The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Actually JC and Wolfsbane, I think I'll grant you that someone might be afraid of losing a debate to a creationist. A debate isn't necessarily about who's right, it's about who puts forward the most convincing case

If having a debate with an actual scientist who honestly believed what he was saying they would have no problem entering debate because their opponent would put forward their case and it would be rebutted all within the confines of science. But a creationist can spout any old nonsense and make it sound like science to the lay person. The scientist would be completely unprepared for it because it's just pulled out of the creationist's ass and so would not be able to give an adequate response. He can't point to peer reviewed articles as evidence or point out the specific flaws, not because there are no flaws but because the creationist made it up ten minutes before walking into the debate

Of course the scientist could go and read up on the specific nonsense being spouted and a few weeks later come back with a definitive and crushing blow but it's too late at that stage, the debate is long over

And that's why creationists insist on having "debates" over the issue instead of submitting articles for peer review like real scientists. Of course if you ask a creationist they'll say that they never appear in scientific journals because they're being censored and not at all because they never submit anything because they know it'll be destroyed

I think a lot of light could be gained by proper debates, not sound-bites or set-ups where the chairman takes sides. I agree that springing questions on the unprepared only shows up a lack of preparation on that question, not the strength on the case.

Real debates where both sides get to present and rebut on agreed specifics, and ideally where they can be cross-questioned later by the audience.

But a good cross-questioning interview - Hard Talk style - would also serve, provided both sides get their speak.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

I think a lot of light could be gained by proper debates, not sound-bites or set-ups where the chairman takes sides. I agree that springing questions on the unprepared only shows up a lack of preparation on that question, not the strength on the case.

Real debates where both sides get to present and rebut on agreed specifics, and ideally where they can be cross-questioned later by the audience.

But a good cross-questioning interview - Hard Talk style - would also serve, provided both sides get their speak.

A debate can't really show anything.

They are simply too short and not nearly enough detailed.
We're not talking an issue of politics or ethnics.
We talking a HUGEMONGOUS scientific theory with literally thousands of aspects to it and no one expert on everything.

Debates within science are done through science not outside it.
Creationism continually tries to subvert this.

If it were a debate you would need:

• Each and every fossil present with the expert paelentologist and creationist to argue them.
• You'd need the molecular biologist , creationist and some samples.
• The physical computer simulations and models, the scientist that studies it and the creationist that opposes it.
• Samples of genes , the evolutionist and creationist to debate these.
• Radiometric samples that were dated, the evolutionist and the creationist to debate these.
• Every single peer reviewed article on any single aspect of evolutionary theory available for reference and the scientists and creationists capable of actually discussing them.
• etc etc.

It simply cannot happen as it would be far too complicated and impractical.

And, sorry wolfy, but there really is no need for debate.
Creationism is wrong, evolution may be a scientific theory but it is simply an explanation of the observed phenomena that we call evolution (would you prefer if we call it creation?) these observations will never go away.

wolfsbane

monosharp wrote: »

JC, I cannot believe that you can't even define Evolution.

Are you purposely trying to distort it ?

In black is the definition of evolution.
In red is something which is implied by evolution but it in no way requires it.

Evolution is change in the genetic material of organisms from one generation to the next. Thats it.
The following is a list of scientific definitions of Evolution.

These definitions are by the scientific community, these definitions explain what evolution is.

But if your reading your definitions from a dictionary I can see your problem.

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

The words highlighted are rubbish and this is certainly NOT a definition of Evolution.

Other dictionaries.

"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers

"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's

These are WRONG and are NOT scientific definitions of evolution.

So, evolutionist definitions rule! Never mind how the rest of mankind use the term.

That is fine, for those who want to use it so. But you need to be clear about what Creationists mean when they deny evolution. We deny the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower, not the variation of flies or carrots. New species of fly is within the concept of creationism. Birds evolving from dinosaurs is not.

Conclusion: it is foolish of you to criticise JC for misunderstanding/misdefining evolution, when he plainly is giving a specific definition rather than the broad one used by evolutionists.

