|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 31 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hugh Ross | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3659 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
I don't necessarily have an opinion about their particular beliefs, but I think it would have been difficult during their time to speak out as a complete atheist.
And sure, I think it would be great to discuss scientific believes and the validity of arguments without first assigning one's religious faith as a criteria for credence; but since every non-evolutionist is swathed by evolutionists with the dismissive cloth of religious faith, I think one has to apply the same level of doubt to the objectivity of anyone who has an opinion about evolution and is atheist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I repeat, its a discussion about common descent! Common descent by evolution (meaning "natural selection and random mutation"), yes. I'm sorry but I still don't understand your objection yet. Do you think you could try to be clearer?
Now, if I asked you to show evidence that all life on earth is somehow related, then hey, you might have something there. The evidence for common ancestry of all life on Earth is what creationists ignore, though, and you asked for the evidence that creationists ignore. This is some of it. And, surprise, you're a creationist and you're ignoring it. Can we put this point away, now, since you've been refuted by your own actions?
lately I am seeing just how plain uninformed the evolutionists here are about their own dam theory. I'm a senior undergraduate biochemistry major, several of the contributors to this website are professional biologists, and I think we understand the theory of evolution just fine. You're the one who's been misrepresenting the theory all over the place. The difference, I guess, is that we read books and you complain about reading books.
They believe in something they don't even have the darndest clue about, so they certainly aren't going to be able to articulate why they believe it. As has been repeatedly articulated to you, we believe in it because of the ample, overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of it, some of which I'm trying to get you to read. Could you explain why you haven't, yet?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I think one has to apply the same level of doubt to the objectivity of anyone who has an opinion about evolution and is atheist. As you wish. I'm prepared to refute your argument using nothing but the writings of Francis Collins, if that's your desire. Never mind that your equivalence is invalid; creationism is religion. Evolution isn't atheism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3659 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
As I suspected, none of you has any evidence at all for your versions of evolution, you only have what you feel is evidence for common descent.
No surprise there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4837 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes: I don't necessarily have an opinion about their particular beliefs, but I think it would have been difficult during their time to speak out as a complete atheist. Possibly. But even if that's true, there's no indication that either Hutton or Lyell were complete atheists. There's no reason to assume that either of them were, at least as far as I know.
Bolder-dash writes: And sure, I think it would be great to discuss scientific believes and the validity of arguments without first assigning one's religious faith as a criteria for credence; but since every non-evolutionist is swathed by evolutionists with the dismissive cloth of religious faith, I think one has to apply the same level of doubt to the objectivity of anyone who has an opinion about evolution and is atheist. I for one don't care about the religious beliefs of the proponent of any theory. The theories that Lyell and Hutton put forth, as well as Darwin, have been studied and critiqued by members of many different faiths, and the evidence can stand on its own. By the way, would you please consider moving your argument with crashfrog et al, regarding the evidence for evolution to a different thread? I know this thread is already a bit off topic, but your discussion is hardly relevant at all to the subject matter. I don't mean to be rude, but there you go. Thanks! Respectfully, -Meldinoor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes:
Uhm, common descent is the result of evolution, meaning that the evidence for common descent is evidence that evolution occurred. Perhaps I'm missing something here, could you be more clear please? Also, that's not what I asked you about, so, let me try again:
As I suspected, none of you has any evidence at all for your versions of evolution, you only have what you feel is evidence for common descent. No surprise there. Huntard writes:
Bolder-dash writes:
Did you or did you not, in Message 49, when you said this:
Now, if I asked you to show evidence that all life on earth is somehow related, then hey, you might have something there. Did you accidentally recall hearing that? Bolder-dash writes:
Ask for evidence that creationists are ignoring? Well, it is YOU, who has made the accusation that people are ignoring, thosands as you say, so it is incumbent on you to give a few of these examples.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
As I suspected, none of you has any evidence at all for your versions of evolution, you only have what you feel is evidence for common descent. Common descent is our "version" of evolution; the scientific theory of evolution explains the history and diversity of life on Earth as one of common descent, from one original living thing, via the processes of natural selection and random mutation acting in concert. What on Earth do you think we've been talking about this whole time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
CA, I have a different take then you do so sorry that I can't answer your question that you pose. My question goes back to how can he believe that God can raise his Son from the dead but that God couldn't have possibly caused a worldwide flood??? I guess he thinks that it was, and still is, possible for God to do so --- just that as a matter of fact he didn't.
