Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
Lovethinking wrote: »I am not "asking" if evolution is scientifically valid.
You're asking for evidence of 'missing links' to confirm evolution. Same thing.Lovethinking wrote: »As an answer to another poster, I appropriately brought attention to the "fact" that evolution is still a "theory" not a fact. If this upsets your belief structure then join the debate and make your argument. Otherwise, you are just appointing yourself as a moderator.
Not so. Pointing out the existence of another thread, and the change in direction of this thread is not appointing myself as a moderator.0 -
Lovethinking wrote: »Evolution is still an unproven theory which is yet awaiting the "missing links" in the fossil record to prove it.
I think previous posters covered the scientific meaning of the word "theory" so no need to go over that again. In regards to the "missing link", you might find the wikipedia entry on transitional fossil interesting.0 -
Lovethinking wrote: »I am not "asking" if evolution is scientifically valid.
As an answer to another poster, I appropriately brought attention to the "fact" that evolution is still a "theory" not a fact.
If this upsets your belief structure then join the debate and make your argument. Otherwise, you are just appointing yourself as a moderator.AtomicHorror wrote: »First off, "theory" doesn't mean what you think it does. In scientific terms it is not equivalent to a conjecture, speculation or hypothesis. It is a model that explains all available facts and predicts new ones. Theory is the highest status to which a model may ascend within science. Second, theories are not "proven", ever. They are falsified or they are upheld. Evolution as a theory has been upheld for 150 years.
That is certainly not a wise course of action, however the evidence for evolution is rather self explanatory and simple to understand if you examine it.
Gaps in the fossil record are a problem for models of specific paths through the evolutionary history. They do not falsify or call into question evolution itself.
Where did you get that idea? The time element was never changed as a function of the probability the emergence of any trait. As for those probability calculations- I have generally seen such calculations performed by creationists and intelligent design proponents. They invariably display a very serious misunderstanding of both probability (particularly the relevance of specification) and the emergence of variation (particularly the relevance of reproduction and mutations in mass parallel).
We can't simply take the emergence of a given trait as seen in the fossil record and then apply some arbitrary time that suits its probability. We're bound by what we know from the record. If the trait is not present at time X and is present at some time X+1million, we can't just wave our hands and say the trait took 10 million years to emerge.
In as much as a scientific theory can be "proven" (proof is actually a term used only in mathematics and law), evolution has been proven. The theory has predicted the existence of countless unknown species which have since been found. It also rules out the existence of an enormous number of organisms based what we know of how evolution works. And guess what? We haven't found any of these forbidden combinations in 150 years of looking high and low.
As for the consensus, science is not a numbers game nor an authority system but since you mention it, the estimated number of qualified scientists across all fields accepting evolution is on the order of 10 million worldwide. Although there are a sizeable number of atheists amongst that number, they also comprise a mixture of people of all faiths. The number of qualified scientists in all fields disputing evolution is approximately 1000 worldwide. These consist almost exclusively of religious fundamentalists, primarily Christians but also including followers of Islam and Judaism. I am not aware of any moderates nor atheists amongst that number.
That is a consensus of about 99.99%. There are pseudoscientific movements with stronger scientific followings, and even theories that we'd consider "fringe science" would tend to have followings on the order of 1%. Actual theories in genuine scientific dispute would tend to be challenged by no less than 10% of the community, and even these would be considered unlikely to ever gain consensus.
The only arena in which the denial of evolution is gaining any ground is amongst the general public.
I wrote a response to similar comments to these posted by you over on the Creationism thread. Have you read that at all?
I'll echo darjeeling on this. This thread was supposed to be about the existence of a conflict, and its nature if present. You've now started to stray into territory better dealt with by the other thread.
That all seems too convenient to me. It seems that you are saying that you don't need "proof" because the scientific community says you don't.
Perhaps you could start a thread with a complete outline of the "proposals", "expected results" etc.. of evolution so that we are not debating upon undefined ground.
You guys are correct that my definition of "theory" comes from a mathematical and engineering background. Perhaps you could shed some light on why it has to have a different definition in other sciences. Perhaps in a new thread so that we leave this thread to focus on it's initial purpose. Perhaps leave a link on this thread to the new thread so that anyone who is interested can divert across to it.
