|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/16/2005 01:23:25 AM · #451 |
papa, I'm not the one who is picking and choosing, and frankly I don't understand the mental gymnastics necessary to conclude after reading those passages that such punishments -- CRIMES -- are justified. I don't think you'd justify such atrocities under any other circumstances. Is it really reasonable to believe that an all-powerful being would choose such a path? After all, mere mortals, parents, manage to find much more creative and compassionate and merciful ways to deal with their disobedient children. They don't resort to genocide and cannibalism and slavery, unless they are evil incarnate.
I think the only reasonable conclusion is that the bible is not the inspired word of god. Are we more moral than god? If you believe the bible is god's word, then it seems we must be. But if the bible is written by men, then the ethical dilemma disappears. Those passages describe the worst human atrocities that cannot be justified under any circumstances. In the modern day we would punish even soldiers for commiting such crimes in wartime. I'm sorry, but your explanation/justification/rationalization just doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2005 03:12:45 AM · #452 |
Still not getting this, Ron...if it is the eternal soul that really matters, as you've stated down below, then why delay death for yourself or a loved one by attempting medical or heroic salvation? If Christian salvation comes only through belief and faith in Christ, then isn't the greatest expression of one's faith when a person is willing to sacrifice one's own life, or the life of a loved one for her/his god? (As when Abraham attempted sacrifice of his own son Isaac, in the bible?) If a person gets seriously ill with a terminal illness, then shouldn't that be viewed as an act of god? Afterall, god is supposed to be omnipresent, onmiscient and omnipotent, and unless of a result of bioterrorism, it would have to be viewed as an act of god. So wouldn't attempting medical or heroic salvation be viewed as going against god's plan? One would have to have the faith that what is happening in life is due to god's guidance or intervention.
Originally posted by RonB:
1) Genocide for humans is a sin. For God it is not a sin for three reasons. a) He is Holy; He cannot sin; b) He created men - they are His to keep alive physically or not according to His will c) physical death is not the be all and end all with God ( read the story of Ezekiel and the dry bones ) - it is the eternal soul that really matters.
|
Message edited by author 2005-04-16 03:19:03. |
|
|
|
04/16/2005 07:44:21 AM · #453 |
Originally posted by papa:
... the bible must be taken as a whole, with no parts deleted and nothing added. What sense does it make to believe certain parts and discard others? |
What sense does it make to believe a book which expresses completely opposite points, but claims both are true. That's like having a math text which says in one place that 2+2=4, and in another 2+2=5, and that both are true statements.
To me, those kinds of obvious contradictions make the entire text suspect.
 
Message edited by author 2005-04-16 07:53:09. |
|
|
|
04/16/2005 10:11:49 AM · #454 |
Judith said "In the modern day we would punish even soldiers for commiting such crimes in wartime." Yes, in the modern day we would, but that wasn't modern day. In one breath you say God is ruthless for punishing his people for their evilness, and then in the next, you are saying WE punish people like that for their evilness. How does that make God Ruthless?
You also said "Is it really reasonable to believe that an all-powerful being would choose such a path? After all, mere mortals, parents, manage to find much more creative and compassionate and merciful ways to deal with their disobedient children. They don't resort to genocide and cannibalism and slavery, unless they are evil incarnate." I don't think it's reasonable to second guess Gods actions. I also find your thoughts on "creative" discipline nowadays laughable. Have you seen some of the kids today? They are more out of control, foul-mouthed, disrespectful, crime commiting than ever before (and no, I don't have any facts to base that on, just have open eyes).
Hmm!? Seems we are at an impass here. I'm not sure that I am eloquent enough to continue discussing this point. Honestly, I wish I could, but I simply do not have the time to put in the effort of trying to prove that the bible does not contradict itself. I guess we choose to believe what we want, one way or the other. I pray that someone will come into your lives that can adequately explain it so you have a good base on which to make up your mind, whichever way you choose. I guess it's back to picture taking for a while. Good luck on the challenges. I get my new camera on tuesday, so hopefully, I will start submitting to the challenges soon. Live well. :) |
|
|
|
04/16/2005 10:56:40 AM · #455 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
The Creationist position has never denied micro-evolutionary processes, such as those which result in new strains of bacteria. The debate is about MACRO-evolution. Some have accused me of mis-using the term THEORY when speaking of scientific THEORIES. But some, like you, continue to mis-use evolution to refer to both micro- and macro- evolution. Creationists, as I say, do not dispute micro-evolution, only macro-evolution. Perhaps both sides could use the micro- and macro- prefices henceforth to avoid confusion and erroneous charges. |
Nonsense. There is only one theory of evolution. The theory of evolution encompasses both macro- and micro- by definition. I haven’t misused the word evolution in the slightest and you don’t get to define what the phrase “theory of evolution” means. In the future, when I talk about evolution, I’ll be referring to the entire theory, macro- and micro-. When you or someone else comes up with the mechanism that stops micro- from becoming macro-, you can suggest a redefinition of the “theory of evolution.” |
It is interesting that you say that I don't get to define what the phrase "theory of evolution" means, but then YOU seem to take on the authority to define what "evolution" means. But, since it appears that you are the overriding authority ( does that make you narcissistic? ) I guess that I'll have to agree to your terms. So, in the future, when I talk about evolution, I'll have to use YOUR definition.