Or are you deliberately talking at cross-purposes to hide the weakness of your case?

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

My quick analysis, with paraphrasing:
Wendy's case: there is no weight of evidence for kind to kind evolution ('macroevolution').
Dawkin's response: there is. The textbooks show it.
Weny's response: the same textbooks that teach Haekel's recapitulation.
Dawkins' response: that was a Victorian mistake.
Wendy's response: it was still being taught well into the 20th C.
Dawkin's response: the overwhelming evidence for evolution exists.
Wendy's response. Show me.

You've cut off the important part, where he told her to go and look at the abundant fossil and other evidence available in any good museum and she changed the subject

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

So, evolutionist definitions rule! Never mind how the rest of mankind use the term.

That is fine, for those who want to use it so. But you need to be clear about what Creationists mean when they deny evolution. We deny the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower, not the variation of flies or carrots. New species of fly is within the concept of creationism. Birds evolving from dinosaurs is not.

Conclusion: it is foolish of you to criticise JC for misunderstanding/misdefining evolution, when he plainly is giving a specific definition rather than the broad one used by evolutionists.

Or are you deliberately talking at cross-purposes to hide the weakness of your case?

Evolution is defined in science the way it is defined, if you are to argue through science then you are expected to argue using the scientific defintion.
If you deem a definition inappropriate then you need to outline evidence and hypothesises as you why to the definition should change.
If we do not state clearly what our definitions refer to then the discussion is pointless!

In science, everything has their own precise definition and it is assumed that when you use these words you are referring to that precise definition.

Making your own unaccepted definition is strawmanning, end of.

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Evolution is defined in science the way it is defined, if you are to argue through science then you are expected to argue using the scientific defintion.
If you deem a definition inappropriate then you need to outline evidence and hypothesises as you why to the definition should change.
If we do not state clearly what our definitions refer to then the discussion is pointless!

In science, everything has their own precise definition and it is assumed that when you use these words you are referring to that precise definition.

Making your own unaccepted definition is strawmanning, end of.

Indeed. Something creationists don't seem to realise is that if you make up your own definition of evolution that no one else accepts, it doesn't matter how definitively you disprove this made up definition, you've still done nothing but make yourself look like an idiot.

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

So, evolutionist definitions rule! Never mind how the rest of mankind use the term.

Its the scientific definition of evolution, the dictionary definitions are wrong and contradict the real definition of evolution as well as each other.

That is fine, for those who want to use it so. But you need to be clear about what Creationists mean when they deny evolution.

Which is EXACTLY what I am asking JC and yourself.

JC has and continues to infer that evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing, that they are inseparable which is complete and total nonsense.

It would be like me attacking Christianity by talking about how ridiculous some of the native tribal religions in Africa are.

JC never argues anything, he makes nonsensical statements attacking evolution and then as evidence for his attack on evolution he starts talking about abiogenesis.

It would be like me attacking Jesus Christs character and then as proof against him talking about Mohammad's wars.

We deny the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower

This is something IMPLIED by Evolution, if this was disproven tomorrow it would not even change the definition of Evolution.

, not the variation of flies or carrots. New species of fly is within the concept of creationism. Birds evolving from dinosaurs is not.

Which is an aspect of Evolution, it is not evolution itself. Again, if you proved this tomorrow it wouldn't change evolution. It would change an aspect of the theory of evolution which gets changed and corrected all the time.

Conclusion: it is foolish of you to criticise JC for misunderstanding/misdefining evolution, when he plainly is giving a specific definition rather than the broad one used by evolutionists.

No hes not. He is pulling togeather 1 scientific theory, another term (abiogenesis) which is an umbrella term for dozens of hypothesis', none of which he even understands as he continually has proven, putting them togeather in a single strawman he has himself defined and pretends to have arguments against this strawman and pretends that this strawman is Evolution.

I have asked JC to use the proper definitions for Evolution and Abiogenesis and argue a case against either one which I will respond to.

