evolution?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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."

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....