Your rebuttal of the quote from Mr. Lewin includes this little gem:
"But the crucial issue is that, for the most part, the fossils do not document a smooth transition from old morphologies to new ones"
So, even though there is no evidence to support the theory, but you will still defend it. Cool.
Your rebuttal of the quote from Dr. Raup includes these gems:
"The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be."
and
"So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection."
and
"This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change took place, and that is really the question."
Your rebuttal of the quote from Dr. Patterson includes these gems:
"I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification)."
By the way, the site you link to adds this:
"Patterson goes on to acknowledge that there are gaps in the fossil record, but points out that this is possibly due to the limitations of what fossils can tell us. He finishes the paragraph with:
". . .Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else."
It is actually this statement which is the key to interpreting the Sunderland quote correctly"
Originally posted by milo655321:
RonB, would you please be more responsible and rely less on sources that are willing to mislead you? It's tiresome to have to correct your oversites. |
Right. Only TalkOrigins has the non-misleading information. The "Creationist" sites are all ( obviously ) wrong. ( Wait a minute, the site you quote for Roger Lewin's statement is the same site I used. So, how is it that I was "mislead", but you were not? Oh, sorry, that's right, I forgot. Evolutionists like yourself are discerning and sophisticated, and Creationists like myself are not. )
For those who may be interested, here is the stated purpose of TalkOrigins ( from their own main page ):
"The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudoscience."
But there is no reason to doubt that they would present the WHOLE truth now, is there. |
|
|
|
04/16/2005 11:08:23 AM · #456 |
| "BIG BANG" in all of history where has anything ever been CREATED in an explosion. Even something simple such as a gold ring or a leaf or a watch or a spoon. Explosions (BIG BANGS) break things into smaller pieces of the original larger piece. I dont think a big bang is capable of creating anything especially life. ;) |
|
|
|
04/16/2005 01:21:13 PM · #457 |
Originally posted by papa:
Judith said "In the modern day we would punish even soldiers for commiting such crimes in wartime." Yes, in the modern day we would, but that wasn't modern day. In one breath you say God is ruthless for punishing his people for their evilness, and then in the next, you are saying WE punish people like that for their evilness. How does that make God Ruthless? |
What I said is we would punish people for carrying out the evil, immoral acts attributed to god in the quotations I cited from the bible.
Originally posted by papa:
I don't think it's reasonable to second guess Gods actions. |
I'm not second-guessing god's actions. I'm asking you to show me where the absolute, moral standard is. You're the one who claims that god is all goodness. You earlier posted this:
Pslams 145:8-9
The Lord is gracious and full of compassion,
Slow to anger and great in mercy.
The Lord is good to all,
and His tender mercies are over all His works.
I am merely pointing out contradictory evidence from the bible. How is it possible that this is true: "the lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works," when he also engages in mass slaughter and causes mothers to eat their daughters, etc.? And please don't quote more self-serving passages from the bible. I can declare myself the most moral person in the world, but those declarations are hardly meaningful if I also commit mass murder.
Originally posted by papa:
I guess we choose to believe what we want, one way or the other. |
Yes, I guess you do, whether that belief is internally consistent or not.
Message edited by author 2005-04-16 13:27:37. |
|
|
|
04/16/2005 01:59:00 PM · #458 |
Originally posted by gusto:
"BIG BANG" in all of history where has anything ever been CREATED in an explosion. Even something simple such as a gold ring or a leaf or a watch or a spoon. Explosions (BIG BANGS) break things into smaller pieces of the original larger piece. I dont think a big bang is capable of creating anything especially life. ;) |
Nobody's arguing that the "big bang" created life. According to the theory, the universe "began" in an "explosion" that flung matter outwards in all directions from the source. Over time, the matter coalesced into stars, galaxies, what-have-you, and planets aggregated thereafter. "Big Bang" is cosmology, not biology. The issue of how life arose is not connected, as far as the scientists are concerened, with the issue of how the "universe as we know it" came into existence.
