Originally posted by XanthosNZI do not recall, I believe I said he was pushing his doctrine or
Did you or did you not say that scott was doing something other than teaching science by correcting his students on Evolution?
(This is a yes or no question Kelly, don't weasel around for three pages as you normally do)
something along those lines. I also believe I said he was
teaching, so yes or no. Depending on what quote you have in
mind, if you have a point just make it if you are able. When you
want to stop making this about me and go back to facts, beliefs,
and theories just let me know, your pityful song and dance is
getting old.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe only person dancing around here is you Kelly. You've been dancing around the issue for over 1500 posts now. Isn't it getting old? But if you want to get back to the issues then fine by me.
I do not recall, I believe I said he was pushing his doctrine or
something along those lines. I also believe I said he was
teaching, so yes or no. Depending on what quote you have in
mind, if you have a point just make it if you are able. When you
want to stop making this about me and go back to facts, beliefs,
and theories just let me know, your pityful song and dance is
getting old.
Kelly
Questions that need answers:
- What should be taught during a science lesson, science or non-science?
- Is Evolution science?
- Is there any evidence that you can provide that can discount Evolution as a science?
- If not, then do you agree then that, according to the latest data, Evolution is in indeed what happened?
- On what basis do you discount Evolution as a fact and instead believe in whatever the hell it is you believe in this thread?
- Is Creationism / Intelligent Design / Being an Complete Idiot science?
That'll do as a start, I'll have more once you answer these.
Originally posted by XanthosNZWhat is it about evolutionists and giving tests?
The only person dancing around here is you Kelly. You've been dancing around the issue for over 1500 posts now. Isn't it getting old? But if you want to get back to the issues then fine by me.
Questions that need answers:
- What should be taught during a science lesson, science or non-science?
- Is Evolution science?
- Is there any evidence that yo ...[text shortened]... g an Complete Idiot science?
That'll do as a start, I'll have more once you answer these.
My answers will be the same as they have always been throughout all
these threads. Evolution is both a belief and a scientific theory,
depending on how it is being defined by each person and applied.
You have a differing opinion you can debate it. Evolution can be
defined several ways so you have to be a little clearer on what exactly
you are talking about, we can say evolution is small changes in DNA
and if that is what we are talking about I’d agree with you it is real, we
can say it is what we call the transitions of moving from older to new
model cars or PC and the use of the word evolution would be properly
used. Providing data about evolution again goes to what it is you are
attempting to say it has done and doing, unlike you I don’t like
putting words into your mouth as you do with me, I’d like you to
make your own points, I don’t want to make yours for you. I’d also
point out to you I have never called creation a science I must say that
once a week, the fact you are asking me is just amazing to me. You
moving towards a point yet or should I look for another round of
questions while you come up with one?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAre you utterly intellectually bankrupt or really stupid enough to think I'd be referring to different models of car when I use the word Evolution (note the capital letter). I'm referring to the theory of Evolution. You can read about it here if you wish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
What is it about evolutionists and giving tests?
My answers will be the same as they have always been throughout all
these threads. Evolution is both a belief and a scientific theory,
depending on how it is being defined by each person and applied.
You have a differing opinion you can debate it. Evolution can be
defined several ways so you have to be ...[text shortened]... a point yet or should I look for another round of
questions while you come up with one?
Kelly
Although I doubt you will being that reading would actually involve thinking and you've demonstrated time and again you are incapable of that.
Originally posted by XanthosNZI tell you want sunshine, you can stop responding to my posts and
Are you utterly intellectually bankrupt or really stupid enough to think I'd be referring to different models of car when I use the word Evolution (note the capital letter). I'm referring to the theory of Evolution. You can read about it here if you wish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Although I doubt you will being that reading would actually involve thinking and you've demonstrated time and again you are incapable of that.
I will not respond to yours if you want. You want to discuss something
or insult me, if seems that insults are the full point of your threads.
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by KellyJayif you can agree that random errors in dna cause small changes that can be passed on to the next generation, then how can you not agree that evolution is true, one nesecerily implies the other.
What is it about evolutionists and giving tests?
My answers will be the same as they have always been throughout all
these threads. Evolution is both a belief and a scientific theory,
depending on how it is being defined by each person and applied.
