Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 159 (8126 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-18-2014 3:43 PM
113 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: taiji2
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Happy Birthday: Spiritual Anarchist
Post Volume:
Total: 736,183 Year: 22,024/28,606 Month: 1,111/1,410 Week: 313/524 Day: 16/61 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   Hugh Ross
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 61 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 61 of 90 (570179)
07-26-2010 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Meldinoor
07-26-2010 3:48 AM


Re: The reliability of wiki
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 3:48 AM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 4:27 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 65 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 4:34 AM Bolder-dash has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 90 (570180)
07-26-2010 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 4:09 AM


Re: thats some lie
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 4:09 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 90 (570181)
07-26-2010 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 4:25 AM


Re: The reliability of wiki
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 4:25 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 61 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 64 of 90 (570182)
07-26-2010 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Huntard
07-26-2010 4:21 AM


Re: thats some lie
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Huntard, posted 07-26-2010 4:21 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Huntard, posted 07-26-2010 4:39 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2010 4:55 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 69 by jar, posted 07-26-2010 8:52 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 65 of 90 (570183)
07-26-2010 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 4:25 AM


Re: The reliability of wiki
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 4:25 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 7:55 PM Meldinoor has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 127 days)
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 66 of 90 (570184)
07-26-2010 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 4:30 AM


Re: thats some lie
Bolder-dash writes:

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.


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:

Huntard writes:


Bolder-dash writes:

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?


Did you or did you not, in Message 49, when you said this:

Bolder-dash writes:

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.


Ask for evidence that creationists are ignoring?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 4:30 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 90 (570185)
07-26-2010 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 4:30 AM


Re: thats some lie
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 4:30 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12743
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 68 of 90 (570193)
07-26-2010 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Flyer75
07-24-2010 9:39 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Flyer75, posted 07-24-2010 9:39 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24664
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 69 of 90 (570205)
07-26-2010 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 4:30 AM


Re: thats some lie
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!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 4:30 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 61 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 70 of 90 (570257)
07-26-2010 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Meldinoor
07-26-2010 4:34 AM


Re: The reliability of wiki
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 4:34 AM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 11:28 PM Bolder-dash has responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 71 of 90 (570281)
07-26-2010 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 7:55 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 7:55 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 11:45 PM Meldinoor has responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 61 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 72 of 90 (570283)
07-26-2010 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Meldinoor
07-26-2010 11:28 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 11:28 PM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 11:55 PM Bolder-dash has responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 73 of 90 (570288)
07-26-2010 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 11:45 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 11:45 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 12:06 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 61 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 74 of 90 (570289)
07-27-2010 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Meldinoor
07-26-2010 11:55 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 11:55 PM Meldinoor has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by dwise1, posted 07-27-2010 2:23 AM Bolder-dash has responded

  
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 1424 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 75 of 90 (570298)
07-27-2010 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 3:40 AM


Re: thats some lie
"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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 3:40 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014