Cheers.0 -
Lovethinking wrote: »That all seems too convenient to me. It seems that you are saying that you don't need "proof" because the scientific community says you don't.
Not exactly, I'm trying to explain that science does not work in terms of proof, but in terms of evidence and falsification. The misunderstanding is quite common but perhaps I can clear that up now.
When conducting new research, typically a scientist looks at the known facts and proposes an hypothesis. That is a position we assume is true as a starting point for investigation. That assumption of truth is very much temporary and contingent on evidence. A hypothesis must be testable by observation but cannot be "proven". Here is an analogy to explain why.
Imagine you sail to a new land and find sheep living there. All of the sheep you see on the first day are white. You can thus form the hypothesis "all sheep are white". This you assume to be true for the time being, whilst always remembering that your position can be falsified (that is disproven). You then set out across the land counting sheep (stay awake) and observing their colour. Every white sheep is evidence which supports your hypothesis, but it is not proof that it is true. Hypothetically, the discovery of just one black sheep will falsify your hypothesis and force you to change it. This could be as simple as saying "all sheep are white or black", though this too will not be assumed to be true in an absolute sense.
Thus an hypothesis may be supported by the evidence or it may be falsified by it. It can never be proven and thus there is no "proof" in science. We talk instead about evidence. When an hypothesis is supported by so much evidence that it allows prediction of new facts, when it has been rigorously attacked by its opponents but remains both explanatory and predictive, it becomes a rule or scientific law. Combinations of laws are themselves hypotheses until confirming evidence supports their use together in a framework. Then that framework becomes theory. Still hypothetically falsifiable, but increasingly less likely to be disproven with each new piece of evidence. At this time evolution is so well supported by evidence that it is irrefutable for all intents and purposes.Lovethinking wrote: »Perhaps you could start a thread with a complete outline of the "proposals", "expected results" etc.. of evolution so that we are not debating upon undefined ground.
This would probably be considered redundant next to the creationism/evolution thread.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »
This would probably be considered redundant next to the creationism/evolution thread.
TBH, I am interested in this topic, but get very, very little in the maga thread. There's just so much noise in there. A thread that gets a bit more specific and doesn't have the usual, JC versus the world tooing and frowing would be quite nice IMO. So I really hope this thread is allowed proceed, and that it doesn't become bickerfest 2.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes, that is a good point. The answer seems to be that bacteria, like plants, are not regarded as having 'the breath of life', and so suffering and death cannot be applied to them in the ordinary sense. They were just part of the food processing cycle.but we already know from the Bible that life forms died. Adam tended to Eden. Snapping a rose bush kills thousand of bacteria on the stem. Eating a piece of food kills millions of bacteria in your stomach.
It is very hard to imagine a world where nothing dies. How do Creationists reconcile this?0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »Not exactly, I'm trying to explain that science does not work in terms of proof, but in terms of evidence and falsification. The misunderstanding is quite common but perhaps I can clear that up now.
When conducting new research, typically a scientist looks at the known facts and proposes an hypothesis. That is a position we assume is true as a starting point for investigation. That assumption of truth is very much temporary and contingent on evidence. A hypothesis must be testable by observation but cannot be "proven". Here is an analogy to explain why.
Imagine you sail to a new land and find sheep living there. All of the sheep you see on the first day are white. You can thus form the hypothesis "all sheep are white". This you assume to be true for the time being, whilst always remembering that your position can be falsified (that is disproven). You then set out across the land counting sheep (stay awake) and observing their colour. Every white sheep is evidence which supports your hypothesis, but it is not proof that it is true. Hypothetically, the discovery of just one black sheep will falsify your hypothesis and force you to change it. This could be as simple as saying "all sheep are white or black", though this too will not be assumed to be true in an absolute sense.
