[_ Old Earth _] How well do you actually know The Theory of Evolution?

[Doulos Iesou]

That's because evolution has been debunked.

One of the most established Theories in science that is held by the vast majority of scientists is debunked? Okay!

You can keep telling yourself that.

Even PHD's that were not Christians have stated that evolution was no possible.

Even PhD's that are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Hindu, Buddists say that it is possible. See how this argument doesn't really work?

But you wont consider what those guys say, you just put em down and quote someone else that does say what you like to believe.

I do recall listening to an hour of that video you posted with the Creationist going on about unsupported claims against evolution. I already addressed all this before of course.

I don't view people as authorities, I view people as fallible experts and I look to the evidence they provide to see if what they say is valid.

Correction does lead to education, but when people try to correct you, then you say it's an attack, but when you correct others, oh you're trying to help them and educate them.

If you correct me with evidence then I am more than open to it, provided it is something you present yourself and is manageable to deal with. I already told you that it is unreasonable to expect someone to watch hours on end of creationist propaganda. When I provide arguments or evidence, I sum it up in my own words and then provide links to the source.

The types of comments aren't even correction, in fact I can't find a single piece of correction within this thread. Rather just comments like "there is no evidence for evolution," and other related empty assertions.

Attacks and denials are not corrections.

Your position and tactics are falling apart Doulos.

I would agree that my tactics for making a meaningful dialogue are falling apart.

They very things that you accuse others of doing...is what you're doing. You have a faith in certain scientists and then use their psuedo science to back it up...and continue to hold your position as a lofty one.

Pseudoscience?! That's funny coming from a Young Earth Creationist who believes Trilobites, Dinosaurs and humans all walked the earth together.

I have stated this a million times.. I do not place my faith in any scientist, but have come to a reasoned position after being compelled by the overwhelming evidence that the Theory of Evolution is true. As a Christian, why would I have any problem with the idea that God created the earth recently? None, I would have no problem... IF that is what the evidence actually suggested. It doesn't though, Radiometric Dating has confirmed through various sources such as Meteors and Moon Rocks to date the Earth and the Solar System at about 4.5 Billion years old. These are established dating methods, that are in no way pseudoscience.

You know what? Bwahahahahahaha! That's funny.

You know if you did this kind of thing in person to people they would react rather harshly.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Within ToS 2.4
"but we prefer to keep threads as they have been defined in the OP (Original Post)."

The administrative staff will be addressing the issue of using the word "defined" as permission to create or augment the ToS by another set of rules as dictated by a member that must then be enforced by the moderating staff. The membership is not a legislative body of this site. That was not the intent. I should know. I was co-author of ToS 2.4
Be aware ToS 2.4 will be changed in the future and an announcement made as to the change.

Will it be changed so that the moderators will no longer attempt to keep posters on topic? So many threads get derailed from their original intent that this is almost necessary.

 

[Rick W]

It will be changed so members cannot legislate their own rules by which moderators are bound to enforce using the term "on topic" as a loophole.
Again, the membership is not a legislative body of this site.

 

[reba]

Dinosaurs and humans all walked the earth together.

Public school 1956 taught just that...

 

[Edward]

I do recall listening to an hour of that video you posted with the Creationist going on about unsupported claims against evolution. I already addressed all this before of course.

I don't view people as authorities, I view people as fallible experts and I look to the evidence they provide to see if what they say is valid.

The man who has a PHD in Physics? Propaganda? How do you decide if what different scientists say is propaganda or evidenced? If you agree with or not? That guy wasn't even a Christian, he was a hard core atheist, but we was honest and looked at all the so called evidence and realized that it wasn't evidence at all...so he ralized the truth and is Christian now. Evolution has been blown out of the water. As fine tuned as the universe and earth is, the probability of it happening by accident is into the absurd figures. There's so many fine points that if anything were changed life wouldn't be possible here.

Pseudoscience?! That's funny coming from a Young Earth Creationist who believes Trilobites, Dinosaurs and humans all walked the earth together.

