Originally posted by dj2becker [b]still know more about it than your silly creation scientists.
It seems that the best you can do is just make the claim.
I'll stop as soon as you stop pretending you're a Christian.
Do you know what a Christian is?
[/b]
I know you aint one , you're just a pretend one.
Or, in the words of somebody rather important to Christianity :
"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."
Originally posted by frogstomp I know you aint one , you're just a pretend one.
Or, in the words of somebody rather important to Christianity :
"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."
I suppose your judgement of what a Christian is can be justified by your reading of half the book of Joshua.
Seriously pal, I suggest you read the whole Bible before commenting on who's a Christian and whose not...
But this is actually totally off the topic. So lets stick to the topic, which happens to be "Macroevolution". You can gladly open your own thread to discuss Christianity on it. But then I suggest that you read a little more than half the book of Joshua😉
Originally posted by Halitose If the definition of "kind" is vague, could you offer a difinition of "specie"?
Don't be silly. I asked dj2 (and you if you commit yourself to his definitions) to define "kind" in microevolution and constrast that to a his definition of speicies in macroevolution.
It would be presumptuous of me to ask dj2 to do such a thing and then restrict his definition of "species."
Now if you are really adamant about a definition of "specie" (no 's'😉, then I offer the following:
"A commodity metal, historically gold and silver, backing money or currency"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specie
Originally posted by telerion Don't be silly. I asked dj2 (and you if you commit yourself to his definitions) to define "kind" in microevolution and constrast that to a his definition of speicies in macroevolution.
It would be presumptuous of me to ask dj2 to do such a thing and then restrict his definition of "species."
Now if you are really adamant about a definition of " ...[text shortened]... , historically gold and silver, backing money or currency"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specie
The definition of kind is rather left up to human classification. Even if you ask a two-year old: Which of these are of the same kind? A wolf, a cayote, a dog, and whale?
I think a useful definition of kind is where they can mate and produce fruitfull offspring.
Originally posted by dj2becker So the only reason you believe in evolution is because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable?
Nope. I recognize evolution as the theory that successfully accounts for the data.
Would I be accurate in guessing that you are an atheist?
Nope. Wrong again. In fact, if you research deeply enough in these forums, you'll find that I had some fairly sharp debates with some of the athiests here when I called myself a theistic agnostic (or something to that effect), and disparaged atheism in the process.
Remeber [sic] that special creation requires supernatural intervention. For the atheist this is surely unthinkable.
I don't presume to tell another man or woman what is unthinkable. I suspect that a Creator may well lay behind all that we see. However, I do object to advocacy of special creation that attempts to claim it as a scientific theory (when it is not even a clear hypothesis), and I object to the cultural wars these advocates wage against science, for I find this culture war to be detrimental to society.
Originally posted by Wulebgr Originally posted by dj2becker [b]So the only reason you believe in evolution is because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable?
Nope. I recognize evolution as the theory that successfully accounts for ...[text shortened]... science, for I find this culture war to be detrimental to society.[/b]
Are you saying that a scientific theory can be used to explain origins?
I hope you realise that by delving into the past to the point of origins, we are moving beyond the realm of science.
PS: I hope that you also keep in mind that Christianity was the mother of Modern Science, before a bunch of evolutionists hijacked the enterprise.
Originally posted by dj2becker PS: I hope that you also keep in mind that Christianity was the mother of Modern Science, before a bunch of evolutionists hijacked the enterprise.
I'm a historian; I know this stuff.
Your assertion, simplistic though it is, is partly correct. Christianity supported the learning that gave birth to modern science. On the other hand, the rise of secular learning--the rebirth of attention to the classics of Greece and Rome--contrinuted more than the Church. Furthermore, the authority of the Church was frequently challenged directly by scientists when it sought to interfere with the dissemination of knowledge it considered heretical.
The Church lost those battles, although many scientists were persecuted, and suffered tremendously.
Religious enthusiasts have been attempting to hijack science ever since, but they usually arrive on board with insufficient weapons.
Originally posted by Wulebgr I'm a historian; I know this stuff.
Your assertion, simplistic though it is, is partly correct. Christianity supported the learning that gave birth to modern science. On the other hand, the rise of secular learning--the rebirth of attention to the classics of Greece and Rome--contrinuted more than the Church. Furthermore, the authority of the Church was ...[text shortened]... mpting to hijack science ever since, but they usually arrive on board with insufficient weapons.
On the other hand, the rise of secular learning--the rebirth of attention to the classics of Greece and Rome--contrinuted more than the Church.
Do you wish to support this claim or are you simply make a blind assertion and waiting for someone to prove you wrong?
Originally posted by dj2becker [b]On the other hand, the rise of secular learning--the rebirth of attention to the classics of Greece and Rome--contrinuted more than the Church.
Do you wish to support this claim or are you simply make a blind assertion and waiting for someone to prove you wrong?[/b]
I'm wrong. I should have said contributed.
Other than that, I refer you to any book on the Renaissance, or any study of the history of science.
You can look at the trials of Copernicus or Galileo if you wish to dispute my statement about the opposition of the Church to science, or its harrassment of scientists.
Originally posted by Wulebgr I'm wrong. I should have said contributed.
Other than that, I refer you to any book on the Renaissance, or any study of the history of science.
You can look at the trials of Copernicus or Galileo if you wish to dispute my statement about the opposition of the Church to science, or its harrassment of scientists.
Lets take Galileo for example. More than a scientist, he was a devoted Christian.
The church of the time persecuted him for his assertions that the earth was round instead of flat.
The church didn't have any scriptural support for their stand, but based their thinking on the Roman and Greek theories, which you claim are the bastions of modern scientific thinking.
Originally posted by Halitose Lets take Galileo for example. More than a scientist, he was a devoted Christian.
The church of the time persecuted him for his assertions that the earth was round instead of flat.
The church didn't have any scriptural support for their stand, but based their thinking on the Roman and Greek theories, which you claim are the bastions of modern scientific thinking.
What the Church done to Galileo was worse, they pressured him into producing something that was in light of Kepler and Newton was incorrect . Much like the religions pressured evolutionists to produce a mechanism after they thought Lamarckian was sufficiently discredited , science went to random mutation caused by radiation, it wasn't until quite recently that experiments began showing that LaMark activity based processes could be a big factor in evolution , not by altering DNA but by altering the markers that covered things like adapting to a changing enviroment making possible the survivability of a species until the DNA itself "mutated".
If you don't believe that ,, look up epigenetics and see where that's heading.
Originally posted by Halitose Lets take Galileo for example. More than a scientist, he was a devoted Christian.
true, but this fact does not support the contention that Christianity itself is the foundation of modern science
The church of the time persecuted him for his assertions that the earth was round instead of flat.
false. They persecuted him for what he said about the Bible. see http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/galileo/church.html
The church didn't have any scriptural support for their stand, but based their thinking on the Roman and Greek theories, which you claim are the bastions of modern scientific thinking.
I'm not certain where you get this notion, but if the Church relied on Greek theories, why did they exclude Ptolemy?
15 Jul '05 12:091 edit
Macroevolution
Back to Top