You have a differing opinion you can debate it. Evolution can be
defined several ways so you have to be ...[text shortened]... a point yet or should I look for another round of
questions while you come up with one?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeI even agree with that too, they can get passed down; however, that
if you can agree that random errors in dna cause small changes that can be passed on to the next generation, then how can you not agree that evolution is true, one nesecerily implies the other.
being said how far will the changes go in transformation over time?
Will those changes over time cause a creature to have lungs appear
in the universe when at an earlier times there were none? Seeing
small changes do not automatically mean they will go that far.
Saying they go that far is purely a matter of belief on the one who is
saying it, they can suggest parts of the fossils records support them,
but that too can be looked at as trying to fit the fossil record to fit their
belief system. Since that is just trying to connect the dots to fit a
theory nothing more we do not know for sure it is only speculation.
Kelly
Originally posted by XanthosNZYes, depending on how you define and what context you use a word
Flashback:
It simply boils down to how you define evoution, if you think it is small changes, no one will debate that, if you think it is changes over time taking a some what simple life form to the variety of complex ones we see today,
that is faith not science.
Is that still your belief Kelly?
sometimes the meaning changes. You don't think that is the case?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayDo I think that words can have different meanings depending on context? Yes. Do I think that it is possible that despite all evidence to the contrary humans did not evolve as the full theory of Evolution states? No I don't.
Yes, depending on how you define and what context you use a word
sometimes the meaning changes. You don't think that is the case?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAh ha.
I even agree with that too, they can get passed down; however, that
being said how far will the changes go in transformation over time?
Will those changes over time cause a creature to have lungs appear
in the universe when at an earlier times there were none? Seeing
small changes do not automatically mean they will go that far.
Saying they go that far ...[text shortened]... ct the dots to fit a
theory nothing more we do not know for sure it is only speculation.
Kelly
I believe I'm starting to see your point Kelly (after all this time.)
Your lungs idea mistakes the notion of evolution.
You're right in thinking it would be ridiculous for this to ever occur. Clearly lungs aren't going to evolve from no lungs - no matter how much we might imagine it.
But, taking GF's post from a couple of days ago as a guide, we might be able to imagine a set of lungs evolving from a slightly different set of lungs - would we not? (At least that's what you seem to have agreed upon.)
Take this in a kind of backward regression, one lung evolving from a slightly different, sometimes inferior lung, and you might be able to develop a very long line of progression from a very simple lung to a much more complex lung.
With a proviso of course: each lung, however simple or complex, needs to be useful to the individual that carries it. This should obviously be true, since if it isn't useful, the individual will die.
Mush has been made of the evolution of complex eyes, with anti-evolutionists claiming that the eye could not have evolved, since it would have required earlier stages of less useful eyes and how could a species have survived such states.
But there are many examples of these earlier stages with quite successful species: light sensitive cells; recessed light sensitive cells providing a sense of direction; mucous forming over the recess to act as a simple lens; hardening of the mucous to form a better lens; and so on ...
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionYes, and from my creationist perspective not to be confused
Ah ha.
I believe I'm starting to see your point Kelly (after all this time.)
Your lungs idea mistakes the notion of evolution.
You're right in thinking it would be ridiculous for this to ever occur. Clearly lungs aren't going to evolve from no lungs - no matter how much we might imagine it.
But, taking GF's post from a couple of days ago as a guide, w cess to act as a simple lens; hardening of the mucous to form a better lens; and so on ...
with any other creationist view, I actually believe that variety of
creatures have spun off of earlier creatures of the same kind. It isn't
that I don't think changes are occurring now, but to what scale are they
occurring through time? Seeing them in small scales occurring does
not automatically mean they have begun at an early point such as a
single cell life form, nor does it mean they occurred from my
creationist point of view either. I cannot confirm that changes stop
at some point as I don’t believe anyone can tell me that changes do
not stop either so that they form new complex systems and organs
within life forms that were never here or anywhere else before.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWalk down the street and you are joining the dots. Science is joining the dots. Religion is joining imaginary dots. We all join dots all the time.
I even agree with that too, they can get passed down; however, that
being said how far will the changes go in transformation over time?
Will those changes over time cause a creature to have lungs appear
in the universe when at an earlier times there were none? Seeing
small changes do not automatically mean they will go that far.
Saying they go that far ...[text shortened]... ct the dots to fit a
theory nothing more we do not know for sure it is only speculation.
Kelly