Deniars of Evolution:

[Man of Faith]

You do realize that your body came from stardust? In fact everything on this planet and the planet itself came from exploded stars. Stop and think about this for a minute. Even if you read Genesis chapter one as a book of natural history (which no early Christian ever did), you have God making your body from the dust of the earth. You "evolved" as it were, were created, from the material of the ground. So, tell me, Man of Faith, isn't your model saying humans come from dirt? So why is 'dogs coming from non-dogs', such a big leap for you? This is an irrational contradiction on your part. You should be perfectly comfortable with this progression.

I'm just after the truth, I don't necessarily care if I came from monkeys, dogs, mud, dust, startdust, dung, etc... It doesn't matter to me, I just want the truth and the truth isn't always "it's science". What is really being said is "it's naturalism", "its philosophy", "get rid of religion". Science can and has been wrong in the past.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm just after the truth, I don't necessarily care if I came from monkeys, dogs, mud, dust, startdust, dung, etc... It doesn't matter to me, I just want the truth and the truth isn't always "it's science". What is really being said is "it's naturalism", "its philosophy", "get rid of religion". Science can and has been wrong in the past.

A person who understands the sciences and how they work would not answer with "it's science", unless the occasion calls for quickly moving on with the subject at hand, such as explaining how stereoscopic 3D technology works.

Yes, the sciences have been wrong in the past, and can be wrong now. That's fine. They are self-correcting, and any good scientist is well aware that the accepted consensus could be wrong, given new information.

Then again, even Einstein was unable to let go of the notion of an infinite universe, as more and more evidence piled on that it had a beginning. Scientists are only human, after all, hence why the scientific consensus is not dependent on any one scientist.

But you must understand something: the differences between "truth", "fact", and "scientific theory". To put it simply(and to be transparent, I am coming up with this wording kind of on the spot, so feel free to correct me with counter-examples and definitions if any are known about), you get facts from first-hand, falsified experience. You get truth from philosophy. You get scientific theory from the sciences. While there is some overlap between these, they are mostly exclusive to these fields. Therefore, you won't find "truth" from the sciences.

There is a name for the common ancestor between humans and spiders: urbilaterian. It does not exist in the fossil record, and scientists don't really have a clear consensus as to what it was like, or even where/when the divergence occurred.

 

[outhouse]

I'm just after the truth,

Having known you for years. This is very far from the truth.

You have avoided education and knowledge and have been shown facts you purposely ignore.

I don't necessarily care if I came from monkeys, dogs, mud, dust, startdust, dung, etc... It doesn't matter to me,

Yes you do care.

Do you understand the word HONESTY

I just want the truth and the truth isn't always "it's science".

Science does not lie, it only reports what it observes

What is really being said is "it's naturalism", "its philosophy", "get rid of religion".

Not true.

it is just your biased opinion.

Science can and has been wrong in the past.

Thats right.

and unlike religion it corrects itself.


Some aspects of science will never change though.

Round earth
gravity
evolution

will always be factual :yes:

 

[Windwalker]

I'm just after the truth, I don't necessarily care if I came from monkeys, dogs, mud, dust, startdust, dung, etc... It doesn't matter to me, I just want the truth and the truth isn't always "it's science". What is really being said is "it's naturalism", "its philosophy", "get rid of religion". Science can and has been wrong in the past.

I don't believe science has all the answers either! I believe we need more than science to understand the human condition, and that would be in the domains of religion. But when religion tries to do science, it is no longer religion but a fraudulent science. And the sames holds true for science if it claims that religion is unnecessary.

However when science presents you evidence about the natural world and its processes, it would behoove you as a man of faith, to actually listen. Otherwise, I as someone with faith, would say you have no faith at all that it does not seek out knowledge like this. It is fear, not faith.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

People, people...dogs produce dogs.

 

[idav]

People, people...dogs produce dogs.

Its just a label that your way too caught up in. Every single new generation is a variation. What is the "true" genetic sequence of a dog? There is none.

 

[averageJOE]

People, people...dogs produce dogs.

Correct. A dog giving birth to anything other than a dog would disprove evolution.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

People, people...dogs produce dogs.

Your inability or unwillingness to understand ToE no more disproves or nullifies ToE any more than your inability or unwillingness to undertand The Theory of Gravity disproves or nullifies Gravity.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

People, people...dogs produce dogs.

I, for one, would like to congratulate you on this monumental first baby step towards understanding evolution, instead of the straw men you generally seem to post about when evolution is mentioned.
Yes, dogs give birth to dogs.
Yay ToE!

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I, for one, would like to congratulate you on this monumental first baby step towards understanding evolution, instead of the straw men you generally seem to post about when evolution is mentioned.
Yes, dogs give birth to dogs.
Yay ToE!

It really isnt that hard to understand...just think of Transformers...over millions of years.

 

[Bunyip]

You don't believe that they really believe what they are saying? I certainly do, sure they make money, but who doesn't need money or want money to live on. Richard Dawkins makes money off of books and speaking, does that mean he doesn't believe what he is saying?

