Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 6:32 PM
16 online now:
Phat (AdminPhat), Taq, Theodoric (3 members, 13 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,791 Year: 4,828/19,786 Month: 950/873 Week: 306/376 Day: 99/57 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   Bible accepts evolution
platypus
Member (Idle past 3857 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 61 of 80 (371723)
12-22-2006 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by 4Pillars
12-22-2006 7:02 PM


RE: Scripture and True Science
I won't respond to this, except to point out that your statement is wrong. Evidence at the genetic level strongly favors "macroevolution," as you refer to it. But a discussion of that evidence is off-topic. I have all ready given you two links which point to discussions about those issues. Bring up your points in the appropriate thread, or start a new one, and I will respond to them.

Ringo, I was refering to your latest parley with pillars, about whether the Bible recognizes any sort of science. But hey, you seem to be more of a Bible-expert than myself, go ahead and talk about any Bible passages which may point to an evolutionary/scientific standpoint. Or whether those passages even exist. I'm honestly curious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by 4Pillars, posted 12-22-2006 7:02 PM 4Pillars has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by 4Pillars, posted 12-22-2006 8:36 PM platypus has not yet responded

    
4Pillars
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 80 (371728)
12-22-2006 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by platypus
12-22-2006 7:38 PM


RE: Scripture and True Science
Platypus wrote:
quote:
Ringo, I was refering to your latest parley with pillars, about whether the Bible recognizes any sort of science. But hey, you seem to be more of a Bible-expert than myself, go ahead and talk about any Bible passages which may point to an evolutionary/scientific standpoint. Or whether those passages even exist. I'm honestly curious.

Why don't you re-read the Bible yourself especially Genesis 1 & 2?

Perhaps, it might enlighten you, if you pray for wisdom and understanding.

Or perhaps, you're just asking so that you can use it and promote your Evol Religion, would that be a fair assessment?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by platypus, posted 12-22-2006 7:38 PM platypus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 12-22-2006 8:48 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded
 Message 76 by ReverendDG, posted 12-24-2006 2:48 AM 4Pillars has not yet responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3624 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 63 of 80 (371729)
12-22-2006 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by 4Pillars
12-21-2006 3:17 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution is a Lie
It is classic equivocation by evolutionists to mean macroevolution when they speak of evolution, but turn to microevolution when asked for evidence.

Since you haven`t given us a workable definition (or anybodyelse in these fora, that I`m aware of, for that matter) of macro-evolution, micro-evolution, or what`s the difference between them, I`m forced to chalenge your call of equivocation as invalid.

As far as I can see, the macro/micro-evolution is just a meaningless catchy phrase invented (or missrepresented) by creationists in order to distract people`s attention away from the fact that they do not have a single real argumment against the theory of evolution per si except for a feeling of uneasines which by itself amounts to nothing more then personal prejudice against that theory and, by extention, to science in general.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 3:17 PM 4Pillars has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by 4Pillars, posted 12-22-2006 9:10 PM fallacycop has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 64 of 80 (371731)
12-22-2006 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by 4Pillars
12-22-2006 8:36 PM


RE: Scripture and True Science
Why don't you re-read the Bible yourself especially Genesis 1 & 2?

What you will find is that the two myths are mutually exclusive, that the two GODs described are totally different, that the God pictured in Genesis 2 is somewhat of a bumbler and idiot at times and that the creation tales included in the two myths have been totally refuted.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by 4Pillars, posted 12-22-2006 8:36 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

  
4Pillars
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 80 (371740)
12-22-2006 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by fallacycop
12-22-2006 8:38 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution is a Lie
quote:
Since you haven`t given us a workable definition (or anybodyelse in these fora, that I`m aware of, for that matter) of macro-evolution, micro-evolution, or what`s the difference between them, I`m forced to chalenge your call of equivocation as invalid.
As far as I can see, the macro/micro-evolution is just a meaningless catchy phrase invented (or missrepresented) by creationists in order to distract people`s attention away from the fact that they do not have a single real argumment against the theory of evolution per si except for a feeling of uneasines which by itself amounts to nothing more then personal prejudice against that theory and, by extention, to science in general.

Read post # 59 , then come back to me when you have a better understanding of it.

Next time, clarify first, before opening your mouth making unsupported assertion.

Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.

Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.

Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by fallacycop, posted 12-22-2006 8:38 PM fallacycop has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 12-22-2006 9:24 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded
 Message 67 by Straggler, posted 12-22-2006 9:28 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded
 Message 68 by fallacycop, posted 12-22-2006 9:43 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

  
alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 2392 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 66 of 80 (371742)
12-22-2006 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by 4Pillars
12-22-2006 9:10 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution is a Lie
4pillars writes:

Read post # 57 , then come back to me when you have a better understanding of it.

