|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,421 Year: 3,678/9,624 Month: 549/974 Week: 162/276 Day: 2/34 Hour: 2/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 28 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Menton even gets his own entry in Encyclopedia of American Loons
Here is a quote from the unesteemed Dr.
quote: Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
LOL.
They should actually have steps in loonieness. Four of them. They should have a few websites going from 'Loons'. Then another one: 'More Loonier'. Thn another one 'Most Looniest'. Then, the ultimate,called: 'Most Dentonist'. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Then I think that is not the example you should have used to prove that we have observed macro evolution. You chose that example. Did you even read the rest of my post? If macroevolution is true, then gulls should remain gulls. That's the whole point. The common ancestor of all mammals, including us, was just a single species at one point. All of the mammal species that have evolved from that common ancestor, from platypusses to kangaroos to us, are all STILL MAMMALS. We are still mammals after hundreds of millions of years of evolution from that common ancestral mammal.
I mean it is not fair to point to changes in dogs, for example, and argue that we observe evolution therefore apes gradually gave birth to humans. Why isn't it fair?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I don't think we have observed the kind of macro evolution that allows gulls to change drastically enough to arrive at a new species. Incipient speciation is exactly what we observe. The gull ring species is in the process of speciating. Where the two ends of the ring species meet up there is no interbreeding meaning that they are different species. That is macroevolution.
The fruit flies remained fruit flies. The bacteria remained bacteria. The gulls remained gulls. The finches remained finches. The common ancestor of chimps and humans was a primate. We remain primates. The common ancestor of zebras and humans was a mammal. We remain mammals. The common ancestor of trout and humans was a jawed vertebrate. We remain jawed vertebrates. Are you saying that evolving from those common ancestors is not macroevolution because we are still what those common ancestors were?
I don't think posters here are stupid. I think some are deceived. So says the person passing on lies from creationist sites.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Pressie, So you have slandered two Phds. so far in my count - Menton and Ross. You may be looking for what dirt you can dig up on Gary Habermas too ? Let me guess, whoever I mention you will dismiss as lying frauds ? I don't regard this kind of character assassination as much more than cheerleading propoganda.
So says the person who decided that he will not listen to anything Russell says because he cheated on his wife. You need to wipe up those crocodile tears. Having a PhD does not make you infallible. You need to deal with the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Then I wonder how he would have fit it into his observation that man cannot on his own find out what God has done from the beginning - That about sums it up, doesn't it? No matter what evidence we present you will stick to your religious dogmas.
Though they knew nothing about the big bang they also knew nothing about the fine tuning and the astounding anthropological like constants that were in place to make life possible in the universe. What is so stunning about intelligent life emerging in a universe capable of producing intelligent life? The Weak Anthropic Principle is just that, weak.
The fine tuning of the constants permitting life and man to exist since the creation event, argue for purposefulness. Where did you show that anything has been tuned by a deity.
As for myths, I think you should turn some of the skepticism towards your own ideas . . . Another irony meter explodes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
That about sums it up, doesn't it? No matter what evidence we present you will stick to your religious dogmas. Sums up that some truth if not revealed to us by God's revelation, we could not find out. In the context of the whole of the Bible, I think that is what it sums up. Dogmas are not necessarily wrong simply because they are dogmas.
jaywill: Though they knew nothing about the big bang they also knew nothing about the fine tuning and the astounding anthropological like constants that were in place to make life possible in the universe. taq:What is so stunning about intelligent life emerging in a universe capable of producing intelligent life? The Weak Anthropic Principle is just that, weak. Former world renown Atheist Anthony Flew decided to change his mind on the belief in design behind the universe. I think God must have some sense of humor. Dr. Flew flew the coup of naturalistic atheism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbyTwmaJArU No, I didn't say he was now an evangelical thiest in case that was next from you.