But how can anyone respond to something which isn't defined ?

JC's evidence against Evolution (which he can't define) amounts to bad mouthing abiogenesis (which he can't define) when these things are completely separate.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We're know you're dodgy Malty. Sure aren't both of us part of the evolutionist conspiracy to silence creationism by interviewing proponents of it and putting it all over the internet and into a documentary :rolleyes:

...I keep telling you it isn't a (secret) conspiracy ... it is OVERT suppression of Creation Science using the Law and all economic 'levers' available, in a manner and to a degree that makes the Mideval Inquisition look positively 'liberal' in comparison!!!:mad::(

J C

QUOTE Malty_T

A debate can't really show anything.

They are simply too short and not nearly enough detailed.
We're not talking an issue of politics or ethnics.
We talking a HUGEMONGOUS scientific theory with literally thousands of aspects to it and no one expert on everything.
Covering ALL of these aspects is the reason for the 1200 plus pages and 18,000 plus postings on this thread!!!
..and I must say that Evolution is looking a tad sickly and weak (to the point of scientific death)...and we have hardly reached the half-way stage in this debate yet!!!:D



Debates within science are done through science not outside it.
Creationism continually tries to subvert this.
...the problem is that Evolutionist-controlled Science DOESN'T ALLOW any debate on the overall validity of Materialistic Evolution ... and any Evolutionist Scientist who publicly casts any doubt on the Materialist case for Evolution (such as ID EVOLUTIONISTS do) will find themselves out of a job as quickly as you can say 'Intelligent Design'!!!:eek:
Indeed the ID Evolutionists find themselves in a particularly vulnerable position, because they are Evolutionists, often employed by Evolutionist organisations!!!



If it were a debate you would need:

• Each and every fossil present with the expert paelentologist and creationist to argue them.
• You'd need the molecular biologist , creationist and some samples.
• The physical computer simulations and models, the scientist that studies it and the creationist that opposes it.
• Samples of genes , the evolutionist and creationist to debate these.
• Radiometric samples that were dated, the evolutionist and the creationist to debate these.
• Every single peer reviewed article on any single aspect of evolutionary theory available for reference and the scientists and creationists capable of actually discussing them.
• etc etc.

It simply cannot happen as it would be far too complicated and impractical.
...of course it can happen ... where there is a will there is a way...
...and this thread has made a very good start in doing so!!!
...unfortunately, like I have said, Evolution is looking a tad sickly and weak (to the point of scientific death)...coming up to the half-way point in this debate!!!:D


And, sorry wolfy, but there really is no need for debate.
Creationism is wrong, evolution may be a scientific theory but it is simply an explanation of the observed phenomena that we call evolution (would you prefer if we call it creation?) these observations will never go away.
...Wendy Wright says you're WRONG!!!!
...and EVERY debate between a Creation Scientist and an Evolutionist says you're WRONG!!

...so, I guess .... YOU'RE WRONG!!!:eek:

Morbert

no

J C

yes:)

Morbert

\thread

J C

QUOTE monosharp
JC, I cannot believe that you can't even define Evolution.

Are you purposely trying to distort it ?
...No I am not trying to distort Evolution ... I am merely describing one supposed result of Evolution ... the idea the unicellular 'Pondslime' evolved into Man (over millions of years)!!!!

I can see why you don't like me drawing attention to this impossibility ... but if you believe in Materialistic Evolution then this is EXACTLY the 'fairytale' you are believing in!!!!


Quote:
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

Quote:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
These definitions are by the scientific community, these definitions explain what evolution is.

But if your reading your definitions from a dictionary I can see your problem.

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

The words highlighted are rubbish and this is certainly NOT a definition of Evolution.

Other dictionaries.

"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers

"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's

These are WRONG and are NOT scientific definitions of evolution.
....the dictionary definitions may not be the strict (and very limited) Evolutionist Science definition of 'evolution' ... BUT they are what Materialists CLAIM to have occurred!!!!