However, it's wrong to assume nothing can ever be created by an explosion; explosions, in fact, can produce precisely the extreme conditions required for various transmutations to take place, at least in theory. Not only that, but one can easily imagine, for example, an isolated population of plants dispersed to new territories by explosive forces. In other words, an explosion could PROPAGATE the dispersion of a species, in theory.
For whatever that's worth, which probably isn't much. I'm certainly not gonna defend it, I'm just musing out loud. I've always had problems with "Big Bang", for it doesn't seem to answer the real question of how the universe originated, even if it IS an accurate descriptor of how the universe-as-we-know-it came into being. I mean, something had to BE THERE to explode, right? Where did THAT come from?
Was there ever a nothingness? Does the term "ever" even have meaning? And for the matter of that, if God created the universe out of emptiness, what created God? You can say God always was, but that's in its own way as unsatisfactory as saying the universe always was. For me, the real issue is the nature of time. But that's another thread.
And I DO believe in God, btw. I just don't have any answers, nor do I especially feel I'm entitled to them. Faith is sufficient, and needs no proof by its nature. "Proof" is a highly overrated concept as far as I'm concerned. When we get hung up on "proof" in all its manifestations, we become terminally materialistic by definition, and I prefer not to take that path. What is, is.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2005 04:01:09 PM · #459 |
Originally posted by RonB:
It is interesting that you say that I don't get to define what the phrase "theory of evolution" means, but then YOU seem to take on the authority to define what "evolution" means. But, since it appears that you are the overriding authority ( does that make you narcissistic? ) I guess that I'll have to agree to your terms. So, in the future, when I talk about evolution, I'll have to use YOUR definition. |
Frankly, this is getting tedious. I have to ask again, do you deliberately not understand or do you actually not understand? It’s not my definition. I don’t get to define what the theory of evolution is anymore than you do. Do you disagree that the mainstream scientific community uses the phrase “the theory of evolution” to include both micro- and macro-? If not, then how you or I define the theory of evolution matters little.
Originally posted by RonB:
Your rebuttal of the quote from Mr. Lewin includes this little gem:
"But the crucial issue is that, for the most part, the fossils do not document a smooth transition from old morphologies to new ones"
So, even though there is no evidence to support the theory, but you will still defend it. Cool. |
You’ve never addressed my posting regarding telomeres and centromeres. Although I’ve already admitted my limited understanding of the subject it limited, I seem to remember your next post containing some little doozy about bestiality.
Originally posted by RonB:
Your rebuttal of the quote from Dr. Raup includes these gems:
"The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be."
and
"So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection."
and
"This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change took place, and that is really the question."
Your rebuttal of the quote from Dr. Patterson includes these gems:
"I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification)."
By the way, the site you link to adds this:
"Patterson goes on to acknowledge that there are gaps in the fossil record, but points out that this is possibly due to the limitations of what fossils can tell us. He finishes the paragraph with:
". . .Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else."
It is actually this statement which is the key to interpreting the Sunderland quote correctly" |
Patterson’s contention appears to be over whether the fossil record can show undisputed linear descent. He does not appear to question whether evolution occurs over millions of years, which you appear to be implying that the article is implying.
Originally posted by RonB:
Right. Only TalkOrigins has the non-misleading information. The "Creationist" sites are all ( obviously ) wrong. |
You, or any creationist organization, are welcome to point out where the talkorigins archives are misleading. In fact, they welcome feedback and address it on their feedback section monthly. There are a number of science professionals volunteering on TalkOrigins.org who’ve expressed a great willingness to participate in neutrally-moderated, written debate with members of the creationist community.
Originally posted by RonB:
( Wait a minute, the site you quote for Roger Lewin's statement is the same site I used. So, how is it that I was "mislead", but you were not? Oh, sorry, that's right, I forgot. Evolutionists like yourself are discerning and sophisticated, and Creationists like myself are not. ) |
So, you had a link to the source that you could have easily linked but chose not to? Why? I typed a short phrase from the Lewin’s quote into Google and was immediately given a list of numerous several creationist websites containing various segments of that quote. I invite you to do the same. Since you never posted a link in the first place, which you could have easily done, I can never know for sure where you originally found that quote. Claiming you got the quote from that particular site, after I had already posted the link, is poor evidence that you actually did.