I have stated this a million times.. I do not place my faith in any scientist, but have come to a reasoned position after being compelled by the overwhelming evidence that the Theory of Evolution is true. As a Christian, why would I have any problem with the idea that God created the earth recently? None, I would have no problem... IF that is what the evidence actually suggested.

We have some real science, it's not all psuedo. What makes something psuedo science is holding theories as facts with no real evidence to support them. There's your evolutionists. You also said that you believe that the bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, that it's true. Ok, so there's your creation evidence. It says so.

By deinition "theories" can never be proven or they wouldn't be a theory now would they? Yet they continue to call it the theory of evolution. You want some scriptural evidence aside from God created the heavens and the earth, and God formed man of the dust of the ground? Ok let's go to Hebrews 11

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen./

Huh. How about that? It says it is evidence, and we already agree that scripture is the word of God and true. SO there you have it. Will you now have faith in your God, or turn your back on Him to trust fallible man?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Yeah sure, I believe that you know more about the theory of evolution than I do because you've embraced it and I haven't.

I do have objections to the way you layed this thread down. It's like milkdrops said below me. The way you did it is weird. I've asked you pointed questions about evolution before and you wouldn't answer or else just ignore the question, or say something like that isn't what they thread is about, it's about you explaining and me correcting you. That is the height of arrogance and pride.

Can you drop the personal character comments....

I have no problem providing evidence or explanations for my claims. Can you perhaps cite an instance outside of this thread where I refused to do so. This thread was not purposed for me explaining, so I did not.

You want to answer a simple question for me? Why is it called the theory of evolution if it has been been proven? Wouldn't it be the fact of evolution or simply evolution if it had been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt like you say?

This is such an elementary misunderstanding, Gravity is a Theory and so is the fact that we Orbit around the Sun.

Here is some helpful information about Theory vs Fact.

"Is Evolution a Fact Or Theory?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."
Source: http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

Clink the link above if you wish to learn more about the way the word Theory is used in reference to Evolution.

And how about a simple yes or no to did life come from the sea? Will you just ignore that?

Hello! I already answered this multiple times, but most explicitly in post #113 where I said, "Yes life came from the sea." How much more explicit can I get? Don't charge me with ignoring things when I haven't ignored them.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The man who has a PHD in Physics? Propaganda? How do you decide if what different scientists say is propaganda or evidenced? If you agree with or not?

This is rather interesting, I hardly ever cite PhD's as authorities, yet when you do you are astounded when I don't agree. I believe what he taught was propaganda and pseudoscience based on the content of the information he provided, not based on his credentials which are actually irrelevant to what he was talking about.

I pointed out in that thread why I disagreed with his arguments, and frankly I found them quite silly. Nothing I haven't seen from other Creationist videos.

That guy wasn't even a Christian, he was a hard core atheist, but we was honest and looked at all the so called evidence and realized that it wasn't evidence at all...so he ralized the truth and is Christian now.

That is what he claims, which I have no reason to believe given how many falsehoods he presented in that 1 hour. People can often exaggerate their testimonies in Christian circles.

Evolution has been blown out of the water.

It has? Because this guy believes it? That's a strange way to go about determining truth.

Tell that to the National Academy of Science. They would laugh at this guy's arguments.

As fine tuned as the universe and earth is, the probability of it happening by accident is into the absurd figures.

So you're a mathematician now? Please tell us the probabilities of evolution being untrue from a probabilistic standpoint, and where are you getting these figures from?

See, it sucks when people call out claims and actually ask you to provide evidence.

There's so many fine points that if anything were changed life wouldn't be possible here.

You're talking about Cosmology, and I am not an atheist so I agree with the Fine Tuned argument from a Cosmological standpoint as it refers to the existence of God. Are you using it in reference to evolution, if so, how does that work exactly?

We have some real science, it's not all psuedo. What makes something psuedo science is holding theories as facts with no real evidence to support them. There's your evolutionists.

Real science? Where?