....unless you are now saying that Evolutionist Science ISN'T claiming that Pondslime evolved into Man ... in which case we are in agreement ... and our debate is over ... because the only alternative basic explanation for the origins of Man is Direct Creation!!!



The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.
WHERE have I claimed that Abiogenesis had to be the same process as Evolution?

... is the supposed process by which unicellular LIVING 'Pondslime' SUPPOSEDLY evolved into LIVING Man not 'Evolution'?

...so I am CORRECT when I use the term 'Pondslime to Man' EVOLUTION!!!

...stop your ERRONEOUS and time-wasting nit picking ... and stay with the programme!!!!:eek::)

Morbert

J C wrote: »

....unless you are now saying that Evolutionist Science ISN'T claiming that Pondslime evolved into Man ... in which case we are in agreement ... and our debate is over ...

Evolutionary biologists do not claim this. By your words, the debate is over.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....unless you are now saying that Evolutionist Science ISN'T claiming that Pondslime evolved into Man ... in which case we are in agreement ... and our debate is over ... because the only alternative basic explanation for the origins of Man is Direct Creation!!!


Morbert
Evolutionary biologists do not claim this. By your words, the debate is over.

...is everybody else in agreement that Evolutionary Biologists don't claim that (unicellular) Pondslime evolved into Man?

J C

Monosharp wrote:

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

The words highlighted are rubbish and this is certainly NOT a definition of Evolution

..once again we are in agreement ... the words highlighted (above by you in the original quote) are indeed 'rubbish' ... just like the defunct 'theory' that they are trying to describe!!!!:eek::eek::)

....ARE you becoming a 'Young Earth Creationist' ... or WHAT?:D

monosharp

...No I am not trying to distort Evolution ... I am merely describing one supposed result of Evolution ... the idea the unicellular 'Pondslime' evolved into Man (over millions of years)!!!!

Thats a hypothesis on the origin of life. Evolution deals with the diversity of life.

Although I fully accept abiogenesis, I will not accept you mudding the waters and trying to claim its a part of the theory of evolution for the simple fact that, wait for it, its NOT part of the theory of evolution.

I don't understand why you continue to try to put them under the same umbrella. Its like claiming the big bang is part of the theory of evolution, its pure ignorance.

When you keep trying to claim things are part of the theory that aren't you are making yourself look like A) you don't know what the theory of evolution is you don't know what the various theories of abiogenesis are and C) you are trying to create a strawman for your argument.

I am perfectly willing to argue abiogenesis with you and I do support it, but it is NOT part of evolution.

I can see why you don't like me drawing attention to this impossibility ... but if you believe in Materialistic Evolution then this is EXACTLY the 'fairytale' you are believing in!!!!

No I have no problem with it. I have stated this many times here that I want to debate the scientific merits of evolution and/or abiogenesis with you.

But you have to at least learn what Evolution or Abiogenesis is first, when clearly you don't know what either one is.

....the dictionary definitions may not be the strict (and very limited) Evolutionist Science definition of 'evolution' ... BUT they are what Materialists CLAIM to have occurred!!!!

And they are absolutely worthless when we are trying to debate the THEORY OF EVOLUTION or the various theories within the abiogenesis umbrella.

I could define creationism as the belief that Harry Potter created everything using a magic spell involving a german dictionary and a bucket of horse manure but thats not creationism is it ?

Use the scientific and very easy to understand definition of Evolution please JC.

....unless you are now saying that Evolutionist Science ISN'T claiming that Pondslime evolved into Man ... in which case we are in agreement ... and our debate is over ... because the only alternative basic explanation for the origins of Man is Direct Creation!!!

And we're back to 0 again.

WHAT exactly are you arguing ? Are you trying to argue against the theory of evolution or abiogenesis ? Are you arguing against one particular theory in abiogenesis ?

You've spent 4 years at this JC, surely you have actually read something about the issues at hand.

WHERE have I claimed that Abiogenesis had to be the same process as Evolution?

:pac: Were you up at Knock staring at the sun ?