I could give you my opinion, and its the opinion of allot of YEC writers as to why a Hugh Ross believes in OEC and not a literal 6 day creationism, and then as to why he doesn't believe in evolution. It puzzles me too. Why would anyone want to deny evolution except to defend Biblical literalism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
When you say stuff like "As I suspected, none of you has any evidence at all for your versions of evolution, you only have what you feel is evidence for common descent. " it is a clear indication that you are lying to yourself.
"Descent" is evolution. It is your family tree. It is the evolution from the earliest life down to all of us primates living today. To try to pretend that when they give you a link like that that it is not pointing to evidence for evolution is simply false. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3659 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
WTF???
The religious beliefs about the Lyell and Hutton are MORE on topic than a discussion about a the validity of the evolutionary argument, when the entire topic is about trying to disprove this one man's argument against evolution? Are you out of your mind, or just exceedingly rude and shameless to consider me off topic when you are writing reams and reams of paragraphs that are so far off topic that I had to go back and check why you were writing what you were to begin with? Are you just pulling my leg?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4837 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes: exceedingly rude and shameless Dear Bolder-dash, I haven't been rude or shameless to you ONCE yet. So don't tempt me. The discussion that we had going here before you hijacked the thread with the same arguments that you seem to bring up in EVERY thread you take part in, was about Hugh Ross and his reasons for taking a more scientific perspective than YECs. Lyell and Hutton's personal beliefs were a brief tangent discussion that lasted for about two posts. Whereas your discussion on the evidence for evolution has gone on for about half the thread now, and without trying to tie it back to the topic. Start your own topic dealing with the specific aspects of evolutionary theory that you disagree with. Lay out your own arguments against it, and for whatever alternative model you favour. The reasons your previous topic proposals never took off was because you did not delineate your topics, and you didn't put forth an argument in your own words. Try this: do what I suggested. Propose a topic, including your own arguments, and some specific topic delineation about the parts of the TOE you wish to discuss. Put all of that in your OP. If the topic isn't promoted after you have done all that, then I'll join you in criticizing moderation for neglecting your proposals. But don't derail this topic. As always:Respectfully, -Meldinoor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3659 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Correction: The topic was about asking people to refute Hugh Ross's argument about the time necessary for abiogenesis to take place.
The topic is NOT at all about religion, or about people's literal take on the bible. Plus point me to the post where you have addressed this issue and attempted to refute his argument? Secondly, I was RESPONDING to another poster who claimed that by definition, any creationist who disagrees with the theory of evolution is in fact lying (whom you didn't choose to say was off topic)-which is much more pertinent to the topic then ANYTHING you have written about so far. Respectfully. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4837 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes: The topic was about asking people to refute Hugh Ross's argument about the time necessary for abiogenesis to take place. You're right. But that is not what you're talking about either. The discussion we were having was at least about Hugh Ross' reasons to choose a less literal interpretation of scripture. We were still on the topic of Hugh Ross. The difference is that our tangent discussion did not go on for page after page after page. I was actually going to suggest to Flyer75 and whoever else was interested in continuing in the vein of our discussion, that we could start another thread. And I will if the discussion continues. Your discussion has gone on and on and has not tied back to Hugh Ross at all. It would be a courtesy to readers of the thread if you chose to move it to a separate thread. I've posted a simple outline with some suggestions for you if you want to propose a new topic. Hopefully you will consider following my advice. Respectfully, -Meldinoor PS. As I am not a moderator, and our current discussion is a moderation issue, I will not continue to talk about this. Please take my suggestions as the friendly advice that they are and chill out a little. Not everyone who disagrees with you is out to get you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3659 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
My question to you is, WHY with all of the paragraphs and paragraphs being written talking about the bible, and about Peter and Luther and Calvin, and original sin, and oh my, how far does it go...why did you choose to say that it is ME who is off topic.
I suspect that your bias towards seeing me as the one who derailed a topic is not intentional, but simply more evidence of how evolutionists are blinded by their own worldview. I was simply pointing out the fact that if there are arguments, such as Ross's!, that take issue with the status quo arguments about evolution, those people are NOT in fact liars! Frankly, I think it has only been NWR and kbertsche who have tried to answer the topic most directly. EVERYTHING else has been a tangent. I joined this topic because I am waiting to see more people attempt to refute his arguments-other than calling him a liar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
killinghurts Member (Idle past 5022 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
"Bolder-dash" writes: "Well, I can't answer any of your questions, but I know it is in a book. Someone told me" Remarkable; that's exactly what creationists say about the bible. Interesting how many facts us humans take on face value, and so few are ever willing to scratch the surface.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024