1. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    28 May '11 15:38
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The definition of evolution keeps changing over time and has
    different meanings depending on who is using it and in what
    context it is being used. They now have microevolution and
    macroevolution to confuse the issue. So the degree of change
    and how the change takes place is always the issue. If everyone
    who says they believe in evolution could agree ...[text shortened]... ange can be explained in some other term, since the term "evolution"
    can be so misleading.
    “...They now have microevolution and
    macroevolution to confuse the issue ...”

    it is only “confusing” to those with insufficient intelligence to understand such clear definition.

    The definition of biological evolution hasn't changed much since Darwin's time.

    “...What was once called adaptation is now considered evolution to many. ...”

    if it is an adaptation through mutation then that IS evolution dummy. What do you claim is the difference?

    “...The same goes for mutations, if it is believed to be of some benefit to
    an organism. ...”

    do you deny that a mutation can be beneficial? -the fact that most aren’t is irrelevant because “most” does not equate with “all”.
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    28 May '11 15:48
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    “...They now have microevolution and
    macroevolution to confuse the issue ...”

    it is only “confusing” to those with insufficient intelligence to understand such clear definition.

    The definition of biological evolution hasn't changed much since Darwin's time.

    “...What was once called adaptation is now considered evolution to many. ... ...[text shortened]... eneficial? -the fact that most aren’t is irrelevant because “most” does not equate with “all”.
    A perfect example of what I mean. I rest my case.
    Let the jury decide.
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    28 May '11 16:04
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    What is your definition of 'naturalism'?

    Are you saying they find meaning in evolution outside of religious dogma? I think the religious set demands atheism to not have meaning in life, something I find abhorrent, disingenuous and arrogant to boot. And I don't even claim to be atheist.
    There is an old saying by soldiers, "You can't find atheist in foxholes".
  4. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    28 May '11 16:23
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    A perfect example of what I mean. I rest my case.
    Let the jury decide.
    I have just contradicted your claims -so its “ A perfect example” of what?
  5. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    28 May '11 16:24
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    There is an old saying by soldiers, "You can't find atheist in foxholes".
    -yes, and what it says is false.
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    28 May '11 16:41
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    -yes, and what it says is false.
    Atheist don't see any problem with lying since they
    believe there is no God to answer to. But they are
    wrong.
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    28 May '11 18:06
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Atheist don't see any problem with lying since they
    believe there is no God to answer to. But they are
    wrong.
    Atheists decide whether to lie or not based on their own conscience. Theists decide whether to lie or not based on whether they think they can get away with it eg buy their way out of it through faith etc.
    In my experience atheist do not, on average, lie more than theists. I also think the amount people actually lie has more to do with how they were brought up than their religion, though it is clearly a combination of both factors.
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    28 May '11 18:29
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I didn't see anything new in the full post, you want to spell out what it is I
    missed?
    Kelly
    You are changing the argument from death anxiety to a condemnation of evolution.
  9. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157807
    28 May '11 18:49
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    You are changing the argument from death anxiety to a condemnation of evolution.
    I cannot help it if I say something and other people ask questions that do
    in deed change the topic. I don't think you will get into to many discussions
    that, that does not happen.
    Kelly
  10. Subscriberjosephw
    Owner
    Scoffer Mocker
    Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9958
    29 May '11 02:071 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    Thank you for this information about your personal hopes and speculations. You remind me of a poster called Dasa.
    FMF says:

    "Death anxiety is felt by many of the living precisely because no one has ever died and then subsequently shared the tale with the living. What's there to fear? Answer: the unknown."

    Thank you for this information about your personal beliefs and speculations.
    You remind me of many other posters in this forum. 😕
  11. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    30 May '11 05:04
    Originally posted by josephw
    Thank you for this information about your personal beliefs and speculations.
    For me to contend that we die is certainly not a speculation, nor is it a 'personal belief'. Everyone dies. Clearly. Meanwhile you speculate that you will live forever based on your own unsubstantiated personal beliefs. I think your retort falls short.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree