Anyway…
And please do not attack me individually, Andros. This is a debating forum. Attack my arguements, sure. Attack me? No.
I apologize for the perceived attack. It was not intended as such.
Until you are willing to listen and understand, you have no arguments to rebut.
Peace.
IHS
-a-
oops, page two, and an actual anti-evolutionist shows up! Imagine my surprise!
Royal,
You are not making any logical statements in support of anything, and your statements do not counter the premise that evolution occurs.
You say which hole is the biggest is subjective, OK, just pick a big one. You seem to be unable to understand that abiogenesis is not the same point of contention as evolution (micro or macro). You also make obscure single point statements which are not nearly so glib or clever as you seem to think, and disregard the fact that even if they were glib, or clever they would have no bearing on the point of contention.
If there is some evidence you have which shows the errors you claim to see in evolution, please say what at least one single example of such evidence is. Just one. Doesn’t have to be a big one, or the biggest one, or a telling disproof. It does have to be evidence.
You will really show yourself to be a fool if you fail to do so, since you claim that you have so many that choosing the biggest is too “subjective” to be a reasonable request. If you had fewer than four such evidentiary choices to make it could hardly be an insurmountable selection process.
You made the claim. If you don’t come up with the evidence now, it will make all your claims here highly suspect. I would like to point out that, for purposes of scientific inquiry, evidence in support of the biblical interpretation must come from another verifiable source, unrelated to the bible. What people really want to hear about is a physical object or phenomenon that shows development of a distinct species by some means other than evolution. Just one, anywhere, any time, in any fashion. But they want evidence, not testimony.
Surely if you believe it to be so, you must have had some evidence, right?
We wait, expectantly.
Tris
“Stoning non conformists is part of science. Stoning conformists is also part of science. Only those theories that can stand up to a merciless barrage of stones deserve consideration. It is the Creationist habit of throwing marshmallows that we find annoying.” ~ Dr Pepper ~
Care to make it clear where you stand on the issue?
I already have.
**
Refer to my ABC explanation as to the big hole I see in evolutionary theory.
**
Refer to above comment.
**
I never claimed I had so many. I said choosing the biggest hole in evolutionary theory is subjective. This could mean I have 2, this could mean I have 2 million. Where on God’s green earth did you pull “4” from?
**
And this is where evolutionists fail miserably when it comes to having a fair arguement with a creationist. Unless I can show you scientific evidence against evolution, my arguement, in your eyes, is going to look weak. My arguement is based almost entirely on faith. You ask me to step out of that realm and lay arguements supporting creation. How about you step out of your scientific realm and lay arguements NOT based on science? Not exactly easy it?
(BTW… I apologise if this post looks a bit unformatted, I am new to “vB code” and have experimented a bit here…)
Royal Sampler, am I correct in assuming that through your judicious utilization of “ABC” logic, you reject everything related to science? All branches of science are equally invalid by this method, right?
But, in retrospect, many micro changes can add up to a macro change.
aside…
I hope we’re all clear that accepting the Theory of Evolution does not mean rejecting God. But it does conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Also (it may bear repeating), R.S. has made several points about how life & the universe had to come from something. Again, there should be no conflict. The Theory of Evolution does not say how life started, just how it has changed since it began. Similarly, Big Bang Theory does not say where the universe “came from”, just what it has done since the beginning. The “Big Bang” is just the name given to the beginning.
Absolutely NOT. Evolutionary theory, yes, other scientific fields, absolutely not.
Errrr . . . you do realize that the theory of gravity is only a theory, right?
I mean, you’re not using the word “theory” to reject evolution, are you?
No, I am not rejecting evolution purely because it’s theory.
Royal Sampler, why do you accept chemistry, or astronomy, or geology, or quantum mechanics as sciences? Using your “logic”, since you cannot conceive of “How materials came to be” which MUST happen before you can proceed with any scientific conclusions (according to you), this creates just as big a “hole” in chemistry as it does in evolution or any other science.
Again, if you must answer how all matter came into being before proceeding with the science of evolution, why don’t you have to do the same thing for all other branches of science?
Because God created the universe. Therefore we have astronomy. God created the elements, therefore we have chemistry. See the pattern?
Royal,
Evolution is not antithetical to faith.
God does not have to stay in your box.
I take it that you have no evidence.
Tris
“RITUALISM, n. A Dutch Garden of God where He may walk in rectilinear freedom, keeping off the grass.” ~ Ambrose Bierce ~
I take it you have no evidence to the contrary.
Just for clarification, can you please define “micro change” and “macro change,” and how one tells the difference between the two?
See the thread I posted a link to before. There’s evidence there. If that’s not right, go see talkorigins.
Royal Sampler said:
Then again using your “logic” pattern, why do you reject evolution? Why not say – “Because God created the universe, therefore we have evolution”? If God can be the creative force that allows you to accept all the other sciences, why do you exclude evolution from your way of thinking?
Since we all know what thread is coming tomorrow, can someone remind me whose turn it is to do the whole “how can you have morals without God?” rebuttal?