Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 40/46 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution?
Brachinus
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 73 (8024)
03-30-2002 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by thatstretchyguy
03-30-2002 10:45 AM


quote:
Originally posted by thatstretchyguy:
Good logic, TC.
rsmith enters the discussion biased against all those who have chosen creation with an open mind because of the evidence.

It seems to me that the general consensus here is that rsmith is a troll posing as an "evolutionist."
But who are "all those who have chosen creation with an open mind because of the evidence"? Can you provide an example? I've never seen a person who rejected evolution until after they'd already embraced Christianity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by thatstretchyguy, posted 03-30-2002 10:45 AM thatstretchyguy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-30-2002 11:53 PM Brachinus has replied

  
The Barbarian
Member (Idle past 6266 days)
Posts: 31
From: Dallas, TX US
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 17 of 73 (8025)
03-30-2002 8:23 PM


Hey, what about us guys who accepted evolution after they became Christians? Do we count?

  
thatstretchyguy
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 73 (8028)
03-30-2002 10:54 PM


The only example I'd be able to provide would be myself. And I'd get into the whole life story thing, but I'd bore you. Let me only say that I didn't want to follow my parent's viewpoints, which were entirely Christian, so I chose to do whatever I wanted to do. My dad gave me a book to read - "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. That's my weakness - i like to read - and so I read it. It totally changed the way I saw evolution. The evidence for Christ's resurrection, the evidence against evolution such as irreducible complexity, the mathematical improbability of creating life by chance, and other things made me realize that I wasn't doing myself a favor by believing in evolution. It was doing my mind a disservice to believe in a lie. After considering this, I was still doubtful, but I ended up calling on God, and he answered me, and still does to this day.
I didn't call him a troll, I merely stated that his post probably insulted some very intelligent minds on this message board.

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-30-2002 11:57 PM thatstretchyguy has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 73 (8032)
03-30-2002 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Brachinus
03-30-2002 7:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brachinus:
It seems to me that the general consensus here is that rsmith is a troll posing as an "evolutionist."
But who are "all those who have chosen creation with an open mind because of the evidence"? Can you provide an example? I've never seen a person who rejected evolution until after they'd already embraced Christianity.

Gary Parker (yes Ibhandli, the lying heathen)
He claims that he was atheist and evolution was his basic religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Brachinus, posted 03-30-2002 7:46 PM Brachinus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Brachinus, posted 03-31-2002 7:18 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 73 (8033)
03-30-2002 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by thatstretchyguy
03-30-2002 10:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by thatstretchyguy:
I didn't call him a troll, I merely stated that his post probably insulted some very intelligent minds on this message board.
Don't worry, to those of us who have read a bit of anti-creation literature, this statement is hardly offensive. Most of the "proffessional" evolutionists are actually the best at spewing forth childish ad hominem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by thatstretchyguy, posted 03-30-2002 10:54 PM thatstretchyguy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Quetzal, posted 04-02-2002 11:56 AM Cobra_snake has replied

  
Brachinus
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 73 (8035)
03-31-2002 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Cobra_snake
03-30-2002 11:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Gary Parker (yes Ibhandli, the lying heathen)
He claims that he was atheist and evolution was his basic religion.

Which came first, the religious conversion or the scientific one? Did he get saved before or after deciding that evolution was bogus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-30-2002 11:53 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 73 (8042)
03-31-2002 1:36 PM


He claims that he was convinced because of biological evidence, then became a Christian, then he looked into fossils.