You keep trying to suggest that an argument against Evolution is a (rubbish) argument against abiogenesis and claiming they are one in the same.

Evolution does not require abiogenesis.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...is everybody else in agreement that Evolutionary Biologists don't claim that (unicellular) Pondslime evolved into Man?

Oh is it ? Could you point me to the paper or relevant peer review journal where I can read about this please JC ?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....unless you are now saying that Evolutionist Science ISN'T claiming that Pondslime evolved into Man ... in which case we are in agreement ... and our debate is over ... because the only alternative basic explanation for the origins of Man is Direct Creation!!!


Original Reply by Morbert
Evolutionary biologists do not claim this. By your words, the debate is over.


Original Reply by Morbert
...is everybody else in agreement that Evolutionary Biologists don't claim that (unicellular) Pondslime evolved into Man?


Monosharp
Oh is it ? Could you point me to the paper or relevant peer review journal where I can read about this please JC ?

So WHO is right .... Morbert ... or yourself, Monosharp????

DO Evolutionary Biologists claim that (unicellular) Pondslime evolved into Man over millions of years ... or DO THEY NOT??

....come back to us when you have made up your mind!!!:eek:

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
My quick analysis, with paraphrasing:
Wendy's case: there is no weight of evidence for kind to kind evolution ('macroevolution').
Dawkin's response: there is. The textbooks show it.
Weny's response: the same textbooks that teach Haekel's recapitulation.
Dawkins' response: that was a Victorian mistake.
Wendy's response: it was still being taught well into the 20th C.
Dawkin's response: the overwhelming evidence for evolution exists.
Wendy's response. Show me.

Sam Vimes
You've cut off the important part, where he told her to go and look at the abundant fossil and other evidence available in any good museum and she changed the subject

…she did say at 3:20 that when you go to the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History you only find drawings/illustrations of supposed intermediates … but no material evidence for the existence of such fossils!!!!
...and it was Prof Dawkins who then changed the subject ... from fossils to DNA ... without any substantive rebuttal to her claim that the fossil evidence DOESN'T support gradual Evolution!!

…a good summary of the interview would characterise it as Wendy Wright repeatedly asking Prof Dawkins to ‘show her the money’ … and Prof Dawkins rooting around in his pockets and coming up with an old shirt button and a Coke can ring!!!:eek::D:)

It was also interesting to hear Prof Dawkins accepting that Haeckel's Embryos were a 'victorian mistake' .... that has been carried forward throughout the 20th century in some science textbooks !!!!:eek::D

....another interesting statement from Prof Dawkins was his claim of 'common ground' with bishops and archbishops on the 'origins issue'. There is something SERIOUSLY WRONG if any leader of any Institution claiming Christian legitimacy has common ground with an Atheist on HOW Humans originated ... yet Prof Dawkins would appear to be correct in relation to this claim!!!!

Go Wendy GO!!!!

...the following verses of scripture confirm that the defence of God's Word is primarily in the hands of ordinary disciples of Jesus Christ, like Wendy Wright:-

Lu 19:39 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

…she did say at 3:20 that when you go to the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History you only find drawings/illustrations of supposed intermediates … but no material evidence for the existence of such fossils!!!!
...and it was Prof Dawkins who then changed the subject ... from fossils to DNA ... without any substantive rebuttal to her claim that the fossil evidence DOESN'T support gradual Evolution!!

…a good summary of the interview would characterise it as Wendy Wright repeatedly asking Prof Dawkins to ‘show her the money’ … and Prof Dawkins rooting around in his pockets and coming up with an old shirt button and a Coke can ring!!!:eek::D:)

It was also interesting to hear Prof Dawkins accepting that Haeckel's Embryos were a 'victorian mistake' .... that has been carried forward throughout the 20th century in some science textbooks !!!!:eek::D

....another interesting statement from Prof Dawkins was his claim of 'common ground' with bishops and archbishops on the 'origins issue'. There is something SERIOUSLY WRONG if any leader of any Institution claiming Christian legitimacy has common ground with an Atheist on HOW Humans originated ... yet Prof Dawkins would appear to be correct in relation to this claim!!!!