Thus an hypothesis may be supported by the evidence or it may be falsified by it. It can never be proven and thus there is no "proof" in science. We talk instead about evidence. When an hypothesis is supported by so much evidence that it allows prediction of new facts, when it has been rigorously attacked by its opponents but remains both explanatory and predictive, it becomes a rule or scientific law. Combinations of laws are themselves hypotheses until confirming evidence supports their use together in a framework. Then that framework becomes theory. Still hypothetically falsifiable, but increasingly less likely to be disproven with each new piece of evidence. At this time evolution is so well supported by evidence that it is irrefutable for all intents and purposes.
This would probably be considered redundant next to the creationism/evolution thread.
Perhaps a new perspective would be refreshing... clear definition of evolution on it's own without being contrasted with the extreme views of the "six literal days" types (there can be a danger of thinking that you have established your argument because you have disproved someone else's)
Thank you for your definition of "theory".
While I understand the basis upon which the "no absolutes" belief is founded and hence the basis upon which "proof" has become more subjective, I would argue that the line past which one must cross to be conclusive on a matter should be stricter.
I believe that electricity exists based upon cause and effect... as can be easily observed and measured by several means... nevertheless, I accept that our definition of "exactly" how it works may change if one day we get some unexpected results that contradict our current model (excuse the pun).... but the difference is that electricity conforms to it's predicted model... the ball is in your court to show how evolution conforms to it's model and that it's model doesn't ignore any relevant factors... hence the need for a new thread. I don't see it as acceptable to merely take your word for it... present the evidence.
Do you truly believe that the conclusiveness of evolution is as strong as that of Electricity, gravity, chemistry etc...???
If you do not wish to create a new thread for this then I could do so if you wish.
But this thread is here for you to discuss the conflicts between Christianity and evolution.
Please note though, that I would be particularly interested in learning about your reference to the predictions made by evolution when you say
"The theory has predicted the existence of countless unknown species which have since been found" when you/I create a different thread.0 -
That is basically what biology and medicine has been doing for the last 150 years.Lovethinking wrote: »the ball is in your court to show how evolution conforms to it's model and that it's model doesn't ignore any relevant factors... hence the need for a new thread.
A point that a lot of people don't seem to understand with the theory of evolution is that it isn't simply some abstract theory that scientists pounder upon. It actually has implications that effect a vast set of practical areas.
If it was inaccurate, if it didn't work, biologists wouldn't be using it.
A scientific theory that doesn't accurately predict future discover is useless.
This is your "cause and effect". We use the theory of electromagnatism because it works. It allows us to make computers and radios and mag-trains. If our models were wrong, if what was happening was vastly different to what we thought was happening, this would be very difficult. The fact that our machinary was working would be a fluke and incredibly unlikely.
The same can be said of evolution. The predictions of the theory of Darwinian evolution are test every day in labs across the globe. It forms the theoretical basis of modern medicine. It would be incredible if this theory was very inaccurate and all these predictions were just flukes.Lovethinking wrote: »Do you truly believe that the conclusiveness of evolution is as strong as that of Electricity, gravity, chemistry etc...???
No, it is much much stronger.
There are still gapping holes in our understanding of phenomena such as gravity. Tying gravity with quantum physics (basically the very big with the same principles as the very small) is an on going challange. There are various different theories put forward to explain these and it is difficult to verify these theories as they go into areas such as String theory.Lovethinking wrote: »Please note though, that I would be particularly interested in learning about your reference to the predictions made by evolution when you say
"The theory has predicted the existence of countless unknown species which have since been found" when you/I create a different thread.
A small selection taken from TalkOrigins- Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
- Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
- Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
- Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
- Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
- Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
- Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html0 -
Yes, that is a good point. The answer seems to be that bacteria, like plants, are not regarded as having 'the breath of life', and so suffering and death cannot be applied to them in the ordinary sense. They were just part of the food processing cycle.
That is some what circular reasoning.
You assert that "all was good" cannot means that death took place in Eden before the Fall, and then say that an examples of death that must have taken place cannot be called "death", despite that clearly being what it was.
Would it not be less contrived simple to assume that "all was good" does not preclude death? That was after all simply your assertion of what "good" means, not something that is defined in the Bible.0 -
Lovethinking wrote: »Perhaps a new perspective would be refreshing... clear definition of evolution on it's own without being contrasted with the extreme views of the "six literal days" types (there can be a danger of thinking that you have established your argument because you have disproved someone else's)
That's not the basis of the acceptance of evolution amongst scientists.Lovethinking wrote: »Thank you for your definition of "theory".
