[_ Old Earth _] A question in PM

[jasoncran]

all of genesis?

you do realise that theres a possible theory that noah and other wrote their stories and transmited them to the next in line.

so is shabat then. the shabat then must be allogorical day then that men died for when they disobeyed as its based on the creation week.sorry i take the and the word of god over men all the time.

 

[zeke]

I don't know, Zeke. But I hope not. I happen to believe in theistic evolution and I don't believe it will or has hindered my relationship with the Lord. I'd also note that I don't buy into every detail of evolution, as we all know science is mostly composed of hypothesis; I just believe that the earth has been around a lot longer than 6,000 years.

Well, my friend - one can certainly believe the earth is older than 6000 years and reject Darwinism. I would suggest you research exactly what neo-Darwinism teaches and then tell me how you can reconcile the leading atheistic creation myth with the truth taught in the Bible regarding the Creator-God - the two worldviews are at opposition. You can't have it both ways.

 

[MarbleShooter]

Sure there is - evolutionism is a religion - try to keep up. Evolutionism came into being as a secular religion - a substitute for Christianity just and Michael Ruse admits.



You once again fail to distinguish between biological evolution (science) and Darwinian lore (naturalistic pseudo-science). Where is your proof that man and chimp have a common ancestor (4th request). Have you misplaced it?

Oh I get it now. If I show you genetic evidence, you yell dogma and start claiming there is a common designer that you won't back up with a working theory. When we are talking about the theory of evolution, what dosen't match up with your stance is automatically Religious Darwinism. Not to mention not being able to give a definition for Darwinism to begin with. XD lol. Alright, what ever call it whatever you want. I'm not the one espousing a theory that has no scientific backing ( common designer theory) to hand wave away genetic and homologous evidence.

 

[zeke]

Oh I get it now. If I show you genetic evidence, you yell dogma and start claiming there is a common designer that you won't back up with a working theory. When we are talking about the theory of evolution, what dosen't match up with your stance is automatically Religious Darwinism. Not to mention not being able to give a definition for Darwinism to begin with. XD lol. Alright, what ever call it whatever you want. I'm not the one espousing a theory that has no scientific backing ( common designer theory) to hand wave away genetic and homologous evidence.

Interpretation: MarbleShooter appears to blur the line between between biological evolution (science) and Darwinian lore (naturalistic pseudo-science) and he still cannot provide the required proof that man and chimp have a common ancestor because he misplaced it? Can someone tell him/her that homologous structures and genetic similarities do not prove common ancestry. He/she has missed the boat once again.

 

[MarbleShooter]

Interpretation: MarbleShooter appears to blur the line between between biological evolution (science) and Darwinian lore (naturalistic pseudo-science) and he still cannot provide the required proof that man and chimp have a common ancestor because he misplaced it? Can someone tell him/her that homologous structures and genetic similarities do not prove common ancestry. He/she has missed the boat once again.

Interpretation: I was exactly right on point with my last comment. :D

 

[Barbarian]

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ ~ Michael Ruse, Darwinist/atheist

Radical atheists and creationists have a common purpose; to make science incompatible with God.

They are failing.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

You just contradicted yourself. You said evolution isn't that important, and that then it could destroy all religion. That is false and a contradiction.

Crap, I wrote that out wrong. It should be "Special Relativity isn't anywhere near the scale of Evolution. Evolution will make or break all religions."

 

[zeke]

Radical atheists and creationists have a common purpose; to make science incompatible with God.

They are failing.

The real danger to biological evolution is the Darwinian lore that is passed off as science. You really need to re-think.

“Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe." ~ David Berlinski​

 

[zeke]

Interpretation: I was exactly right on point with my last comment. :D

You have not be 'right' on anything thus far. Did you find your evidence that proves man and chimp share a common ancestor (6th request)? We can settle this matter here and now but you have completely failed in your Darwinian duty. Why - because there is no such proof and we both know that - right?

 

[zeke]

I think he personally believes there is no God, making him a Strong gnostic atheist, but he admits that there really is no way to proove tht there is no God.

Are you a weak-atheist or are weak-strong just semantic games?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Radical atheists and creationists have a common purpose; to make science incompatible with God.

They are failing.

The real danger to biological evolution is the Darwinian lore that is passed off as science.

Show us some of that.

You really need to re-think.

Well, let's see what you've got, and we'll consider how good it is.

“Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe." ~ David Berlinski

Here's a more relevant quote:


And I think it's just a catastrophic mistake to have somebody like Dawkins address himself to profound issues of theology, the existence of God, the nature of life. He hasn't committed himself to disciplined study in any relevant area of inquiry. He's a crummy philosopher. - David Berlinski

Berlinski is a philosopher. And Berlinski's understanding of evolutionary theory comes from a brief foray into "theoretical biology" and molecular biology, neither of which touch on the core of evolution.