Secondly, I’m not sure if you understand, while the quote you posted is accurate, it’s the conclusions that you imply by citing the quote out of the context in which it was written that are misleading. The thrust of the article appears to be addressing apparent conflict between gradual evolution vs. punctuated-equilibrium or, in other words, it’s a discussion over the rate at which things evolve. If you read the whole article, the author apparently has no problem with evolution over millions of years with the appearance and disappearance of species in the fossil record. The quote you posted seems to imply that he does. It’s a dishonest debating tactic called “quote mining.”
Originally posted by RonB:
For those who may be interested, here is the stated purpose of TalkOrigins ( from their own main page ):
"The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudoscience."
But there is no reason to doubt that they would present the WHOLE truth now, is there. |
Aren’t you glad that I’m honest enough to link my sources?
|
|
|
|
04/16/2005 05:16:37 PM · #460 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Still not getting this, Ron...if it is the eternal soul that really matters, as you've stated down below, then why delay death for yourself or a loved one by attempting medical or heroic salvation? If Christian salvation comes only through belief and faith in Christ, then isn't the greatest expression of one's faith when a person is willing to sacrifice one's own life, or the life of a loved one for her/his god? |
If you understand that Jesus is your "friend" then what you say is partially correct. Scripture quotes Jesus as saying ( John 15:13 ) "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.", but in the next verse, Jesus is quoted as saying "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.". So, in that light ( Jesus and friend are one and the same ), then laying down one's life for her/his god is the ultimate expression of one's faith. But it is not limited only to laying down one's lif for her/his god, but also for her/his "friend".
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
(As when Abraham attempted sacrifice of his own son Isaac, in the bible?) |
That wasn't SELF-sacrifice, except in terms of the personal loss he would have suffered. With the scriptural evidence that Abraham was a devout believer in the omnipotence of God, and a firm believer in resurrection, the general consensus is that he was willing to sacrifice Isaac "knowing" that God would miraculously bring him back to life.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
If a person gets seriously ill with a terminal illness, then shouldn't that be viewed as an act of god?[/qoute]
No. The very presence of illness is a direct result of Adam's fall. Illness CAN be viewed, though, as a part of God's "permissive" will, that is, he 'permits' it but does not 'cause' it ( see Job ). It is His "permissive" will that provides for the exercise of "free will" in man.
[quote=Olyuzi]Afterall, god is supposed to be omnipresent, onmiscient and omnipotent, and unless of a result of bioterrorism, it would have to be viewed as an act of god. |
Given the first ( the attributes of God ), then if the latter were true, even THAT would have to be an act of God. But it's not, as I have explained.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So wouldn't attempting medical or heroic salvation be viewed as going against god's plan? One would have to have the faith that what is happening in life is due to god's guidance or intervention. |
To the first question, the answer is YES, sometimes it actually IS going against God's plan.
And ss to the second statement, you are absolutely right in your thinking.
Normally, for heroic salvation there isn't much time to pray and seek the Lord's will in the matter - one acts more from instinct than reason. So it's hard to fault someone for those actions.
But for a case involving the end-stages of terminal illness, I personally know of believers who the Lord has had to "interfere" with because they were actively thwarting His will. For example: I know a woman whose mother was literally on her death bed for weeks, and the woman insisted on every possible medical procedure to prolong her mother's life. Suddenly, she had no choice but to leave town for a few days due to another family emergency. Of course, as soon as she was gone for two days, her mother passed away. It was only later, while pouring her broken heart out to God, that He was able to speak to her heart and show her that it was HER that stood in the way of HIS plan for her mother, and that SHE was actually prolonging her mother's suffering. I can already sense the question: Why didn't God just DO IT ( take the mother's life, that is ) if He's so powerful? And the answer is: Because God loved the WOMAN, too, and she needed to go through the process so that she would have a greater understanding of God afterward, and so be inclined to seek His will sooner - the next time. |
|
|
|
04/16/2005 05:51:00 PM · #461 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
It is interesting that you say that I don't get to define what the phrase "theory of evolution" means, but then YOU seem to take on the authority to define what "evolution" means. But, since it appears that you are the overriding authority ( does that make you narcissistic? ) I guess that I'll have to agree to your terms. So, in the future, when I talk about evolution, I'll have to use YOUR definition. |
Frankly, this is getting tedious. I have to ask again, do you deliberately not understand or do you actually not understand? |
No leeway for the correct answer, which is I DO understand.
Originally posted by milo655321:
It’s not my definition. I don’t get to define what the theory of evolution is anymore than you do. |
Frankly, this is getting tedious. I have to ask, do you deliberately not understand, or do you actually not understand?
I did NOT say that you seem to take on the authority to define what "THEORY of evolution" means. I said that you seem to take on the authority to define what "evolution" means. HINT: the part within the quotes is a single WORD ("evolution"), not a PHRASE or TERM ("THEORY of evolution").