Before you take a condescending attitude with someone you may want to list the right message RE: Scripture and True Science(msg 57) is a post by ringo.


Look to this day, For yesterday is already a dream. And tomorrow only a vision. But today We lived, makes every Yesterday a dream of Happiness and every tomorrow A vision of hope. Look well there to This day.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by 4Pillars, posted 12-22-2006 9:10 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 67 of 80 (371744)
12-22-2006 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by 4Pillars
12-22-2006 9:10 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution is a Lie
You really do have quite an unfortunate manner about you. Why so hostile and abusive? It really is not necessary.

If you have any specific biblical quotations that support your assertions about the bible supporting whatever sort of evolution it is you do accept now would be a good time to share them with the rest of us.
If all you are going to do is be abusive, tell people to read the bible and then agree with you or shutup then there is little point in you participating further.

It is my view that interpreting the bible or any other mythology with the benefit of modern science behind you in order to demonstrate that the text in question has somehow been proved correct is fairly pointless.
It is claimed that the Koran is consistent with Big Bang theory and now it is claimed here that the bible is consistent with evolutionary theory.
Neither scientific position was ever going to be deduced by Ismaic clerics or biblical scholars without some help from Darwin, Einstein et al.
Merely interpreting poetic verse in the light of scientific understanding proved nothing. It is no different to reading Nostradamus adding in some wild and highly subjective interpretation and analysis and concluding that he had the power of foresight.

The OP would suggest that selective breeding was known to the author of the passgage. Nothing else. Apparently selective breeding of horses and other animals was practiced by both the Greeks and the Egyptians so that really does not prove anything at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by 4Pillars, posted 12-22-2006 9:10 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3624 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 68 of 80 (371747)
12-22-2006 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by 4Pillars
12-22-2006 9:10 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution is a Lie
Read post # 59 , then come back to me when you have a better understanding of it.

Since there is nothing in post # 59 that amounts to a workable definition of macro/micro-evolution, my statements in post # 63 stand. (All you did in post 59 was to use the terms macro/micro without given a proper definition)

Next time, clarify first, before opening your mouth making unsupported assertion.

Next time actually do your homework instead of just declaring it done.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by 4Pillars, posted 12-22-2006 9:10 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1035 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 69 of 80 (371779)
12-23-2006 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by 4Pillars
12-21-2006 4:52 PM


Re: Illogical Assumption
Deleted repeat post

Edited by Lithodid-Man, : Hit submit instead of preview. Real post below


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 4:52 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

    
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1035 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 70 of 80 (371780)
12-23-2006 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by 4Pillars
12-21-2006 4:52 PM


Re: Illogical Assumption
Hey 4Pillars,

It is my understanding that just cutting and pasting from other websites is against forum rules. But more important than that is thievery and bad scholarship, some creos are really familiar with here and on other sites. Remember 'Dogs breeding dogs?' an article on AiG by Don Batten? You should since you outright stole at least three paragraphs from that and presented them as your own. Here is a section from that essay:

Don Batten writes:

New 'species' can and have formed, if by definition we mean something which cannot breed with other species of the same genus, but this is not evidence for evolution. The new species have no new genetic information! For example, a 'new species' has arisen in Drosophila, the ferment fly so popular in undergraduate genetics laboratories. The new 'species' cannot breed with the parent species but is fertile with its own type, so it is, by definition, a new 'species'. However, there is no new genetic information, just the physical rearrangement of the genes on one chromosome — technically called a 'chromosome translocation'

To get evolution 'from bacteria to Bach' requires incredible amounts of new information to be added. Typical bacteria have about 2,000 proteins; a human has about 100,000. At every upward step of evolution there needs to be new information added. Where does it come from? Not from mutations — they degrade information.

Carl Sagan, ardent evolutionist, admitted: '... mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful—it is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.'