Go Wendy GO!!!!

...the following verses of scripture confirm that the defence of God's Word is primarily in the hands of ordinary disciples of Jesus Christ, like Wendy Wright:-

Lu 19:39 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Wendy lost the debate, for obvious reasons. Your refusal to acknowledge this adds weight to the now widespread belief that you are not genuine in your participation on these boards.

But that is beside the point. Please link to an evolutionary paper which says humans evolved from pondslime. You have repeatedly misrepresented evolution, probably deliberately.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Were you up at Knock staring at the sun ?

....I certainly wasn't staring at the Sun in Knock or anywhere else...
....you would need to be as gullible as an Evolutionist ... to fall for that one!!!!:eek::D:)

J C

Morbert wrote: »

Wendy lost the debate

....you would ALSO need to be as gullible as an Evolutionist ... to fall for that one!!!!:eek::D:)

J C

Morbert wrote: »

Please link to an evolutionary paper which says humans evolved from pondslime.

....that is MY POINT ... Humans DIDN'T evolve from Pondslime or anything else!!!:):D

...and now that we appear to have finally settled that one .... after over 18,000 posts ... I am going to really miss debating with you guys!!!:D:)

Morbert

J C wrote: »

....you would ALSO need to be as gullible as an Evolutionist ... to fall for that one!!!!:eek::D:)

But she actually did lose the debate, for obvious reasons.

....that is MY POINT ... Humans DIDN'T evolve from Pondslime

...and now that we appear to have settled that one .... I am going to really miss debating with you guys!!!

/thread

monosharp

J C wrote: »

DO Evolutionary Biologists claim that (unicellular) Pondslime evolved into Man over millions of years ... or DO THEY NOT??

pond (pnd)
An inland body of standing water that is smaller than a lake. Natural ponds form in small depressions and are usually shallow enough to support rooted vegetation across most or all of their areas.

slime (slm)
n.
1. A thick sticky slippery substance.
2. Biology A mucous substance secreted by certain animals, such as catfishes and slugs.
3. Soft moist earth; mud.
4. A slurry containing very fine particulate matter.
5. Vile or disgusting matter.
6. Slang A despicable or repulsive person.

So the answer to your idiotic question is no, Evolutionary biologists do NOT claim that 'pond slime' evolved into Homo sapiens sapiens.

The only one who has ever claimed such is yourself.

This is supposed to be a scientific debate, you are supposed to have some sort of scientific background which you have proven again and again to be completely false.

Use the scientific terminology and the scientific definitions.

....come back to us when you have made up your mind

JC you don't even know what Evolution is, how do you expect to argue against it ?

monosharp

J C wrote: »

…she did say at 3:20 that when you go to the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History you only find drawings/illustrations of supposed intermediates … but no material evidence for the existence of such fossils!!!!

No JC, she said fossils, she didn't say intermediaries and even if she did she would still be wrong.

There are millions of intermediary fossils.

…a good summary of the interview would characterise it as Wendy Wright repeatedly asking Prof Dawkins to ‘show her the money’ … and Prof Dawkins rooting around in his pockets and coming up with an old shirt button and a Coke can ring!!!:eek::D:)

Yes, I rather liked her other famous moment on youtube where she claims sex education in highschools in the USA is run by people who directly profit from teenagers taking drugs and getting pregnant and subsequently getting an abortion.

A fine piece of logic if ever I saw it.

It was also interesting to hear Prof Dawkins accepting that Haeckel's Embryos were a 'victorian mistake' .... that has been carried forward throughout the 20th century in some science textbooks !!!!:eek::D

Uh huh, which no one has ever tried to deny.

Science does this you see, it constantly questions everything and corrects mistakes.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

No JC, she said fossils, she didn't say intermediaries and even if she did she would still be wrong.