The Theory of Evolution is simply an explanation of all the facts we have. We know this from all the DNA evidence, indicating relationship via DNA sequencing. Comparable anatomy across related organisms, such as mammals having fur, glands for distributing milk, and carrying young in the womb, among others such as similar skeletal structures and organs. The fossil record, which shows diverse life forms that arose and went extinct at various times and demonstrates a progression in development over different, for instance amphibians fossils were only found 365 million years ago, only fish could be found prior. I could go on and on, as this is barely scraping the surface.

You also said that you believe that the bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, that it's true. Ok, so there's your creation evidence. It says so.

I don't presuppose a literal interpretation of this particular text.

By deinition "theories" can never be proven or they wouldn't be a theory now would they? Yet they continue to call it the theory of evolution.

You do not understand the way the word Theory is used by scientists, please see my previous post.

You want some scriptural evidence aside from God created the heavens and the earth, and God formed man of the dust of the ground? Ok let's go to Hebrews 11

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen./

Huh. How about that? It says it is evidence, and we already agree that scripture is the word of God and true. SO there you have it. Will you now have faith in your God, or turn your back on Him to trust fallible man?

I won't have faith in your fallible interpretation, I will trust in what is really true, not for what I hope for to be true.

"Evidence" is also a bad translation of the word ἔλεγχος, it is better rendered "conviction of things not seen." Modern translations have corrected this.

 

[Gary]

I suppose that was a bad way to reference it with regards to you.

What about the fossil record makes you believe that the earth is very young and that evolution is false?

I don't recall stating the age of the earth.

So this dating method which seems to disprove your world view as it pertains to the age of earth and the nature of life is just ignored? Are you interested in learning about it?

How does this dating method disprove my world view when I never stated what my world view was?

Why do you believe this? What evidence do you have?

Do some research on living fossils.

 

[Gary]

Public school 1956 taught just that...

We need to get some "likes" in this forum.

 

[Gary]

There's so many fine points that if anything were changed life wouldn't be possible here.

A dilemma for which the evolutionist has no answer.
.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I don't recall stating the age of the earth.

You believe that Trilobites, Dinosaurs and humans existed together, only Young Earth Creationists believe that to my knowledge.

Do you believe the earth is young? If so, what in the fossil record causes you to believe that?

How does this dating method disprove my world view when I never stated what my world view was?

Are you not a Young Earth Creationist?

Do some research on living fossils.

Do you think the existence of some ancient organisms that haven't evolved much over many millions of years is proof evolution is false? What's your point about this?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

A dilemma for which the evolutionist has no answer.
.

Please elaborate on how the Fine Tuning argument has anything to do with whether or not evolution is true. We have no answer, because it's an irrelevant argument. The Fine Tuning Argument is an argument for the existence of God.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Public school 1956 taught just that...

Some Public Schools did, until it was outlawed. We've come a long way since 1956.

 

[Gary]

You believe that Trilobites, Dinosaurs and humans existed together, only Young Earth Creationists believe that to my knowledge.

Do you believe the earth is young? If so, what in the fossil record causes you to believe that?

Are you not a Young Earth Creationist?

I don't label myself.

Do you think the existence of some ancient organisms that haven't evolved much over many millions of years is proof evolution is false? What's your point about this?

From your comment I can see you haven't really made an attempt at research. There's not just "some" species which haven't evolved....there's a whole boatload and the list keeps getting longer.
.

 

[reba]

How does one out law science?

 

[Gary]

Some Public Schools did, until it was outlawed. We've come a long way since 1956.

Just because it was outlawed doesn't automatically make it false.

 

[Gary]

The Fine Tuning Argument is an argument for the existence of God.

If you're looking for God, try the bible. You won't find Him in the book itself, but it's a good place to start.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

If you're looking for God, try the bible. You won't find Him in the book itself, but it's a good place to start.

I'm a Christian, but thanks for looking out.

Any comment on how the Fine Tuning Argument disproves evolution, or have you dropped that argument?

 

[Gary]

I'm a Christian, but thanks for looking out.

Any comment on how the Fine Tuning Argument disproves evolution, or have you dropped that argument?

There's fine tuning in nature to. Have you given that any thought?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Just because it was outlawed doesn't automatically make it false.

Correct, did I say that?