It is only YOU, and NOT the scientists who say "In the future, when I talk about evolution, I’ll be referring to the entire theory, macro- and micro-." The Wikipedia sums it up nicely thus:
"Evolution, strictly speaking, is the change in frequency of genetic occurrences within a given gene pool over time."
( To me, that pretty much defines MICRO-EVOLUTION ONLY.)
But note that Wikipedia defines the THEORY of evolution thusly:
"The theory of evolution is the scientific model that describes the descent of all living organisms from a common ancestor."
Even your beloved TalkOrigins has this to say:
"A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors"
Originally posted by milo655321:
Do you disagree that the mainstream scientific community uses the phrase “the theory of evolution” to include both micro- and macro-? |
Nope. The THEORY of evolution, does, indeed, refer to both. That's why it is a false teaching.
Originally posted by milo655321:
If not, then how you or I define the theory of evolution matters little. |
This is getting tedious. I wasn't debating the definition of the term "THEORY of evolution", only of the WORD "evolution" which it seems YOU want to define differently than the majority of scientists.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 12:37:54 PM · #462 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Frankly, this is getting tedious. I have to ask again, do you deliberately not understand or do you actually not understand? |
Frankly, this is getting tedious. I have to ask, do you deliberately not understand, or do you actually not understand? |
Within the context of this debate, the best way to serve your argument is not to behave like a petulant nine-year old.
Originally posted by RonB:
I did NOT say that you seem to take on the authority to define what "THEORY of evolution" means. I said that you seem to take on the authority to define what "evolution" means. HINT: the part within the quotes is a single WORD ("evolution"), not a PHRASE or TERM ("THEORY of evolution").
It is only YOU, and NOT the scientists who say "In the future, when I talk about evolution, I’ll be referring to the entire theory, macro- and micro-." The Wikipedia sums it up nicely thus:
"Evolution, strictly speaking, is the change in frequency of genetic occurrences within a given gene pool over time."
( To me, that pretty much defines MICRO-EVOLUTION ONLY.) |
1) Define how large the gene pool is. How large is the gene pool according to the quote you posted? Does the above quote cover gene pool of a single population of organisms or does it cover the gene pool of all living things on the planet? Every living thing has genes.
2) Define time. Is it one year? Ten years? Ten million years? Or is it 400 million years?
Originally posted by RonB:
But note that Wikipedia defines the THEORY of evolution thusly:
"The theory of evolution is the scientific model that describes the descent of all living organisms from a common ancestor."
Even your beloved TalkOrigins has this to say:
"A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors" |
Firstly, I don’t know where you get the bizarre idea that talkorigins.org is “beloved” to me. It is a resource, no more beloved to me than the dictionaries on my shelves, the train I take to work, or the computer I used to complete my daily tasks. If you or any other person finds mistakes within their archives, they welcome feedback to help them correct their errors.
Secondly, since you can’t define length of time or how large the gene pool is based on the first quote you posted, the two secondary quotes are not significantly different than the first.
Originally posted by milo655321:
Do you disagree that the mainstream scientific community uses the phrase “the theory of evolution” to include both micro- and macro-? |
Originally posted by RonB:
Nope. The THEORY of evolution, does, indeed, refer to both. That's why it is a false teaching. |
An assertion you have yet to provide evidence for.
CONCLUSION:
I’m disappointed in your most recent posting. Of all the things written in my last post written toward your argument, you chose only to address definitions.
You could have addressed my assertions that you used several quotes taken out of context which appear to have been used to lead a reader to a conclusion not intended by the original author. You asked for evidence for the theory of evolution and I referred you back to my earlier post regarding the predicted existence of extra telomeres and centromeres on human chromosome 2. You’ve ignored that twice now.
Within the context of this debate, you’ve presented conclusions based on circular logic as evidence that the creation story within the Bible is to be taken literally. You’ve made the wild assertion that, if the theory of evolution is true, bestiality should be allowed, but failed to show how accepting bestiality logically follows accepting the theory of evolution. You’ve also proposed bizarre and unsubstantiated migratory patterns for flightless birds and extreme plate tectonic movements without one shred of physical evidence. I’m assuming, since you haven’t proposed anything else more in line with standards of evidence, that these are the best arguments you have.
If I can’t expect any better quality of argument from you, I’m no longer interested in wasting my time in replying to you.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 03:50:13 PM · #463 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Frankly, this is getting tedious. I have to ask again, do you deliberately not understand or do you actually not understand? |
Frankly, this is getting tedious. I have to ask, do you deliberately not understand, or do you actually not understand? |
Within the context of this debate, the best way to serve your argument is not to behave like a petulant nine-year old. |
You are correct ( of course ). I should NOT have responded in the same manner that YOU did. I MUST learn that what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander.