Correct. I know that they do not believe what they are saying. Take Ray Comfort for example, he has been discussing evolution for about 30 years and in that time it is not possible for an honest man to have failed to grasp what evolution really is. For him to repeat the same strawman misrepresentations of the basic science 30 years later can only be a deliberate attempt to decieve people - I simply do not believeit to be possible for him to function as an adult and be that stupid.

Any person who tells you that evolution is not a proven fact is either lying or has been conned. It is not about money - it is about a deliberate and widescale fraud intended to subvert the US education system. You can prove that to yourself just by looking up the 'Wedge Strategy' - which was the manifesto of the Discovery Institute. It details a deliberate plot to undermine science education and demonise scientists, materialism and logic itself.

 

[Riverwolf]

It really isnt that hard to understand...just think of Transformers...over millions of years.

Actually, you'd do well to put Transformers out of your mind 100% when discussing evolution. The Transformers are individuals. Individuals don't evolve; at best they mutate.

But I ask you this: what, exactly, constitutes a dog?

 

[Riverwolf]

Correct. I know that they do not believe what they are saying. Take Ray Comfort for example, he has been discussing evolution for about 30 years and in that time it is not possible for an honest man to have failed to grasp what evolution really is. For him to repeat the same strawman misrepresentations of the basic science 30 years later can only be a deliberate attempt to decieve people - I simply do not believeit to be possible for him to function as an adult and be that stupid.

I'm afraid that's simply not true. Functioning as an adult has nothing to do with what factoids a person knows; it's about whether or not a person can navigate the culture such that basic needs are met. Whether or not an individual accepts evolution or not has no bearing on his or her ability to live adequately in this culture.

NEVER underestimate the limits of human stubbornness, and don't mistake recollection of factoids for intelligence. Einstein himself similarly refused to accept the fact that the measurable Universe is not, in fact, eternal.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm afraid that's simply not true. Functioning as an adult has nothing to do with what factoids a person knows; it's about whether or not a person can navigate the culture such that basic needs are met. Whether or not an individual accepts evolution or not has no bearing on his or her ability to live adequately in this culture.

NEVER underestimate the limits of human stubbornness, and don't mistake recollection of factoids for intelligence. Einstein himself similarly refused to accept the fact that the measurable Universe is not, in fact, eternal.

Comfort can not have debated evolution for 30 years and not have a pretty sound idea of what biologists take it to mean. I have seen a dozen different debaters carefully explain to him what evolution is - and yet at every new debate he pretends not to know and feigns ignorance. I can accept that a person can cling stubbornly to a belief - but he can not honestly claim not to know what scientists think evolution is.

I do not accept the creationist definition of evolution, but I know what it is.

I remember an atheist Comfort had debated saying that his greatest skill was pretending to be ignorant.

 

[Riverwolf]

Comfort can not have debated evolution for 30 years and not have a pretty sound idea of what biologists take it to mean.

Why not? Our ability to retain knowledge is dependent on whether or not we're receptive to it.

 

[Thief]

A have a couple brothers who are theists. In the past, they have baited and engaged me in Evolution v. Creation debates. They have finally given up. With one of my brothers, I provided evidence so compelling that the next time we had contact, he seemed upset.

I advised him: "You are a Christian. Your faith is supposed to be based on the forgiveness of sins by the sacrifice of Christ. If you are basing your entire spiritual faith on Genesis, then you are placing your faith in the wrong place; don't you think?"

Why do you work so hard at attacking this science?

Your brother might buy into the congregational head nodding.....I don't.

Evolution is real enough.
God did it.

(and is likely still doing so)

 

[Bunyip]

Why not? Our ability to retain knowledge is dependent on whether or not we're receptive to it.

I guess we must agree to disagree. In a debate I would at least want to know what my opponants position is. To understand what your opponants definition of a crucial term is not to agree with it, it is just what is necessary to have a meaningful debate instead of a sermon.

 

[Riverwolf]

I guess we must agree to disagree. In a debate I would at least want to know what my opponants position is. To understand what your opponants definition of a crucial term is not to agree with it, it is just what is necessary to have a meaningful debate instead of a sermon.

I know.

We can make that agreement, but I just understand that people are perfectly capable of this sort of persistent, stubborn misunderstanding because of whatever reason, perhaps some kind of learning disorder.

 

[Bunyip]

I know.

We can make that agreement, but I just understand that people are perfectly capable of this sort of persistent, stubborn misunderstanding because of whatever reason, perhaps some kind of learning disorder.

Sure, I respect your opinion.

I have training in interview and interrogation techniques, and to me that Hovind, Comfort, Ham are deliberately lying does look very clear. People respond and behave in a certain fashion when telling lies and the reliability of such traits is pretty soundly established.

Comfort is a grand master at pretending not to understand simple concepts, he is also clearly quite intelligent.

 

[idav]

Your brother might buy into the congregational head nodding.....I don't.

Evolution is real enough.
God did it.

(and is likely still doing so)

So why only allow certain apes and parrots to talk I wonder? This evolution is clever but it took it billions of years to learn. Not intelligently either but through trial and error with learning capability.