that be?

Supposing for a moment that we could trace the origins of all to one organism (which we have not), what would the impetus for variety possibly have been?

"Limited attacks on a system" refers to that which will strengthen a system without destroying it. Strength only builds when rest/recuperation is allowed. What thinking part of NS determines the thresholds?

Unless and until we see (first-hand or otherwise) a member of one species become a member of a different species, evolution's biggest gap remains insurrmountable--- that is, not counting miracles.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Perhaps my logic is skewed. So maybe you can explain the problems with this simple syllogistic reasoning:
1. Organisms have genes. Genes change, vary, mutate.
2. Bad variations do not survive. Good variation do (survival of the fittest).
Thus, through cumulative variations, fitter organisms will emerge. Therefore, evolution.

1. Organisms have genes. Genes change, vary, mutate.

You have to stop here as far as what is witnessed or recorded.
We all know we have genes, Genes have some small number
of changes, they vary, they mutate. What isn't seen is anything
beyond these statements, such as the good changes adding
up to something new.

2. Bad variations do not survive. Good variation do (survival of the fittest).

True, still this is as far as you can really state is what is going on.
Taking both of these points beyond what is witnessed recorded,
and so on is a matter of conjecture only. A simple matter of faith
in what you believe is going on, thus you have evolution.
Kelly