Originally posted by twhitehead
...and there are disagreement among scientist about these theories.
Yes there is always disagreement even when it comes to big questions, but for some issues like the speed of light and evolution, anyone who is still 'in disagreement' is not really a scientist.
You are mixing fact with theory. I have heard no disagreement on the
speed of light ...[text shortened]... I do. I have yet
to hear any proof or attempts to prove anything you said.
RJHinds
Much of there ideas on dinosoars is theory, not fact.
At that time Niles Eldredge was a prominent evolutionist. Go to the
the library and look it up. Ask the librarian to help you. I gave you all
the information needed.
Check it out, and put it in context for me. Don't just suspect.
Act like a real scientist and investigate it.
Francis Hitching pointed out three crucial areas that the th ...[text shortened]... e of the sun, moon, earth, water, and life among
the basic scientific facts, to be brief.
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindsI am afraid much of your post got eaten by the computer, perhaps you could repost it.
At that time Niles Eldredge was a prominent evolutionist. Go to the
the library and look it up. Ask the librarian to help you. I gave you all
the information needed.
Check it out, and put it in context for me. Don't just suspect.
Act like a real scientist and investigate it.
I see no need to go and check out Niles Eldredge when you have not yet been clear about what your claim regarding him is. I do believe you have distorted his words, so an exact quote would be useful.
Real scientists do not investigate every bit of nonsense they hear being spouted by creationists. Why should they?
The Theory of Evolution is by and large scientifically proven fact. But you will not accept it because it contradicts the Biblical account (or the way you interpret the Biblical account).
To Twhitehead:
The computer must be having a problem with mutations.
Niles Eldredge was an evolutionist not a creationist. If
you are not going to bother checking it out because it does
not agree with your accepted, so call facts, about evolution,
then why should I quote exactly what he wrote. It's so
long it would probably get shortened by the computer again.
Believe it or not, I was really trying to help you out. But if
you don't want my kind of help, so be it.
RJHinds
Originally posted by TaomanOpen to that, which
I'm a bit of a mystic Joseph. I am open to the Divine when I meditate, when I eat, when I make love, when I read any book, when I sit and do nothing, when I type on RHP, when I am in pain and suffering.
I do not need any book or any practice to simply be open. I know I cannot define what this Divine is but I know it is within all of life and it never ceas ...[text shortened]... possesses" anything. How can you possess yourself?
This how it could be otherwise.
Is not Divine Is not mundane Cannot be described by words Cannot be pointed by examples Has never been born Has never ceased Has never been liberated Has never been deluded Has never existed Has never been nonexistent Has no limits at all Does not fall into any kind of category Cannot be worse because of Samsara Cannot be better by means of Nirvana
😵
Originally posted by RJHindsI never thought otherwise. It is you that I was referring to.
Niles Eldredge was an evolutionist not a creationist.
If you are not going to bother checking it out because it does
not agree with your accepted, so call facts, about evolution,
then why should I quote exactly what he wrote.
Because it is you that is making the claim. Also, since you obviously have the source of the information and I don't it would be considerably easier for you to simply quote him than for me to go to my local library (which probably doesn't have his books anyway) and start trying to find out what he really said.
It's so long it would probably get shortened by the computer again.
Believe it or not, I was really trying to help you out. But if
you don't want my kind of help, so be it.
RJHinds
Well having read over what you claimed he said, I don't think it supports your position anyway which is why I asked for more detail. Did he say that some biologists dispute evolutionary biology as a whole?
Do you admit that your Darwin quote also does not support your position but is purposely taken out of context in order to appear to do so? If you are so confident in the Bible why do you feel the need to deliberately deceive to support your position?
Originally posted by black beetleI bow sir. Sometimes one encourages further up the hill, but it is not the peak from which one must leap into the abyss. I see both sudden and gradual approaches to that leap.
Open to that, which
Is not Divine Is not mundane Cannot be described by words Cannot be pointed by examples Has never been born Has never ceased Has never been liberated Has never been deluded Has never existed Has never been nonexistent Has no limits at all Does not fall into any kind of category Cannot be worse because of Samsara Cannot be better by means of Nirvana
😵
Who knows what the spontaneity of absence produces and brings forth?
Originally posted by RJHindsI have just done a Google on the Niles Eldridge. Here are the shopping results:
To Twhitehead:
The computer must be having a problem with mutations.
