Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
So no, you can't, and your claim was baseless. Understood.
edit: hey, a second ago weren't you complaining no one wants a debate?
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The rEvolving Doorway
- Thread starter Earthling
- Start date
edit: hey, a second ago weren't you complaining no one wants a debate?
Earthling
David Henson
No, it isn't, unless you present those changing doctrines as fact today and then they change tomorrow. Like the Watchtower. There's nothing wrong with learning, with knowledge increasing, improving, correcting . . . there is something wrong with insisting those teachings are fact knowing they will change.
Nonsense.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
It totally does. 1 Kings 7:23 ,see for yourself.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Can you give any specific examples of evolutionary theory changing in the way you describe?
So you can provide examples of the basic foundations of evolution having changed since Darwin, then?
Interesting. When i do that, I find that questions that were unanswered then have been answered. I find that the basic principles are the same. I find that the overall picture is the same. I find some details different, but I expect that.
What do *you* find?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Well that's weird, given that there are thousands of different Christian denominations in existence. Why the need for that if you all agree with each other on everything? You don't agree with the Westboro Baptist Church's teachings, do you?
Something else you declare as fact which obviously is not. You're not very good at this. I'm seriously wondering if you're a poe.
Audie
Veteran Member
Getting mighty hot in the courtroom, D88.!
You cant win them, all everybody's got to lose sometimes.
Will he fold, or will he run?
Oh, I also find that debates that were hot previously have been resolved because of new evidence. I find that things people speculated about are now known one way or another.
So, for example, when I look at physics texts from 1988, I find that they have almost identical information at the lower levels. At the upper levels, things that were uncertain then are now resolved. For example, in 1988, there was a HUGE question concerning solar neutrinos and why we see so few of them. That issue has now been resolved (neutrinos have a small mass which allows them to convert between the three types). If I look at astronomy, in 1988 we knew of no planets around sun-like stars, so many aspects of planet formation were unknown and speculative. Now, we know of thousands of other planets and those questions have been resolved.
If I look at evolution, the last tail of the debate about Punctuated Equilibrium and its role was still going on. That has mostly been resolved. There were questions about the evolution of birds that have now been resolved. We know more details about the evolution of great apes and humans than we did then: many of the debates then have been resolved.
Now, if you asked today whether there are planets around another star, you might well be laughed at when that would have been a live question in 1988. That's what happens when answers are found. If you asked in 1988 whether relatives T Rex had feathers, that might also have been laughed at: no evidence was known for such. Now it is known through fossil evidence.
Science *always* has open questions. For those questions, there is always a lot of speculation. But the parts of science that are *known* grow and those speculations are determined to be either correct or not after new evidence is found.
/E: But I'd also point out that in 1988, Fermat's Last Theorem was still an open problem in math. The Poincare conjecture was still not resolved. So even mathematics has changed in the last 30 years. NOT by throwing out the old ideas, but by finding new information and refining them into the new ideas.
Last edited:
Well, I can say it *isn't* simply saying 'nonsense' when you disagree with an answer. It *isn't* refusing to actually support your position. It *isn't* saying all science is 'wrong' and then refusing to justify that charge.
Is it possible the reason you haven't seen real debate is that you refuse to engage in such?
Earthling
David Henson
Like The Big Bang? Originally a few light years across, 1965 down to 275 million miles, in 1972 down to 71 million miles, in 1974 down to 54 thousand miles, 1983 down to a trillionth the diameter of a proton, and now it's nothing at all.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What? No, you seem to be pulling those numbers out of your hat and you have no understanding at all of what is thought today.
This might help:
Audie
Veteran Member
Hey, he is just trying to lead by example, showing us
what a real debate looks like!
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
The first part is true, i.e., that no matter what evidence is presented to creationists, they will not change their minds. But the second part is false; the reason for creationist intransigence is the role their religious beliefs play in their lives. If they were to change their minds and concede that the conclusions of evolutionary biology are accurate, they would have to significantly change their religious beliefs. That's no small task. That puts all sorts of things at risk, such as their emotional well-being, sense of self, sense of purpose, and even their social standing.
It's far safer from an emotional standpoint to just deny, deny, deny, and then eventually dodge and run away.
Last edited:
Ignorance of the blessed! The Tanakh is simply the Hebrew Old Testament.
Audie
Veteran Member
I think it is more extreme than that in the present case.
Well, the others too.
I think their entire construct of reality and their place
in it would be utterly shattered.
The creationists are very rigid in their thinking
Hard, and brittle. Cannot bend, must resist till the
end, when it shatters, if they dont look out.
In there is their self importance, the belief that they
are chosen "of" the lord, gifted with infallible
bible-readin. Incapable of being wrong on anything.
Who can even imagine what would happen if
something ever really got through to them.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Yup. One creationist here specifically told me that even compromising on evolution would lead to her losing all purpose and meaning to her life. That's why I always keep in mind.....never, ever underestimate the psychological factors at play when talking with creationists.
Again . . .
Need clarification on what you mean by 'answers may change tomorrow? Is change in scientific knowledge over time in some way bad?
The basic foundation of evolution has not changed since Charles Darwin. The only thing that has changed is the amount of increasing evidence supporting evidence evolution, and correcting older conclusions based on new evidence. This is the process of all the sciences.
Nothing to do with evolution. Actual your assessment is totally inaccurate concerning the evolution of the hypothesis' of the Big Bang.
Then again, it is true that the knowledge of evolution and cosmology change over time in a positive way resulting in the increase in knowledg. This a given in all sciences. You still have not presented a coherent reason why in the advancement of knowledge change is bad. Modern medicine, computers, and aviation are the result in the changes in science.
Earthling
David Henson
Because I never said change is bad I said it was good. Repeatedly. Unless, I said, it is presented as solid fact. Solid facts don't change. There's no point in saying the is no evidence for God when evidence is all around you, but the acceptance of it is subjective. Just as there is no point in saying there is evidence of evolution when you have to make it all up. Which you do. Make it all up.