While I understand the basis upon which the "no absolutes" belief is founded and hence the basis upon which "proof" has become more subjective, I would argue that the line past which one must cross to be conclusive on a matter should be stricter.
It is.Lovethinking wrote: »I believe that electricity exists based upon cause and effect... as can be easily observed and measured by several means... nevertheless, I accept that our definition of "exactly" how it works may change if one day we get some unexpected results that contradict our current model (excuse the pun).... but the difference is that electricity conforms to it's predicted model... the ball is in your court to show how evolution conforms to it's model and that it's model doesn't ignore any relevant factors... hence the need for a new thread. I don't see it as acceptable to merely take your word for it... present the evidence.
The argument only has relevance on this forum as part of the creationism debate. We have been presenting the evidence on the creationism thread and we're absolutely not expecting anyone to take our word for it. To discuss evolution alone would probably not be acceptable on this forum, but more suited to the biology forum. Any such discussion here would certainly descend back into a creation vs. evolution debate.Lovethinking wrote: »Do you truly believe that the conclusiveness of evolution is as strong as that of Electricity, gravity, chemistry etc...???
For electricity, yes evolution is conclusive on that level. Gravity, actually evolution is better understood by far as we are still not clear on the causes of gravity beyond "mass" whereas evolution is comprehensively understood. Chemistry is a field of the physical sciences containing many theories so a comparison with evolution is irrelevant.Lovethinking wrote: »If you do not wish to create a new thread for this then I could do so if you wish.
But this thread is here for you to discuss the conflicts between Christianity and evolution.
Please note though, that I would be particularly interested in learning about your reference to the predictions made by evolution when you say
"The theory has predicted the existence of countless unknown species which have since been found" when you/I create a different thread.
This is open for discussion in the BC@P thread and indeed has been discussed there. Another thread on evolution would probably not be practical for the reasons I've stated.0 -
Advertisement
-
I see this as a ridiculously unreasonable stance... it is obviously pointless to expect reasonable discussion from you on this subject... disappointing.AtomicHorror wrote: »For electricity, yes evolution is conclusive on that level. Gravity, actually evolution is better understood by far as we are still not clear on the causes of gravity beyond "mass" whereas evolution is comprehensively understood. Chemistry is a field of the physical sciences containing many theories so a comparison with evolution is irrelevant.
Now, again, please let us return to the focus of this thread.0 -
Well I believe you can and dont think it unreasonable.I dont see how you can believe otherwise.
Though I respect the rights of others not to believe.
I cant take the creationist position as being credible as to do so is to deny what you see .0 -
I agree with CDfm. Althought evolution is a major challenge to religion, and the more you know about it the more a challenge it is, I certainly believe the two can co-exist. It will certainly destroys what I would call Biblical literalism but I would suggest it augments a more mature, reasoned faith (if that's not an oxymoran :-)).Well I believe you can and dont think it unreasonable.0 -
:pac: Well I'm Christian but the way I see it is, you've got to take the bible with a pinch of salt, some things won't always be completly accurate but it's really just guidelines to how we should live and worship at the end of the day!0
-
Lovethinking wrote: »I see this as a ridiculously unreasonable stance... it is obviously pointless to expect reasonable discussion from you on this subject... disappointing.
I have to wonder, did you merely ask me the question in the hopes that I would confirm the position you already held? Is it really fair to respond to a contradiction of your position with the dismissive assumption that I am being unreasonable?
Okay, so on what basis do you consider my position unreasonable? Since you only today learned what "theory" actually means to scientists (a topic that comes up frequently with regard to evolution), I find it rather hard to believe that you've closely examined the evidence and logic that convinces scientists of their position. So I am not certain how you can be in a position to determine whether my position represents a dogmatic stance or is simply a reasonable response to compelling evidence.I cant take the creationist position as being credible as to do so is to deny what you see .