Niles Eldredge was an evolutionist not a creationist. If
you are not going to bother checking it out because it does
not agree with your accepted, so call facts, about evolution,
then why should I quote exactly what he wrote. It's so
long it would probably get shortened by the com ...[text shortened]... s really trying to help you out. But if
you don't want my kind of help, so be it.
RJHinds
http://www.google.com/[WORD TOO LONG].2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=d57722a22572de1d
There is no mention of a book called "Evolutionary House Cleaning" or anything similar that I could find. I think we really do need the ISBN for the book and, if you actually have it, the full quote in context.
The Darwin quote is frequently rolled out by creationists, without the context. Here is the entire paragraph (with my emphasis)
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.
Since you have given edition and page number you obviously have read the text. S0 it could appear that you have deliberately mis-quoted Darwin in order to support your argument. Such a deliberate attempt at deception is obviously not the Christian way though so there must be some other reason for your mis-quote. I'd like to know what it is though so that I don't fall into the trap of thinking you either a liar or a fool (and probably both!).
--- Penguin
To Penguin:
You misrepresented my orginal post. I did not say
anything about a book by Niles Eldredge. It was a
magazine article in Natural History. And as for Darwin,
I did not quote him, no quotation marks. What Darwin
referred to as natural selection, you guys call evolution
today. I was discussing the theory of evolution, that is
why I said evolution instead of natural selection. But
he seems to have doubts that the human eye could have
been formed by this process by calling it absurd to the
highest degree. He didn't even mention the human brain,
which I would consider to be even more absurd to imagine
it being formed by the process of natural selection (evolution).
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindsI strongly suggest you read through Penguins post again.
And as for Darwin,
I did not quote him, no quotation marks. What Darwin
referred to as natural selection, you guys call evolution
today. I was discussing the theory of evolution, that is
why I said evolution instead of natural selection. But
he seems to have doubts that the human eye could have
been formed by this process by calling it absurd to the ...[text shortened]... absurd to imagine
it being formed by the process of natural selection (evolution).
RJHinds
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou misrepresented my orginal post.
To Penguin:
You misrepresented my orginal post. I did not say
anything about a book by Niles Eldredge. It was a
magazine article in Natural History. And as for Darwin,
I did not quote him, no quotation marks. What Darwin
referred to as natural selection, you guys call evolution
today. I was discussing the theory of evolution, that is
why I sai absurd to imagine
it being formed by the process of natural selection (evolution).
RJHinds
Apologies, I did not do so deliberately.
I did not say anything about a book by Niles Eldredge. It was a magazine article in Natural History.
Ok, fair enough. I retract my implication that you were saying he had written a book of that name. It was an article in what appears to be a popular science magazine.
But then to ask TWhitehead to go to his local library and study a magazine article from nearly 30 years ago to validate a quote that you, presumably, have the original source for seems a little extreme. I don't think your average university library could be expected to hold it. I have had a look on the Natural History magazine website and they don't have it there. Can I ask where you found the article? If it is online, then can you point us at it? So far I have been unable to even confirm its existance.
And as for Darwin, I did not quote him, no quotation marks.
Ah but the language and phraseology are a shortened version of his original and you even gave the page number! It is plain what text you are taking your assertion from. You might not be mis-quoting but you are certainly mis-representing him just as I mis-represented you. I did it that accidentally and have apologised and retracted my statement but I still have a suspicion that you did it deliberately.
Will you apologise and retract your assertion that "Even Darwin had doubts about the evolutionary theory. Darwin pointed out that to suppose the human eye could have been formed by evolution seems absurd in the highest degree. (The Origin of the Speecies, by Charles Darwin, 1902 edition, Part One, page 250.) "
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by karoly aczelNo problem. Also to your comment on natural, I think anything we reproducibly detect to exist should be considered to be natural. (But not necessarily anything we are only told exists.) If we detect something out there that theists call God, it will become one more superpower to understand and with which to set up diplomatic relations.
Geez, I should've kept out of that one and allowed Taoman to answer.
It's just my take on "supernatuarlism", I just call it all "natural" in my vocab.
Please excuse me, sir
Originally posted by JS357Know thyself,the Diplomatic Relations will be established at once !
No problem. Also to your comment on natural, I think anything we reproducibly detect to exist should be considered to be natural. (But not necessarily anything we are only told exists.) If we detect something out there that theists call God, it will become one more superpower to understand and with which to set up diplomatic relations.