You misunderstand the point. Or rather you attempt to convince others it is permissible to misunderstand.
Accusing me of lying does nothing to support your position.
Perhaps I misjudged. I though you were still sharp enough to see such a clear and obvious point, and I did not want to dishonestly indicate that I thought otherwise.
Neither should anyone assume I think so now.
I forgot that no chemicals react with each other in nature. It wasn't until people put those chemicals together in a lab that they reacted. I guess fire (a chemical reaction) didn't exist until man made it because materials are incapable of manipulating themselves.
Sure you do...
Although I sincerely trust that every single reader who happens across this thread can figure out such simple tricks, I still enjoy exposing them.
And haughty also. I guess your type of Christian is better than everyone else so you get to make judgments.
Oh, right. I'm not supposed to enjoy what I do ...or something... ???
Are these "some people" simultaneously holding that life is the result of blind chance, and that there is no evidence of any intelligent being, let alone God, being involved in creation?
No. Being a Christian, you should believe that God is in control of all things. Seems rather disingenuous of you to now say that anything is blind chance. Even so, can you show me the evidence, besides inference of design, that any scientist can use to conclusively show an intelligence was involved in the process by which the diversity of life resulted on this planet?
When did I volunteer to be one of your "some people".
People have been known to claim contrary things. I should like to see their attempts to reconcile idea that evidence of a creator is utterly lacking with the scripture which tells us there's no excuse for failing to acknowledge it. Can you direct my to any such writings?
Surely Paul could never make a mistake in his writings. He never believed that he would see the Philippians again on Earth when he actually would not (Philippians 1:25). He didn't really think that believers shouldn't get married...did he? (1 Cor 7). Maybe he felt that population control was in order. Good thing Christ's followers didn't listen to him. 2000 years of no children would pretty much decimate the Christian ranks.
Ah, so once Genesis goes, the rest follows, bit by bit. I get it. And
any excuse will do, apparently.
Care to support it without mischaracterizing? Any version of evolutionism which omits transformism or spontaneous generation, or any other essential godless element is sure to be offered by defenders of evolutionism who know their religion can't stand up to even casual examination.
please define "transformism" or I will be unable to address that issue. Also, please show me where "spontaneous generation" is considered a possibility in any of the abiogenesis hypotheses that you know of.
Didn't think so. What elevated arrogance this is! To demand others to accept something they have not guts enough to acknowledge.
Why do you feel that those elements (transformism and spontaneous generation) must be a part of the theory of evolution? Maybe they must be a part of "evolutionism", whatever that is, but you will be hard pressed to fine a biologist who would say that the theory of evolution even includes abiogenesis, much less spontaneous generation.
Today perhaps. Must be depressing spending so much time in reverse.
In their "innovative" play on the straw man fallacy, they never seem to defend the teachings and beliefs they mandate for others.
I don't suppose you'd like to be the first in a long, long, long time to defend real evolutionism, would you?
I won't defend something that you won't define.
Right...
Defend the beliefs and teachings of evolutionists. That's what 'evolutionism' means.
Actually, there's a just-so story that's probably behind this.
Human skin is unlike the skin of most mammals. Most have basically a sack of skin containing the body, while hanging loosely. This includes apes.
Human skin is fairly firmly attached to underlying tissue, and so is the skin of dolphins & whales. (Fat cells are involved, but that's a bit technical for this discussion.) So to account for this fact, someone dreamt up the idea that humans became fairly aquatic during their imagined evolution from apes.
There are a couple of proponents of this fantasy, but not much more. I don't think most evolutionists are even aware. With the implications-first reasoning they employ, I'm sure it's a welcome way to explain away the evidence any time they need it, but beyond that I don't think it's being seriously pursued.
I have skinned many animals and I will say that there are connections between the skin and the muscles typically via fat cell structures. Removal of deer hide requires the use of a knife at times. I don't have any references that say human skin is that much different so could you point me to a reference that shows this difference?
Pick up a dog or a cat by the scruff of the neck. Try it on a child.
As far as the "just-so story" is concerned, without any further evidence to support it, I would have to categorize it as an unsubstantiated explanation. What was your point in bringing it up?
I was providing information. You should know by now. You've been opposing long enough.