Which is exactly what some here seem to be suggesting. Fossils planted by the devil and whatnot. Or more subtle variations on the theme; the reason of scientists has been subjected to delusion by the defiance of God in our hearts. All rather hard to test, which is handy really.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »I agree with CDfm. Althought evolution is a major challenge to religion, and the more you know about it the more a challenge it is, I certainly believe the two can co-exist. It will certainly destroys what I would call Biblical literalism but I would suggest it augments a more mature, reasoned faith (if that's not an oxymoran :-)).
Us platoists have to stick together:pac:0 -
No, I was searching for common ground (there was an element of rhetoric it the question)... I expected you to agree that the science of electricity and gravity were much more solidly established.AtomicHorror wrote: »I have to wonder, did you merely ask me the question in the hopes that I would confirm the position you already held? Is it really fair to respond to a contradiction of your position with the dismissive assumption that I am being unreasonable?AtomicHorror wrote: »Okay, so on what basis do you consider my position unreasonable? Since you only today learned what "theory" actually means to scientists (a topic that comes up frequently with regard to evolution), I find it rather hard to believe that you've closely examined the evidence and logic that convinces scientists of their position. So I am not certain how you can be in a position to determine whether my position represents a dogmatic stance or is simply a reasonable response to compelling evidence.
I am tempted to answer this in so many ways, but you evidently would not hear me from your higher intellectual ground (warning: may contain sarcasm traces). I have repeatedly invited you to open a new thread with your explanation of evolution so that a discussion can be based upon your view of evolution... you have refused.
Now, if you have an answer for this thread then please proceed, otherwise open a new thread. I am not interested in bickering with you.0 -
Lovethinking wrote: »No, I was searching for common ground (there was an element of rhetoric it the question)... I expected you to agree that the science of electricity and gravity were much more solidly established.
I can't agree, because I do not consider that to be the case. Electromagnetism is on a par with evolution I think, but gravity is lagging behind it somewhat due to some gaps in the explanatory power of the current theory.Lovethinking wrote: »I am tempted to answer this in so many ways, but you evidently would not hear me from your higher intellectual ground (warning: may contain sarcasm traces).
I'm really not trying to patronise you. It just appears that you're rather new to the debate and I suspect your view of evolution may thus be based on some preconceptions (such as the meaning of theory in science) that may be misinformed.Lovethinking wrote: »I have repeatedly invited you to open a new thread with your explanation of evolution so that a discussion can be based upon your view of evolution... you have refused.
And I have repeatedly pointed out that we already have a thread which discusses the evidence for evolution. If I open a new one, PDN or Fanny will probably close it. If you disagree, you are welcome try and open one yourself.Lovethinking wrote: »Now, if you have an answer for this thread then please proceed, otherwise open a new thread. I am not interested in bickering with you.
My position, as I stated before, is that the theory of evolution as it currently stands does not contradict a non-literal reading of Genesis. Nor does the theory deal with the origin of life, which would allow a God-of-the-gaps style argument in favour of the creation of life.0 -
Lovethinking wrote: »No, I was searching for common ground (there was an element of rhetoric it the question)... I expected you to agree that the science of electricity and gravity were much more solidly established.
Sorry... at the risk of sounding patronising... what do you think we mean by Gravity the context of scientific theories?
I know it's off topic but I just feel that maybe you are both coming at this from very very different angles...
In terms of gravity we know that masses attract one another but we don't know HOW/WHY they actually interact. e.g. curvature of space time? some sort of massless graviton particle? what? ...
Newton gives us a lovely inverse square law but we know that there are problems with it... Einstein deals with this and we start to see Gravity as a curvature of space time but again there are apparently problems with his model and we need to reconcile it with quantum gravity and a few other things... it's pretty funky out there in Physics land...
Gravity is not just things fall down (moving towards each other)...
Questions like why mass attracts mass are largely unanswered even if we can mathematically model how much they do so...
But then again I'm not a physicist, I get out of my depth once I'm too far past Newton's stuff ... and so I'm completely open to my being wrong here.0 -
Sorry... at the risk of sounding patronising... what do you think we mean by Gravity the context of scientific theories?
I know it's off topic but I just feel that maybe you are both coming at this from very very different angles...