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5899 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 23 of 73 (8097)
04-02-2002 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Cobra_snake
03-30-2002 11:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Don't worry, to those of us who have read a bit of anti-creation literature, this statement is hardly offensive. Most of the "proffessional" evolutionists are actually the best at spewing forth childish ad hominem.
Oh really? Care to rephrase that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-30-2002 11:57 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-02-2002 11:08 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 73 (8128)
04-02-2002 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Quetzal
04-02-2002 11:56 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzal:
Oh really? Care to rephrase that?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Sorry, I wasn't referring to you. You seem to be quite reasonable in my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Quetzal, posted 04-02-2002 11:56 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by mark24, posted 04-03-2002 3:40 AM Cobra_snake has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5222 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 25 of 73 (8134)
04-03-2002 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Cobra_snake
04-02-2002 11:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Sorry, I wasn't referring to you. You seem to be quite reasonable in my opinion.
& me?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-02-2002 11:08 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-04-2002 2:56 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 73 (8168)
04-04-2002 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by mark24
04-03-2002 3:40 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
& me?

I hate you.
I wasn't really referring to people on these boards. I was talking about the proffessional evolutionists like Gould and Dawkins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mark24, posted 04-03-2002 3:40 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 04-07-2002 9:26 AM Cobra_snake has replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 73 (8260)
04-07-2002 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by rsmith57asdf
03-25-2002 3:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by rsmith57asdf:
I think that MOST of the people that dont believe in evolution are too stupid or not smart enough to comprehend the idea. I have seen the skulls of the many different human ape species. That is physical tangible proof.
I have heard of all the different gods. Where are they at? I have never seen them. They kinda remind me of Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy. I was too stupid or not smart enough when I believed in them....

The question is not whether species changed, or evolved, but what caused and what is the base of these changes.
Mutations, as described by Darwin, are responsible for evolutions. Natural selection stamps out negative mutations, and allows positive ones to propagate.
I am an atheist, but not an evolutionist. Evolution, in my opinion, is far-fetched, and you only see this if you take a step back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by rsmith57asdf, posted 03-25-2002 3:58 PM rsmith57asdf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by joz, posted 04-07-2002 3:51 PM quicksink has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2197 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 28 of 73 (8265)
04-07-2002 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Cobra_snake
04-04-2002 2:56 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I hate you.
I wasn't really referring to people on these boards. I was talking about the proffessional evolutionists like Gould and Dawkins.

I wonder, have you read any entire books by Gould or Dawkins, not just selected quotes found in Creationist literature?
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-04-2002 2:56 AM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-07-2002 7:58 PM nator has replied

  
Robert
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 73 (8268)
04-07-2002 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by rsmith57asdf
03-25-2002 3:58 PM


Greetings:
RSSmith writes:
I have seen the skulls of the many different human ape species. That is physical tangible proof.
I have also seen the canals of Mars - does that mean there is intelligent life on Mars? The problem with your "proof" is that it is based on an interpretation of the evidence. Can you show me evidence for 1/2 men and 1/2 ape outside of your interpretation of some problematic fossil records?
I assume that you think that there was a time when there were only "apes" and no humans around? Can you show me how an ape can become a human being? - or a 1/2 ape, 1/2 human? Or whatever you think it is that constitutes absolute proof for evolution outside of an appeal to the fossil record?
Jerry Coyne of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago writes:
"We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by rsmith57asdf, posted 03-25-2002 3:58 PM rsmith57asdf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-07-2002 3:56 PM Robert has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 73 (8276)
04-07-2002 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by quicksink
04-07-2002 8:38 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
The question is not whether species changed, or evolved, but what caused and what is the base of these changes.
Mutations, as described by Darwin, are responsible for evolutions. Natural selection stamps out negative mutations, and allows positive ones to propagate.
I am an atheist, but not an evolutionist. Evolution, in my opinion, is far-fetched, and you only see this if you take a step back.

Right so your an atheist non evolutionist, thats an even less coherant position to take than YECism...
What do you think happened, all extant species spontaneously generated? Lucky monsters2 (squared because 2 have to spontaneously generate at the same time to form at least 1 breeding pair), without evolution an atheist position is special creation of species with no creator which is a pretty dumb concept....
Think about it QS....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by quicksink, posted 04-07-2002 8:38 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Weyland, posted 04-10-2002 10:53 AM joz has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024