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
I did NOT say that you seem to take on the authority to define what "THEORY of evolution" means. I said that you seem to take on the authority to define what "evolution" means. HINT: the part within the quotes is a single WORD ("evolution"), not a PHRASE or TERM ("THEORY of evolution").
It is only YOU, and NOT the scientists who say "In the future, when I talk about evolution, I’ll be referring to the entire theory, macro- and micro-." The Wikipedia sums it up nicely thus:
"Evolution, strictly speaking, is the change in frequency of genetic occurrences within a given gene pool over time."
( To me, that pretty much defines MICRO-EVOLUTION ONLY.) |
1) Define how large the gene pool is. How large is the gene pool according to the quote you posted? Does the above quote cover gene pool of a single population of organisms or does it cover the gene pool of all living things on the planet? Every living thing has genes.
2) Define time. Is it one year? Ten years? Ten million years? Or is it 400 million years? |
I, of course, cannot answer your questions. They should, instead, be addressed to one, lepercolony, the author of the statement in Wikipedia. But, for what it's worth, TalkOrigins describes it thusly:
"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species...Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.
Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution of genes and microevolution is within-species evolution of genes. "
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
But note that Wikipedia defines the THEORY of evolution thusly:
"The theory of evolution is the scientific model that describes the descent of all living organisms from a common ancestor."
Even your beloved TalkOrigins has this to say:
"A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors" |
Firstly, I don’t know where you get the bizarre idea that talkorigins.org is “beloved” to me. It is a resource, no more beloved to me than the dictionaries on my shelves, the train I take to work, or the computer I used to complete my daily tasks. If you or any other person finds mistakes within their archives, they welcome feedback to help them correct their errors. |
Sure they do. About as much as do you.
Originally posted by milo655321:
Secondly, since you can’t define length of time or how large the gene pool is based on the first quote you posted, the two secondary quotes are not significantly different than the first. |
Another interesting observation. If I can't put distinct parameters around the definitons, supportive evidence is insignificant. But if the scientists cannot put distinct parameters around their definitions of time and size, it's perfectly acceptable. They are permitted endless time ( well, not endless, just 4.5 billion years more or less ).
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Do you disagree that the mainstream scientific community uses the phrase “the theory of evolution” to include both micro- and macro-? |
Originally posted by RonB:
Nope. The THEORY of evolution, does, indeed, refer to both. That's why it is a false teaching. |
An assertion you have yet to provide evidence for. |
And one that neither you nor the "scientists" have provided hard evidence to disprove.
Originally posted by milo655321:
CONCLUSION:
I’m disappointed in your most recent posting. Of all the things written in my last post written toward your argument, you chose only to address definitions.
You could have addressed my assertions that you used several quotes taken out of context which appear to have been used to lead a reader to a conclusion not intended by the original author. |
1) It would be against copyright laws to post the ENTIRE speech, so I cannot do that. So, it would appear that ANYTHING less than breaking the law will result in having quotations taken "out of context".
2) It would be unfair for me to have to go to extreme lengths to determine what the author/speaker MEANT if he/she is unable to articulate their positions clearly.
3) Do I hear an outcry from the anti-religious folks when Judith posts several quotes taken out of context to disparage God? Anyone? Anyone? No, I didn't think so.
Originally posted by milo655321:
You asked for evidence for the theory of evolution and I referred you back to my earlier post regarding the predicted existence of extra telomeres and centromeres on human chromosome 2. You’ve ignored that twice now. |
Because it is irrelevant. I could with certainty predict that twenty years from now computer chips will contain binary switching devices. And sure enough, you will find that to be a true prediction. All of the evidence for the similarity of mammal structures being "shared" across species is easily dismissed as part of God using similar structures for similar functions in multiple creations. Like using wheels on both automibles and airplanes, or propellers on both airplanes and boats. If it does the job, use it where it makes sense.
Originally posted by milo655321:
Within the context of this debate, you’ve presented conclusions based on circular logic as evidence that the creation story within the Bible is to be taken literally. |
And the scientists use circular logic to "date" thier "evidence". They date rock layers from the fossils found in them, and they date fossils from the rock layer they were found in.
