31 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywillIt is the only definition of 'evolution' and has always been critic proof. It is not a question of belief at all, it is a descriptive word for a known process (the change of a species over time).
I was wondering when the [b]critic proof definition of Evolution was coming out. Evolution is change !
Now who could possibly disbelieve in CHANGE ??[/b]
However, because it often gets confused with "The Theory of Evolution" which covers far more ground, it is common in discussions, for people to be unclear as to which they are referring too.
In addition to this, RJHinds simply refuses to accept the standard meaning for the word 'evolution' presumably because some pastor told him it was the devils word.
31 Aug 11
whoever put up the Dawkins article, thanks.
Why not be fair to Dawkins ?
I took the time and read through the entire Dawkins article where I supposed it was meant to demonstate he had an answer for something that some "unfair" interviewers portrayed him on film as being with no reply.
The article was long. I looked for his explanation. I am going to have to read the whole thing again.
He was asked what mutation or evolutionary step encreased information, according to him.
He adds a lot of discussion to the matter about the nature of information. I am willing to plough through it again to dig out his actual specific reply.
31 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen you talk to RJHINDS you talk to him.
It is the only definition of 'evolution' and has always been critic proof. It is not a question of belief at all, it is a descriptive word for a known process (the change of a species over time).
However, because it often gets confused with "The Theory of Evolution" which covers far more ground, it is common in discussions, for people to be unclear as to ...[text shortened]... g for the word 'evolution' presumably because some pastor told him it was the devils word.
When you talk to me you get my thoughts which may not be his thoughts.
And Evolution (as a biological process) as Change is too simplistic as a definition for Evolution.
And you saying "But it has ALWAYS been just CHANGE" is disingenuous.
That is the definition used to make it so broad that it will always be foolish to say "I don't believe in Evolution".
That's an apologetic clever jury rigging of the definition.
31 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywillthere is genetic proof. there are fossils. there is logic. you however think that if you don't witness it, you can't prove it. by that reasoning, black holes can't be proven because we can't see them, yet everyone knows for a fact they exist because we have observed their effect on other objects.it is pointless to argue this as you can't point to a fish and watch it become a lizard. and that is the only evidence rjhinds and others like him will ever accept.
This is only a problem to those Evos who want to pass on Evolution as an indisputable fact, like a religious dogma.
If that is the case then just say that you have a th ...[text shortened]... g to religious faith. What about some Evolutionists doing the same with thier religious faith ?
i am starting to become increasingly tired by these talks. it is quite obvious you or rj will never ever understand and bring yourself to change your ways. and i get why. it's because you are old. years of brain washing and pastors telling you you will go to hell if you don't believe in noah or if you think for yourselves for a moment. you can't risk that so you keep believing stupid stuff your grandfathers believed just so you can keep your ticket to heaven. only your grandfathers are less to blame because they didn't have internets and access to information like you do. you are slaves to your ignorance by your own choice.
get this: jesus doesn't care if you believe in noah or evolution. he doesn't. as long as you are a decent person, why would the grand poobah of everything that is care whether you believe in a made up story given by god for the benefit of the ancient people so they grasp easier the points he was trying to make?
i don't even know why we are having these discussions. is it my need (or proper's, or twhite, or whover else) to prove myself superior to you? is it sad that i try to impart knowledge unto you, knowledge that you keep refusing and that you made perfectly clear you will never accept? i believe it is pretty sad.
31 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywillI never thought otherwise.
When you talk to RJHINDS you talk to him.
When you talk to me you get my thoughts which may not be his thoughts.
And Evolution (as a biological process) as Change is too simplistic as a definition for Evolution.
It nevertheless, is the definition.
And you saying "But it has ALWAYS been just CHANGE" is disingenuous.
That is the definition used to make it so broad that it will always be foolish to say "I don't believe in Evolution".
That's an apologetic clever jury rigging of the definition.
It is, and always has been the definition. There is no jury rigging, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with creationists. It was not a definition made up in order to argue with creationists. It is a definition used in science, Biology, to be specific.
You are welcome to look it up in an encyclopedia.