There's more than one version of evolutionism. And there's not much loyalty to any single brand. Not much at all.
There's more than one version of Christianity. And there's not much loyalty to any single brand. Not much at all.
Your idea of 'loyalty' is not to be found many places, least of all in the English-speaking world.
You claim that internal disagreements on the mechanisms of evolution means that evolution is false.
No. I claim the evidence that gives rise to disagreements among evolutionists is important to recognize and properly evaluate.
I claim there are problems in the doctrines that even many evolutionists realize are potentially fatal to the belief system.
I guess since there are those that believe in tongues as a manifestation of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and others that say it is false, then Christianity must be false. If it wasn't, then everyone would agree on all doctrines.
Oh, you'll take any old excuse to come to that conclusion. If that one failed, how long would it take you to find another?
Says you. I have seen a devoted evopusher say words to this effect. I have not seen any statement on the merits of evolutionism from biologists as a group.
How about
a survey or
Project Steve? Project Steve is a listing of scientists named Steve who agree with the following statement:
Whoo! Yippee! Another excuse to read evolutionist propaganda.
The argument from popularity seems to be a loss for evolutionism overall. No wonder they have to be so careful about who's admitted to the priesthood.
But in evomath, one loudmouth, if he says what they want to hear, constitutes "the majority of biologists".
I'd say that the survey pretty much eliminates the idea that it is just one loudmouth.
If you'd provide the quote that you drew on so heavily above, I think we'd find a single loudmouth provided it.
And all the statements we see from evolutionists which are contrary to the party line? What are we to make of them? "Out-of-context"? Not by the old definition of that term, the one with meaning! "Out-of-context" in evospeak = "something we refuse to acknowledge". Either that, or they are L-I-A-R-S. (This is not a case of false dichotomy, either.)
Being wrong doesn't make you a liar. Do you call your child a liar if he spells a word wrong on a test?
I didn't say they were liars. I said they could be talking evospeak.
The majority wins because the experiments and predictions regarding evolution have been repeated.
Here we go.
1. State an experimentally testable and falsifiable hypothesis that says all life as we know it evolved from whatever you claim the original source was.
There was no multicellular life in the beginning, if there is shown to be multicellular life earlier in the geologic column then the common single-celled ancestor idea is falsified.
Bzzzt! Incorrect. This isnot an experimentally testable and falsifiable hypothesis, and it does not encompass enough to falsify evolutionism, only one somewhat trivial, disposable doctrine. Evolutionists didn't need the single common ancestor doctrine in the past, and they're thinking of pitching it right now, actually.
2. Show where even one such experiment has been conducted which had the potential to falsify the hypothesis.
The search for fish-amphibian transitional in a particular level in the geologic column. If a fully developed reptile were found then that would have falsified the fish-amphibian-reptile hypothesis.
That's not even the same "hypothesis"! And it's not an experiment. And again, you're only gambling a disposable article of faith.
So protective of the core doctrine! Can't expose it by even putting it into words, can you?
This isn't a beauty contest. The theory of evolution went through the same trials that Special Relativity did and both are still going through.
It is a beauty contest. Do you not know what T.H. Huxley admired most about evolutionism?
T.H. Huxley's degree in biology was from what institution?
Does it matter? He was dictator of the Royal Society for a good, long time.
But
that's another story. Who gives a rip about some writer's opinion about evolution? That says nothing about the theory itself.
"Some writer", sure...
You actually think some transient reader will stumble through here and only read this one post? Most likely they'll read a few others and see just how bogus your claims are. You continue to say all sorts of false things about what's been presented on this forum.
But that's Russ' problem. I've done my job. Your inaccurate statements are posted on his forum - not mine.
You could have easily pointed to one of those experiments cited on another post, if they existed, but instead throw in a threat. How typical.
What threat?
I'm serious. I'll play for amusement, but that's it. I have no unfulfilled obligations. Whatever filthy rubbish you choose to post is not my problem. You were warned; you don't care; Russ knows - I'm done.
Once he's had enough, Maaaaybe I'll return to some of these threads, and post links to discussions you participated in which were about the very issues you keep saying haven't been discussed. Just in case anyone... but, naw, how could they?