Originally posted by milo655321:
You’ve made the wild assertion that, if the theory of evolution is true, bestiality should be allowed, but failed to show how accepting bestiality logically follows accepting the theory of evolution. |
You're not only stretching to discredit me, but you are twisting what I said. I NEVER said that bestiality should be allowed. I ASKED whether it might ever be a logical extension of the kind of thinking that leads on to believe that men and beasts are closely related. It is not so presumtious a thought as you make it out to be. Consider, for example, that MANY people claim that homosexual behaviour should not be considered deviant because, after all, "many kinds of animals exhibit the same behaviors." Such thinking is supported by the Theory of Evolution which maintains that men and animals share a commen ancestry. It is logical, when thinking thus, that men and animals SHOULD be expected to share common behaviours.
Originally posted by milo655321:
You’ve also proposed bizarre and unsubstantiated migratory patterns for flightless birds and extreme plate tectonic movements without one shred of physical evidence. |
1) Kon-Tiki. Constructed of nine balsa logs collected from Equador, a crew of six men sailed the raft from Callao in Peru the 28th of April 1947 and landed on the island of Raroia in Polynesia after 101 days. This successful voyage of c.4300 miles proved that the islands in Polynesia were within the range of this type of prehistoric South American vessel.
Surely, if six men can travel 4300 miles in 101 days, a small flock of cormorants can travel several thousand miles in 100 years.
2) Don't argue with ME about Pangea. Argue with your scientist buddies. They are the ones who came up with the "Continental Drift Theory". Oh, does the word THEORY in that phrase mean that it's NOT just "hypothesis" or "conjecture".
By the way, you can review that theory at this site maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey
Originally posted by milo655321:
I’m assuming, since you haven’t proposed anything else more in line with standards of evidence, that these are the best arguments you have. |
So, are you saying that you want it both ways? I should accept the THEORY of evolution but you should reject the Continental Drift THEORY?
Originally posted by milo655321:
If I can’t expect any better quality of argument from you, I’m no longer interested in wasting my time in replying to you. |
As you wish.
Message edited by author 2005-04-17 16:01:19. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 10:22:04 PM · #464 |
| Without wishing to take arguments out of context, my earlier question for RonB et al was slightly misinterpreted: why does the Christian belief system have primacy over other belief systems (eg later Mayan and Incan systems, earlier Babylonian and Roman systems). Why does it have similarities to some of those earlier and later systems. Why is it one god rather than many. Why is it the right belief system among so many thousands??? Surely, it is only percieved to be right because it among the current majority (and certainly the majority of religious believers here)? Otherwise, there is no reason that we should not believe in another system - say Valhalla (all night boozing sounds good to me...) and another creation story. Once we accept that they are stories, why believe one over all others, or believe that they are literal? |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 11:59:24 PM · #465 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Without wishing to take arguments out of context, my earlier question for RonB et al was slightly misinterpreted: why does the Christian belief system have primacy over other belief systems (eg later Mayan and Incan systems, earlier Babylonian and Roman systems). Why does it have similarities to some of those earlier and later systems. Why is it one god rather than many. Why is it the right belief system among so many thousands??? Surely, it is only percieved to be right because it among the current majority (and certainly the majority of religious believers here)? Otherwise, there is no reason that we should not believe in another system - say Valhalla (all night boozing sounds good to me...) and another creation story. Once we accept that they are stories, why believe one over all others, or believe that they are literal? |
The answer is very complicated and very simple at the same time. Jesus Christ.
1) There are mutiple, contemporary, ex-biblical documents that offer evidence that Jesus lived, taught, was tried under Pontius Pilate, and was crucified. Now, knowing that, one must decide whether Jesus was telling the truth, was crazy, or was a liar. A liar wouldn't go to the cross still insisting that he was telling the truth, and a crazy man wouldn't inspire hundreds of others to become martyrs, would he? So that leaves the third alternative - He was telling the truth.
Admittedly, it can be argued that there is also historical evidence for Mohammed and for Gautama the Buddha, to name just a few;
2) Christianity is the only faith that puts forth the proposition of a person having a "personal" relationship with the living God, AND that God WANTS to have a personal relationship with them;
3) Christianity is the only faith that does NOT require "works" to enter heaven, nirvana, or whatever;
4) Christ is the only teacher who said "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you" - a proactive approach that completely divorces the other persons actions as a prerequisite for your own.
5) There are no "earlier" systems. Adam had a personal relationship with God in the Garden of Eden. All through the Old Testament there are stories of people having personal contact with God. The difficulty is that most people cannot understand that "real" Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship.
6) There is only one God, but He exists in three persons ( the trinity ): God, the Father, God, the Son ( Jesus Christ ), and God, the Holy Spirit.
