Originally posted by KellyJayIf we just say "yes" will you go away?
I've not asked for any scientific discovery to be dimissed that was
made due to evolutionary theory. Who cares if the theory is correct
or not, if it caused us to discover something because of it? So why
would you say I have major issues with reality? My complaint isn't
that people are using faith and their beliefs, my complaint is that
they are doing ...[text shortened]... use it
has major points of faith not facts backing it up, that should be
acknowleged.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou just dont seem to know english very well. The word selection does not in any way imply a being doing the selecting. If I drop soil onto a sieve, the sieve (and not I) selects the larger bits and lets through the smaller ones. On a beach, natural wave action selects sand of cirtain sizes and sorts it accordingly (No being involved at all). In many natural processes (not necessarily including life) selections are being made. Natural Selection is simply the term given to the process whereby cirtain individuals in a group of living things manage to survive and reproduce where as others do not. There are various reasons for this. Unless you believe that every death of every living thing is planned and orchestrated by God for solely his own purposes and defying all probability, then you must accept that natural selection takes place, and that any genetic disadvantage will give you a lower chance of survival. Whether you believe that this results in species change or not is irrelevant to whether or not natural selection takes place. However the term is selection is perfectly appropriate in the setting and very good english.
No, you have a term with the word 'selection' in it, but no one is
making a selection, you have been justifying the use of that word
'selection' with the word 'competition' when in fact none is taking
place.
You repeatedly talk about 'connecting the dots' and attempt to deride such a process but I am yet to see give any other definition of science which is not 'connecting the dots'. Does this mean that you disagree with the scientific process and if so why dont you just say 'scientific process' instead of 'connecting the dots'?
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat the hell does this all mean?
I've been beating the drum of one for some time and I'm still
waiting for someone to clear it up!
Small changes in DNA, the claim they add up is an important
point that cannot be just accepted as some here want, when
they rolled out, "There is no good reason to not believe it."
As I have pointed out before, seeing them and knowing what
is going on ...[text shortened]... changes which
keeps us from being anything other than human, or none of
the above?
Kelly
I'm looking for gaps in the theory that people on this forum seem to think are obvious. I want to know what they are. If you can't accept the premise that small changes over time can lead to large changes, that's your problem - not the theory's.
Originally posted by amannion🙂 You are a true believer.
What the hell does this all mean?
I'm looking for gaps in the theory that people on this forum seem to think are obvious. I want to know what they are. If you can't accept the premise that small changes over time can lead to large changes, that's your problem - not the theory's.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzExcuse me.
Already done it twice.
Genesis states that land plants were created before the sun. The sun is 6 billion years old, land plants only about 400 million years old, heck, the planet is only 4.5 billion years old!
Genesis states that flying animals (out of generousity for your cause I'll include pterodactyls) were created before land dwelling anima ...[text shortened]... why it's incompatible with the bible. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0404order.asp
If you are going to take scripture as is, than take it as is.
You are mixing it with your faith in how it all started and
when, and saying therefore God didn't do it. If God did it
the way scripture says, do you think your methods of
dating the universe could be correct, or your time lines
on when non-insectiod flight occured is correct?
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo that is your proof that evolutionary change adds up is real,
I've never seen a million dollars. I have however seen $10. Am I not to assume that given enough $10 that someone could have a million dollars?
because you have seen money? Okay, I thought there would
have been more to it than that.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzI don't believe they are evolving like you suggest, so given
In your whole lifetime you won't see even 3 millionths of 1% of the time required for the current organisms on the planet to evolve. Why do you think that we should be able to see it in real time?? What's your fascination with seeing everything with your own eyes before you will accept it? Indeed, it seems hypocritical since you cannot, and will neve ...[text shortened]... e position that neither of these processes are happening since I cannot physically see them???
billions of years I don't think I'd see it they way you are
suggesting. I understand 'billions of years' is your out, it is
equal to the God is hidden argument that theist have. So
welcome to the world of faith.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by amannionI'm looking for gaps in the theory that people on this forum seem to think are obvious.