I am remembering your post where you claim www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=31&t=66&m=16#28 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=31&t=66&m=16#28">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=31&t=66&m=16#28:

4pillars writes:

New 'species' can and have formed, if by definition we mean something which cannot breed with other species of the same genus, but this is not evidence for evolution. The new species have no new genetic information! For example, a 'new species' has arisen in Drosophila, the ferment fly so popular in undergraduate genetics laboratories. The new 'species' cannot breed with the parent species but is fertile with its own type, so it is, by definition, a new 'species'. However, there is no new genetic information, just the physical rearrangement of the genes on one chromosome — technically called a 'chromosome translocation'

Is the similarity a coincidence? What about this one www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=31&t=66&m=16#21 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=31&t=66&m=16#21">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=31&t=66&m=16#21:

4pillars writes:

To get evolution 'from bacteria to Bach' requires incredible amounts of new information to be added. Typical bacteria have about 2,000 proteins; a human has about 100,000. At every upward step of evolution there needs to be new information added. Where does it come from? Not from mutations — they degrade information.
Carl Sagan, ardent evolutionist, admitted: '... mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful—it is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.' (Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1977, p. 28.) (Source)


I am a college professor and would fail you without qualm for that kind of academic dishonesty. Apparently lying for Jesus is okay. Again same as usual for you guys. For a response I want you to tell me about the book "Implications about evolution" Since you cited it I assume you have it? Remember message www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=31&t=66&m=46#59 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=31&t=66&m=46#59">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=31&t=66&m=46#59 ?
I happen to have that ref as well so feel free to discuss it with me unless you have again just C&P'd from another creo lying webpage.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 4:52 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 80 (371787)
12-23-2006 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by 4Pillars
12-21-2006 4:52 PM


Re: Illogical Assumption
To get evolution 'from bacteria to Bach' requires incredible amounts of new information to be added. Typical bacteria have about 2,000 proteins; a human has about 100,000. At every upward step of evolution there needs to be new information added. Where does it come from? Not from mutations — they degrade information.

What evidence do you have that shows evolution requires an addition of information, and what evidence do you have to show that (if such addition IS required) the additional information cannot come from somewhere? Define how you use information in this post.

Let's look at a way that we can increase the number of proteins and at the same time increase their variety. Pretend we have a starting protein based on the following genetic sequence (I use numbers because they are closer together and require less typing from my lazy hands ;))

123124123123

Makes 20 copies of itself in a new organism =
20 × (123124123123)

It screws up: (124124123123) It goes and makes 20 copies. We now have something over forty copies of two different things.

Do you see how, with the insanely long strands of genetic code, you can end up with so many different living things.

Next, not ALL mutations are bad! Many are, yes. But those that are beneficial, or "aren't" bad, probably wouldn't be seen by you as mutations.

So, where do you have a problem with what I've said above? Tell me, in your own words, with your own know-how.

I am thirsty and can't breathe right now... damn mutations... so I'm gonna leave you to think of that. You probably have enough on your plate with just what the other (more knowledgable) posters have thrown your way!

J0N


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 4:52 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 72 of 80 (371896)
12-23-2006 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by platypus
12-11-2006 2:27 AM


Circular Premise
I have just re-read the OP and have come to the conclusion that the whole premise of this post is redundent.

The first example given shows only that selective breeding was a known phenomenon. This was practiced by the Greeks and the Egyptions so it is hardly surprising that this was known to those writing and compiling the bible.

The second example very much relies on interpreting the passage in question with the benefit of evolutionary/genetic knowledge. It is hardly surprising that interpreted in such a way as to be consistent with current scientific knowledge that we should find current scientific knowledge to be consistent with this interpretation. The conclusion relies on the premise and vice versa. In other word it is a circular argument.

Or am I missing something........?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by platypus, posted 12-11-2006 2:27 AM platypus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by fallacycop, posted 12-23-2006 10:52 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3624 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 73 of 80 (371907)
12-23-2006 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Straggler
12-23-2006 9:02 PM


Re: Circular Premise
The second example very much relies on interpreting the passage in question with the benefit of evolutionary/genetic knowledge. It is hardly surprising that interpreted in such a way as to be consistent with current scientific knowledge that we should find current scientific knowledge to be consistent with this interpretation. The conclusion relies on the premise and vice versa. In other word it is a circular argument.

The moral here is not that the bible is necessarily consistent with evolution theory, but that it can be interpreted that way if someone choose to do so.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Straggler, posted 12-23-2006 9:02 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 74 of 80 (371924)
12-24-2006 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by platypus
12-11-2006 2:27 AM


Both of those passages had little to do science but were illustrations for a broader claim or story.

If these are the examples in her book it would probably be a waste of a read.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by platypus, posted 12-11-2006 2:27 AM platypus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Phat, posted 12-24-2006 2:13 AM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12240
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 75 of 80 (371926)
12-24-2006 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by joshua221
12-24-2006 2:03 AM


Paging Charles
Charlie come to chat
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by joshua221, posted 12-24-2006 2:03 AM joshua221 has not yet responded

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


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019