There is no way that I can offer a convincing argument as to why Christianity is the RIGHT belief system. I know that it is, but that is only because God has enabled me to believe. Each must come to his/her own faith. |
|
|
|
04/19/2005 12:31:32 AM · #466 |
Originally posted by RonB:
A liar wouldn't go to the cross still insisting that he was telling the truth, and a crazy man wouldn't inspire hundreds of others to become martyrs, would he? |
To answer your question, YES a crazy man could inspire hundrends of others to become martyrs. Jim Jones (christian) convinced a thousand people (638 adults and 276 children) to drink some "special" kool-aid and commit mass suicide w/ him. The loonies always manage to gather an entourage!
Damn it, I want my own army of zombies too!
Message edited by author 2005-04-19 00:33:55. |
|
|
|
04/19/2005 01:11:57 AM · #467 |
Originally posted by lykofos:
Originally posted by RonB:
A liar wouldn't go to the cross still insisting that he was telling the truth, and a crazy man wouldn't inspire hundreds of others to become martyrs, would he? |
To answer your question, YES a crazy man could inspire hundrends of others to become martyrs. Jim Jones (christian) convinced a thousand people (638 adults and 276 children) to drink some "special" kool-aid and commit mass suicide w/ him. The loonies always manage to gather an entourage!
Damn it, I want my own army of zombies too! |
Good answer, BUT - to the best of my knowledge, not a single person did so AFTER Jones died. Hundreds, yeah, thousands have died as martyrs to Christ AFTER His death. |
|
|
|
04/19/2005 01:32:08 AM · #468 |
| Thousands of martyrs have died in suicide bombings for Allah too. Martyrdom doesn't really prove anything and isn't exactly a yardstick for one's own sanity or the sanity of one's god if you get what I mean. |
|
|
|
04/19/2005 05:37:25 AM · #469 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Good answer, BUT - to the best of my knowledge, not a single person did so AFTER Jones died. Hundreds, yeah, thousands have died as martyrs to Christ AFTER His death. |
I think that the point you are looking for is that several people claimed to see Jesus walking after his death - I think that the resurrection is the reason why Christianity caught on.
Evidence of Jesus having existed does not evidence the religion. Jesus did not have anything to do with the Old Testament, except as a Jew to believe in much of it. So creation is not taught by Jesus and his existence or not has very little to do with the argument here. There is plenty of evidence of the Romans existing, but I do not seek to persuade you that Ovid's Metamorphoses provides an accurate rendition of how the Earth and mankind began.
For me, this is an important part of your earlier statement:
Originally posted by RonB:
There is no way that I can offer a convincing argument as to why Christianity is the RIGHT belief system. I know that it is, but that is only because God has enabled me to believe. Each must come to his/her own faith. |
You do appear to recognise that your justification is ultimately your belief, which you have come to from a religious faith perspective.
The sciences of biology and physics do provide convincing arguments to the majority of people on the beginning of the universe and of man: the evolution theory and the big bang theory. They do not offer a comprehensive answer to every question, nor are they necessarily right in every respect. But they do offer a convincing argument. Evidence in their favour vastly outweighs the evidence that is used to contradict them.
Back to my main point...
I do not seek to change your faith. I do have a problem with proponents of faith having any impact on the teaching of science.
We need to teach the children of the world:
1) our best understanding of the universe and the science that underpins it;
2) about the many religions of the world, their belief systems, and tolerance.
Our teachers are not preachers - they must strive not to be biased by their own faith or belief system in the teaching of either because, as you say:
Originally posted by RonB:
Each must come to his/her own faith. |
Message edited by author 2005-04-19 06:22:00. |
|
|
|
07/23/2006 12:37:16 AM · #470 |
heh! That was a fun read! :)
|
|
|
|
07/23/2006 12:40:29 AM · #471 |
Originally posted by idnic:
heh! That was a fun read! :) |
*What* are you doing?
|
|
|
|
07/23/2006 12:45:50 AM · #472 |
Originally posted by idnic:
heh! That was a fun read! :) |
You read ALL of that? Poor thing.... must be having an extra boring night :-( |
|
|
|
07/23/2006 02:01:34 AM · #473 |
heheee I was searching something completely irrelevant and found this rant, and yeah, I read it. What? Too much free time? Bah! :P
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 12:01:03 PM · #474 |
Originally posted by idnic:
heheee I was searching something completely irrelevant and found this rant, and yeah, I read it. What? Too much free time? Bah! :P |
... masochist ... |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 05:52:07 AM · #475 |
| here I am with a serious problem wondering who removed my profile pic, and you guys are busy with who created the universe? hello??? :p |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/20/2025 12:15:06 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/20/2025 12:15:06 PM EDT.
|