The fine tuning of the constants permitting life and man to exist since the creation event, argue for purposefulness. Where did you show that anything has been tuned by a deity. I didn't submit it as proof. I submit as evidence we are on the right track to consider a Creator. I know you can ad infinitum imagine an alternative to Deity. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Having a PhD does not make you infallible The Obvious Statement Meter explodes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
No matter what evidence we present you will stick to your religious dogmas. If you want to present convincing evidence of "observed" macro evolution to me the gulls were not good enough. Now on "religious dogmas". If there is a God that God is not the God of religion but the God of reality. Like the law of gravity - if it is a law then it is not just so in the physics laboratory. Its a law everywhere. I don't know of a "religious" God. If there is a God then that is not religion's God but reality's God. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Jaywill writes: If you want to present convincing evidence of "observed" macro evolution to me the gulls were not good enough. Nothing that biologists describe as evolution will be good enough evidence for you. There's three reasons for that: 1. You require evolution to be magic, turning dogs into horses - or whatever. 2. Your entrenched beliefs won't allow you 3. saying this reason would get me bannedLife, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Sums up that some truth if not revealed to us by God's revelation, we could not find out. And yet you aren't pointing to God. You are pointing to the Bible.
Dogmas are not necessarily wrong simply because they are dogmas. The problem is that the person who adheres to the dogma will never know if they are wrong.
Former world renown Atheist Anthony Flew decided to change his mind on the belief in design behind the universe. If I find someone who was a christian and became an atheist, would that convince you?
I didn't submit it as proof. I submit as evidence we are on the right track to consider a Creator. How so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
If you want to present convincing evidence of "observed" macro evolution to me the gulls were not good enough. As you have already shown, no evidence is good enough. We have the transitional fossils, and yet you run away from them.
If there is a God that God is not the God of religion but the God of reality. If there is a Leprechaun, that Leprechaun is not the Leprechaun of religion, but the Leprechaun of reality. Does that argument convince you that Leprechauns are real? If not, why would you think it is a convincing argument for God?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Incipient speciation is exactly what we observe. The gull ring species is in the process of speciating. Where the two ends of the ring species meet up there is no interbreeding meaning that they are different species. That is macroevolution. That seems significant to look into. And I will.
jaywill: The fruit flies remained fruit flies. The bacteria remained bacteria. The gulls remained gulls. The finches remained finches. taq:The common ancestor of chimps and humans was a primate. We remain primates. The common ancestor of zebras and humans was a mammal. We remain mammals. The common ancestor of trout and humans was a jawed vertebrate. We remain jawed vertebrates. Are you saying that evolving from those common ancestors is not macroevolution because we are still what those common ancestors were? On this basis you make macro evolution just about impossible to falsify.The statements amounts to saying that variety itself in living organisms proves macro evolution took place. A relationship of descent between trouts and humans based on both being jawed vertebrates is not the only interpretation one has to give to that factor. Another interpretation of the data is that there was a common design factors. It works well. And someone wants us to appreciate the sense and logic of re-employing a design that works well. I know you would like to rule that out a priori. But in the search form truth I will not rule that possibility out. Maybe you feel you have to rule that out. Kind of like - "There couldn't be a designing agent because that would violate the seperation of church and state !" But in the search for truth, I feel to include that possibility. If someone passes up a Nobel Prize in Biology for believing that, that is okay with me. If it is true then someone else can get the glory of a Nobel Prize for Biology ruling out intelligent design a priori. More power to them. I'll take the truth, if that is truly what we are seeing there. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Taq,
Concering ring species of gulls which would not interbreed,
quote: From ScienceNetlinks - Science NetLinks | American Association for the Advancement of Science [my bolding] 1.) Is the failure to interbreed an absolute characteristic of different species ? 2.) What were the reasons the two kinds of gulls in the "ring species" would not interbreed ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
faitheist Junior Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 28 From: Australia Joined: |
Do you think that Eternal Damnation helps to steer some toward a particular truth?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024