There are millions of intermediary fossils.

quit the nit picking...she was clearly talking about the lack of FOSSIL evidence for one Kind evolving into another!!!!
....and Prof Dawkins changed the subject from fossils to DNA ... and Wendy challenged his 'DNA evidence' by pointing out that he was talking about 'commonalities' ... and not common descent!!!!

....and Prof Dawkins only response was to 'agree to differ' ...and he changed the subject AGAIN ... this time to postulating his very own 'conspiracy theory' in relation to Creation Science ... which Wendy, in her turn, comprehensively dismissed!!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
It was also interesting to hear Prof Dawkins accepting that Haeckel's Embryos were a 'victorian mistake' .... that has been carried forward throughout the 20th century in some science textbooks !!!!

monosharp
Uh huh, which no one has ever tried to deny.

Science does this you see, it constantly questions everything and corrects mistakes.

...in the case of Haeckel's Embryos, Evolutionist Science continued to promote and defend the indefensible for over 100 years!!!
.....with no evidence of ANY Evolutionist questioning these ERRONEOUS drawings during this time!!!!

...ditto with the now disproven 'horse evolution' pictures as well!!!!

...WHY am I not surprised???

....was it YOURSELF I saw on the TV the other night looking 'open-mouthed' at the Sun ... and expecting the Earth to move???:eek::)

Sam Vimes

JC, I have to say if I thought you were serious and not just taking the piss then trying to get through your wall of ignorance would have me in tears at this stage.

It is quite terrifying to know that there are so many people around the world that are taken in by this though. I can only hope that the sham that is creationism dies the death it deserves as soon as possible. I don't think it will ever be done through science mind you, it that was going to happen it would have been done 150 years ago when creationism was shown to all unbiased observers to be the nonsense that it is. If the millions of intermediary fossils that we have aren't good enough then adding a few million more won't make any difference, someone who can deny the existence of 5 million fossils can deny the existence of 10 million just as easily.

Really the only way to fight creationism is to convince the misguided people who follow it that they don't have to lose their faith in god to accept evolution. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference what evidence you show to someone if they think that society will collapse and they'll burn for eternity if they accept it.

So wolfsbane, the bible might well be the perfect word of god but you are not perfect and given that you are a fallible human being you might have interpreted incorrectly. Could it not be that the stories in the old testament were meant by god for primitive people who had no concept of DNA or genetic mutation to make sense of their existence and that we were always meant to graduate beyond those stories by use of our god given brains, recognising the allegorical nature of these stories while still maintaining our faith in the resurrection of Jesus?

Is it not far more amazing to think of god employing natural laws to bring about the pinnacle of his creation over billions of years than metaphorically clicking his fingers and beaming us down to earth fully formed?

Morbert

It seems you were being dishonest about ending your trolling. Nevermind, we'll continue to respond because of that .00001% chance that there's lurkers reading this.

J C wrote: »

quit the nit picking...she was clearly talking about the lack of FOSSIL evidence for one Kind evolving into another!!!!
....and Prof Dawkins changed the subject from fossils to DNA ... and Wendy challenged his 'DNA evidence' by pointing out that he was talking about 'commonalities' ... and not common descent!!!!

....and Prof Dawkins only response was to 'agree to differ' ...and he changed the subject AGAIN ... this time to postulating his very own 'conspiracy theory' in relation to Creation Science ... which Wendy, in her turn, comprehensively dismissed!!!!

Actually, she changed the subject by asking why it's important to believe in evolution. She seems to know there is evidence out there, but here political agenda prevents here being reasonable.

...in the case of Haeckel's Embryos, Evolutionist Science continued to promote and defend the indefensible for over 100 years!!!

.....with no evidence of ANY Evolutionist questioning these ERRONEOUS drawings during this time!!!!

...ditto with the now disproven 'horse evolution' pictures as well!!!!

...WHY am I not surprised???

....was it YOURSELF I saw on the TV the other night looking 'open-mouthed' at the Sun ... and expecting the Earth to move???:eek::)

Please provide evidence that Evolutionary biologists promoted and defended those drawings for over 100 years.