And the result, when he tries to address himself to the profound issues of biology, of natural selection and population genetics, the result is... catastrophic. He's a crummy biologist.

 

[Barbarian]

Did you find your evidence that proves man and chimp share a common ancestor (6th request)?

The broken GULO gene (which requires an astronomically unlikely coincidence to assume a coincidence). The evidence of a chromosome fusion, complete with relict telomeres precisely where they would have to be if humans had a chromosome fusion. The genetic relationship, which we know works,because we can test the method on organisms of known descent. The large number of transitional species. The fact that the human skull precisely fits the pattern of slowed development of a chimplike skull. Stuff like that. Takes an extremely strong resistance to reality to deny what it says.

 

[zeke]

And Berlinski's understanding of evolutionary theory comes from a brief foray into "theoretical biology" and molecular biology, neither of which touch on the core of evolution.

LOL - molecular biology has nothing to do with biological science? And please remember - we are discussing the ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism, i.e., Darwinian lore - the mythology that is passed off a science. Are we on the same page?

"The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems." ~ Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, Professor of Bioorganic, Moscow State University; member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences​

 

[zeke]

T The genetic relationship, which we know works,because we can test the method on organisms of known descent. The large number of transitional species. The fact that the human skull precisely fits the pattern of slowed development of a chimplike skull. Stuff like that. Takes an extremely strong resistance to reality to deny what it says.

It only effects the reality of those who are 'true believers' in the Darwinian myth. Francis Collins - who believes in common ancestry via great faith agrees with me - genetic similarity/homologous structures "alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor". Why does he say this – because a common designer could have "used successful design principles over and over again" (The Language of God).

Do you believe there is a common designer of the universe? Did God 'create in the beginning'?

 

[MarbleShooter]

You have not be 'right' on anything thus far.

Lol, sorry I can't take criticism seriously from someone who can't back a single thing up and complains that I'm the one dodging. I provided evidence and so has Barbarian. You just won't accept it. I know you have to be trolling at this point. XD

Did you find your evidence that proves man and chimp share a common ancestor (6th request)?

Yep, its still sitting in that post waiting for you to click and read it.

We can settle this matter here and now but you have completely failed in your Darwinian duty.

I have no such duty because I'm not a Darwinist.

Why - because there is no such proof and we both know that - right?

Sorry, I've actually had college biology classes and studied the material at hand. I don't have to repeat mantra's made up by con artist sold and/or given to those who don't feel comfortable with what we have found out through biology. Keep on a trollen. :D

 

[zeke]

I provided evidence and so has Barbarian.

The only evidence you have provided mate does not prove universal common ancestry - not even close. Your 'chimps have two eyes and humans have two eyes, therefore chimps and humans have a common ancestor' doesn't work in the real world. Oh--yeah and let's not forget your other 'proof' - Darwinists have preached for 150 years that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, therefore humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Circularity at its best. You have failed.

If you ever stumble across your missing in action evidence then post it for us to review - thus far you only blow smoke.

I have no such duty because I'm not a Darwinist.

You are a junior Darwinist and I do understand your dilemma but it remains your dilemma.

Sorry, I've actually had college biology classes and studied the material at hand.

Let me guess - you also stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[MarbleShooter]

The only evidence you have provided mate does not prove universal common ancestry - not even close. Your 'chimps have two eyes and humans have two eyes, therefore chimps and humans have a common ancestor' doesn't work in the real world.

Wow, you definately didn't click on my link then. I gave you the actual ancestor and even what ERVs we shared. LOL you're so cute. I also like how you've rephrased your original question. First that there are no ancestors, then that there is no evidence, then there is not proof, now you claim you asked for a universal ancestor. Next you'll be stating that we never even talked. XD

Oh--yeah and let's not forget your other 'proof' - Darwinists have preached for 150 years that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, therefore humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Circularity at its best. You have failed.

And you make up what ever you want to hear. I never said that. I said the theory of evolution has had 150+ years of change and correction.

If you ever stumble across your missing in action evidence then post it for us to review - thus far you only blow smoke.

Yeah that "us" thing is even more hilarious considering that you have disagreed with every single person in this thread. XD

You are a junior Darwinist and I do understand your dilemma but it remains your dilemma.

So I don't take anything seriously from followers of durnamuism. Once you renounce your durnamuism, we can talk again. You can go back to believing in the mighty lemon who created the common designer.

 

[zeke]

Yep, its still sitting in that post waiting for you to click and read it.

But I did read it - no evidence there that proves universal common ancestry. You miss the mark once again - it that all you have?

 

[jasoncran]

lance thats enough thread locked pending moderator review.

you are guest here. keep that in mind, freedom of speech isnt guarenteed.

So I don't take anything seriously from followers of durnamuism. Once you renounce your durnamuism, we can talk again. You can go back to believing in the mighty lemon who created the common designer.