What the hell does this all mean?
I'm looking for gaps in the theory that people on this forum seem to think are obvious. I want to know what they are. If you can't accept the premise that small changes over time can lead to large changes, that's your problem - not the theory's.
Sigh. Take the fossil record for starters. Let's see how seriously I should take your claims of critical thinking.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou just dont seem to know english very well.
You just dont seem to know english very well. The word selection does not in any way imply a being doing the selecting. If I drop soil onto a sieve, the sieve (and not I) selects the larger bits and lets through the smaller ones. On a beach, natural wave action selects sand of cirtain sizes and sorts it accordingly (No being involved at all). In many natu ...[text shortened]... s and if so why dont you just say 'scientific process' instead of 'connecting the dots'?
*Cough!!*
Ahem. The irony.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt's almost as though you think you are playing poker! However, unlike card play, in this argument we can see your cards! If you truly wish to maintain that the theory of evolution does not rely on gaps (as the old saying goes), I cannot wake someone pretending to be asleep.
The only gaps you have identified go something along the lines of "I refuse to give it any credance and prefer to try and belittle this theory, so therefore it must be false."
Sorry Freaky, but you're posts on this subject are rapidly becoming a joke. You've tried belittleing abiogenesis, trying to force confusion where there is little on the part ...[text shortened]... he while you've presented precisely no evidence to back up your viewpoint whatsoever.
Ironically enough, when you (and others) attempt to reveal the cards of the theist, you simply belie your inability to read them. Such is arrogance.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe soil is being sifted through the sieve, you as the person doing
You just dont seem to know english very well. The word selection does not in any way imply a being doing the selecting. If I drop soil onto a sieve, the sieve (and not I) selects the larger bits and lets through the smaller ones. On a beach, natural wave action selects sand of cirtain sizes and sorts it accordingly (No being involved at all). In many natu ...[text shortened]... s and if so why dont you just say 'scientific process' instead of 'connecting the dots'?
the sifting is making the choice on what to do with what part is
worthy of additional work, that which goes through the sieve, or
that which does not. Selection implies a choice, there is none
being made in ‘natural selection’ unless you which to say some
higher power is making a choice or selecting that which is being
moved along life evolutionary time line. The word selection in
my opinion is a poor choice of words to describe that process.
There is an appointed time for every one of us to die and after that
the judgment. What occurs after that will be a settling up of the
choices we did make.
As far as connecting the dots, it isn't an attempt to deride anything,
it points out that there is a string of assumptions being made to
prove a point. That string or chain of assumptions is as good as it's
weakest link, and if several links are faulty, well then the whole of
the point being presented as scientific is bogus. The dots or strings
of assumptions can also be true and the point made through
science be spot on accurate too. Simply because I'm saying belief and
faith are being used, does not mean that what is being discussed
is wrong or false. You understand my meaning when I say connect
the dots? I can say scientific process, but that does not get my
point across the way I want it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaybillions of years isn't an "out", it's simply a fact!
I don't believe they are evolving like you suggest, so given
billions of years I don't think I'd see it they way you are
suggesting. I understand 'billions of years' is your out, it is
equal to the God is hidden argument that theist have. So
welcome to the world of faith.
Kelly
Originally posted by FreakyKBHoh, yes Freaky, because you and all the other theists on this site are far far smarter than any atheist. You're sooooo much above us. This is despite the evidence to the contrary that half the numpty theists on this site would have trouble tieing their own shoelaces.
It's almost as though you think you are playing poker! However, unlike card play, in this argument we can see your cards! If you truly wish to maintain that the theory of evolution does not rely on gaps (as the old saying goes), I cannot wake someone pretending to be asleep.
Ironically enough, when you (and others) attempt to reveal the cards of the theist, you simply belie your inability to read them. Such is arrogance.
Nah, we don't like that nasty evidence stuff around here, do we?