And yes, it is foolish to say "I don't believe in X" when you don't know what 'X' is.
31 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywillI don't believe he presented the evidence. As I understood it, he thinks
whoever put up the Dawkins article, thanks.
Why not be fair to Dawkins ?
I took the time and read through the entire Dawkins article where I supposed it was meant to demonstate he had an answer for something that some "unfair" interviewers portrayed him on film as being with no reply.
The article was long. I looked for his explanation. I am go ...[text shortened]... of information. I am willing to plough through it again to dig out his actual specific reply.
he has presented the evidence in his books, which he advertises. So if
you are able to gather together all of his books he refers to and read them
perhaps you will find the answer. I feel it would be a waste of my time,
for he failed to pinpoint where the evidence could be found in any of his
books. This leads me to believe this is a tactic to avoid admitting he is
unable to produce the evidence.
31 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywillI think that definition of evolution is stupid. I don't see anything clever
When you talk to RJHINDS you talk to him.
When you talk to me you get my thoughts which may not be his thoughts.
And Evolution (as a biological process) as Change is too simplistic as a definition for Evolution.
And you saying "But it has ALWAYS been just CHANGE" is disingenuous.
That is the definition used to make it so broad that it will alw ...[text shortened]... 't believe in Evolution".
That's an apologetic clever jury rigging of the definition.
about it unless somebody is stupid enough to accept it. As Dasa would
say, "It is dishonest".
31 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsHave you seen this ?
I think that definition of evolution is stupid. I don't see anything clever
about it unless somebody is stupid enough to accept it. As Dasa would
say, "It is dishonest".
Suggesting Theistic Evolutionists be the Public Face of Evolution.
&feature=related
31 Aug 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Anybody can see that the Emperor has no cloths.
Fire away then.[/b]
Fire away then.
Why not let a man "fire away" who authored about 30 books on Atheism? Anthony Flew changed his mind to some form of Deism lately because of the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design.
Now Atheists tend to dismiss him as being old and senile of course, which I regard as a cheap excuse.
&feature=related
31 Aug 11
Originally posted by ZahlanziI have already covered the subject of "black holes" and there is no
there is genetic proof. there are fossils. there is logic. you however think that if you don't witness it, you can't prove it. by that reasoning, black holes can't be proven because we can't see them, yet everyone knows for a fact they exist because we have observed their effect on other objects.
i am starting to become increasingly tired by these ...[text shortened]... and that you made perfectly clear you will never accept? i believe it is pretty sad.
black holes out there.
Professing to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:22)
Woe to those who are wise in there own eyes, and clever in their own
sight! (Isaiah 5:21)
31 Aug 11
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsI don't know about there being no black holes out there RJ.
I have already covered the subject of "black holes" and there is no
black holes out there.
Professing to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:22)
Woe to those who are wise in there own eyes, and clever in their own
sight! (Isaiah 5:21)
However, one claim is a claim about history - fish evolved into lizards. That took place in "history" for lack of a better word. That is hard to repeat.
But black hole is something we can or cannot see present day evidence for. It is a phenomenon happening NOW.
So I think the comprarison is not quite the same.
Professing to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:22)
Woe to those who are wise in there own eyes, and clever in their own
sight! (Isaiah 5:21)
I don't see how these passages would strongly apply to the matter of black holes.
31 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywillI just looked at it. The evolutionists are getting desperate to hang on to
Have you seen this ?
Suggesting Theistic Evolutionists be the Public Face of Evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8tZxcGJyhM&feature=related
their beliefs and convince others it is true.
31 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywillBut as I have already pointed out, it is not a "hole" in space that is
I don't know about there being no black holes out there RJ.
However, one claim is a claim about history - fish evolved into lizards. That took place in "history" for lack of a better word. That is hard to repeat.
But black hole is something we can or cannot see present day evidence for. It is a phenomenon happening NOW.
So I think the compraris ...[text shortened]... quote]
I don't see how these passages would strongly apply to the matter of black holes.
causing what they see. They need to come up with a better name
because the name is misleading.