In terms of gravity we know that masses attract one another but we don't know HOW/WHY they actually interact. e.g. curvature of space time? some sort of massless graviton particle? what? ...
Newton gives us a lovely inverse square law but we know that there are problems with it... Einstein deals with this and we start to see Gravity as a curvature of space time but again there are apparently problems with his model and we need to reconcile it with quantum gravity and a few other things... it's pretty funky out there in Physics land...
Gravity is not just things fall down (moving towards each other)...
Questions like why mass attracts mass are largely unanswered even if we can mathematically model how much they do so...
But then again I'm not a physicist, I get out of my depth once I'm too far past Newton's stuff ... and so I'm completely open to my being wrong here.
This is basically what I was saying. By comparison, Evolution is comprehensively understood. The how and the why is all in there. We know what causes evolution itself and we know what causes its causes (ie the mechanisms by which mutation, replication, selection, drift and inheritance all work). All of that makes testable predictions which- guess what- we have successfully tested. Once we figure out abiogenesis, we can unify it with evolution to give us a theory of life (though it would be specific to Earth at that point). We are probably a lot closer to that than we are to unifying relativity and quantum theory.
Now that will probably conflict with a larger Christian audience than evolution does.0 -
Advertisement
-
Lovethinking wrote: »No, I was searching for common ground (there was an element of rhetoric it the question)... I expected you to agree that the science of electricity and gravity were much more solidly established.
I'm sure the Nobel prize committee would be interested that you have managed to explain gravity to a greater level of understand than Darwinian evolution, considering no one else has.
(warning: may contain sarcasm traces)
What is the point of asking questions if you don't bother listening to the responses?0 -
Just a reminder to all concerned that this thread is to discuss the compatibility of evolution with Christianity.
Anyone wanting to discuss whether evolution is true or not please take it to the existing Creationism thread (the big long one). Any new threads started on Creationism will be merged into the big thread as one of those is more than enough for any forum.0 -
I appreciate the focussing back onto topic.Just a reminder to all concerned that this thread is to discuss the compatibility of evolution with Christianity.
Anyone wanting to discuss whether evolution is true or not please take it to the existing Creationism thread (the big long one). Any new threads started on Creationism will be merged into the big thread as one of those is more than enough for any forum.
But, why would you wish to limit such a multi-fasseted subject like evolution into one large thread? Is there an indexing system within the thread that I am unaware of?
I was personally unwilling to spend the time necessary to read through so many posts... I don't believe that I would be alone on that.
Might several more specific posts be more beneficial?0 -
Lovethinking wrote: »I appreciate the focussing back onto topic.
But, why would you wish to limit such a multi-fasseted subject like evolution into one large thread? Is there an indexing system within the thread that I am unaware of?
I was personally unwilling to spend the time necessary to read through so many posts... I don't believe that I would be alone on that.
Might several more specific posts be more beneficial?
Other threads just go over the same recycled arguments. They end up clogging the board with the same old stuff.0 -
Shouldn't it be Dichard Rawkins? If we're doing that whole thing.0
-
Lovethinking wrote: »I was personally unwilling to spend the time necessary to read through so many posts... I don't believe that I would be alone on that.
Might several more specific posts be more beneficial?
If you really want to learn (which, to be honest I'm not sure you do) this video is a good starting point.
0 -
If Lovethinking really wants to learn, there's a thread where we can do a recap on the important bits. I haven't even read all of the BC&P thread and I've made about 1000 posts on it to date.0
-
Lovethinking wrote: »I appreciate the focussing back onto topic.
But, why would you wish to limit such a multi-fasseted subject like evolution into one large thread? Is there an indexing system within the thread that I am unaware of?
Er...there's a science board.I was personally unwilling to spend the time necessary to read through so many posts... I don't believe that I would be alone on that.
Might several more specific posts be more beneficial?
You don't have to. The creationists don't really have that much to say, but they do say it over and over again. You can pretty much jump into the thread at any point.
Actually, I think J C is the only permanent fixture in the thread. I doubt too many who post on it now have been posting for over a couple of hundred pages.0 -
Yes of course you can.:D0
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement