[_ Old Earth _] Give Me A Break

[Barbarian]

Jesus says that God is a spirit, and says that a spirit has no body.

That's not true Barbarian

If we can trust Jesus, it's true.

[edit by Moderator]

God isn't male and female

Then your argument fails.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Eve was made from Adams rib as a helpmeet.

Which is like the "morning" before there was a Sun to have it. Some of the Bible isn't literal history, but is allegory or metaphor.

Adam and Eve were created

Of course they were. It's just that some people don't approve of the way He did it.

"are you saying they evolved" you didn't answer to that...

I've told you before that organisms don't evolve. Populations do. So one more time; no, they didn't evolve. They were, at birth the same as they were when they died, genetically.

Why is it so offensive to some people if God uses nature to make our physical bodies?

 

[Barbarian]

It makes perfect sense that we can understand God's message to us, even if we aren't very smart. It would be wrong if it were otherwise. Evolution, of course, is not something we must comprehend to be saved. And yet, He makes that and many other things accessible to those who look for answers.

The only way to Him is as a little child. But I assure you that knowing more about His creation will enrich your faith and deepen your wonder at His majesty. I suspect you may have already figured that out.

 

[jeff77]

What about Adam and Eve's ability to speak/communicate? That is something that has to be learned and if God gave them that ability then it would have the appearance of having skipped a step that we naturally have today. So, does theistic evolution say that primates taught Adam and Eve how to speak?

 

[Barbarian]

What about Adam and Eve's ability to speak/communicate?

Given that chimps and gorillas can communicate by signs (and can with considerable difficulty, speak due to anatomical issues), I'd say they were certainly able to do that.

That is something that has to be learned

Yep. Even lower primates show that they need to learn what the vocalizations mean before they can use and understand them.

and if God gave them that ability then it would have the appearance of having skipped a step that we naturally have today.

Since even apes have Broca's and Warenke's areas, I'd say that was an unnecessary assumption.

So, does theistic evolution say that primates taught Adam and Eve how to speak?

You, for example, were taught to speak by primates, as were we all.

 

[Sparkey]

I like the title, "Give me a break," and think it appropriate for this discussion.

 

[duari91]

Jesus says that God is a spirit, and says that a spirit has no body.

Not a problem. We all believe we have a spirit.

If we can trust Jesus, it's true.

Where did Jesus ever support evolution? If we can trust Jesus, he quoted from Genesis as it was a literal fact.

I accept it as it is. The "image" isn't in our bodies, but in our spirits.

"Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
Nothing to suggest that there was a gap between the creation of man, and the injection of our spirits. In fact, it happened in immediate succession. You just don't want to accept the way he did it.

Then your argument fails.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

He said God isn't male or female...No flaw in his reasoning. God was merely describing the event of implanting us with a spirit. Which was immediately after he created us.

Which is like the "morning" before there was a Sun to have it. Some of the Bible isn't literal history, but is allegory or metaphor.

There is nothing to suggest all of Genesis is an allegory or metaphor. Actually, it doesn't seem like you know what those things are.

Allegory: "a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one."
- Looks like that is eliminated. Literal tones are used with upfront descriptions. No hidden meanings what so ever.
Metaphore: "a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.”"
- God's image is a spirit, like you showed earlier. That is a metaphor because it is suggesting that God has an "image", while a spirit cannot be seen. However; there is nothing to suggest all of Genesis is a giant metaphor or allegory. In fact, when he says "on the first day...etc", it is taking a literal tone. Which is not an allegory or a metaphor. He created the world in 6 days. Not eons, days. My God is powerful enough to preserve his word, and he isn't a liar either. I believe when he tells me "6 days", he means it.

duari suggests: God is smart enough to experience a 24 hour period before the sun. Like the morning, or evening. No sun necessary. Just God being specific.

Of course they were. It's just that some people don't approve of the way He did it.

Like yourself. You have no grammatical basis for believing all of Genesis is a metaphor. Neither do you have any basis for believing that God created the earth in anything other than 6 days.

I've told you before that organisms don't evolve. Populations do. So one more time; no, they didn't evolve. They were, at birth the same as they were when they died, genetically.

They adapt based upon their environment. I agree, they were the same as genetically as when they died. They didn't evolve prior to that point, though. Remember, we have learned that the evolution of the human genome isn't possible. The sun would cease to be a main sequence star and engulf the planet before God would have to opportunity to inject us with a soul.

duari suggests: God could interject and guide the process of evolution, but then it wouldn't be darwinian evolution. It would be some other form of it.

Why is it so offensive to some people if God uses nature to make our physical bodies?

It's not offensive necessarily. It's downright false and impossible, because God ends the matter. Some people don't like to accept it though.[/quote]

 

[Jamsie]

duari suggests: God could interject and guide the process of evolution, but then it wouldn't be darwinian evolution. It would be some other form of it.



It's not offensive necessarily. It's downright false and impossible, because God ends the matter. Some people don't like to accept it though.

I’m confused...on one hand you’ve stated that God could “interject and guide the process of evolution” and then you claim it is “downright false and impossible”? Does the fact that it is called Darwinian evolution become the problem?... there does exist other scientific findings so named by the individuals that discovered them.

 

[duari91]

duari suggests: God could interject and guide the process of evolution, but then it wouldn't be darwinian evolution. It would be some other form of it.


It's not offensive necessarily. It's downright false and impossible, because God ends the matter. Some people don't like to accept it though.

I’m confused...on one hand you’ve stated that God could “interject and guide the process of evolution” and then you claim it is “downright false and impossible”? Does the fact that it is called Darwinian evolution become the problem?... there does exist other scientific findings so named by the individuals that discovered them.

Please read what I said carefully. If God guides the process, it isn't Darwinian Evolution. That is, there would be no random mutations. That's because it would be guided. That option is very plausible. Random variation leading to everything we see today is not (Darwinian evolution). Just the cell would take billions of years alone. Not including complex creatures like humans. The sun would cease to be a main sequence star if left to random chance. You could call it johns evolution. As long as it involves random mutations over time, its wrong. This is why all Atheists cling to the theory. It eliminates the hand of God completely. I have no problem with a theory that shows that God hand guides the process to produce what we see today. Even if it took a few billion years. The problem is that the evidence for a young earth in the bible is overwhelming. You could extract an old earth theory from the bible, but not without extreme assumptions and constraint. Even those simple goat herders would understand if God said "I used nature over huge stretches of time". But thats not what we get. Neither does almost anyone who reads the bible for the first time without presuppositions.

 

[Milk-Drops]

If God guides the process, it isn't Darwinian Evolution.

Darwin's theory of Evolution states that organisms compete in an enviroment, and the ones best suited will go on to have offspring. Natural selection is the constant chain events that result in the extinction of some organisms and the adaptation of other organisms. This does not rule out the possibility that a god guided which organisms would be the most fit.

That is, there would be no random mutations. That's because it would be guided. That option is very plausible. Random variation leading to everything we see today is not (Darwinian evolution).

Darwin had no idea what Genetics was. He never mentions random mutations or genetics at all when he presented his theory. The man who discovered Genetics and introduced the concept of random mutation was a Christian Monk named Gregor Mendel. Darwin introduced natural selection and Mendel introduced mutation. Darwin was a deist and Mendel was a devote Christian.

Just the cell would take billions of years alone. Not including complex creatures like humans. The sun would cease to be a main sequence star if left to random chance.

I'd like to point out that this assertion is based off a math problem with made up variables. The equation isn't based on observed evidence, but purely on math. Considering that the theory of evolution isn't a math proof, but instead a theory based on gathered evidence, its not a big deal. I've pointed out to others that you can do the same thing with a deck or cards or rolling dice several hundred times. The equation looks daunting, but it doesn't change what you rolled or drew from the deck. All it does is slaps an arbitrary number onto the situation. Statistics are great when it is making predictions of what will happen next based on the known factors. Its horrible when trying to explain why events in the past were impossible. When something has already happened, its 100% all the time.

You could call it johns evolution. As long as it involves random mutations over time, its wrong.

The problem you are having is that you are ignoring that Mendel demonstrated mutation occurring, and how modern genetic research demonstrates that all organisms are borne with hundreds if not thousands of mutations. A few are positive, a few are negative, most are neutral. At this point you aren't arguing that Evolution and Genetics is wrong based on evidence, but based on a very bad calculation and because they have to be wrong.

This is why all Atheists cling to the theory. It eliminates the hand of God completely.

No. Simply no. As I already mentioned Darwin was a Deist, Mendel was a devote Christian, Ken Miller is a Christian, and the man Who discovered the Human Gnome is a devote Christian. There are also tons of Atheists that don't even understand the basics of Evoltion, and many Christians that understand what Evolution is and are not deterred by it and accept it.

I have no problem with a theory that shows that God hand guides the process to produce what we see today. Even if it took a few billion years. The problem is that the evidence for a young earth in the bible is overwhelming. You could extract an old earth theory from the bible, but not without extreme assumptions and constraint. Even those simple goat herders would understand if God said "I used nature over huge stretches of time". But thats not what we get. Neither does almost anyone who reads the bible for the first time without presuppositions.

Actually, stating the bible describes a young earth is also a presupposition. Accepting the Bible as true is also a presupposition. Accepting the Bible as inerrant is also a presupposition.


The Bible doesn't have to be inerrant to have truth in it.
A person can accept the message of Jesus without sticking to a young earth.
A person can deny the assistance of God and/or Jesus without any knowledge or Evolution or genetics.

At the end of the day it all comes down to whether a person is convinced by the evidence laid before them. That is what we should walk away with in these discussions. Either a person is convinced or not or whether a person can convince another of their position. I think that is all we can do while also being a gracious and polite as possible.

Thanks for your time everyone and thank you for reading.

 

[Jamsie]

Milkdrops - Thanks for your time everyone and thank you for reading.

No really, Thank You ... no need for me to reply.

Either a person is convinced or not or whether a person can convince another of their position.

"Convince another" on discussion boards is a rather rare event wouldn't you say...?

 

[duari91]

Darwin's theory of Evolution states that organisms compete in an enviroment, and the ones best suited will go on to have offspring. Natural selection is the constant chain events that result in the extinction of some organisms and the adaptation of other organisms. This does not rule out the possibility that a god guided which organisms would be the most fit.

He would have to choose which one was most fit. He would even have to choose each variation, and each mutation.

Darwin had no idea what Genetics was. He never mentions random mutations or genetics at all when he presented his theory. The man who discovered Genetics and introduced the concept of random mutation was a Christian Monk named Gregor Mendel. Darwin introduced natural selection and Mendel introduced mutation. Darwin was a deist and Mendel was a devote Christian.

Clearly, they believed the cell was not that complex.

I'd like to point out that this assertion is based off a math problem with made up variables. The equation isn't based on observed evidence, but purely on math. Considering that the theory of evolution isn't a math proof, but instead a theory based on gathered evidence, its not a big deal. I've pointed out to others that you can do the same thing with a deck or cards or rolling dice several hundred times. The equation looks daunting, but it doesn't change what you rolled or drew from the deck. All it does is slaps an arbitrary number onto the situation. Statistics are great when it is making predictions of what will happen next based on the known factors. Its horrible when trying to explain why events in the past were impossible. When something has already happened, its 100% all the time.

It isn't made up variables. Seeing as we have never observed any of these complex systems ever progress in the order they suggest.

It's a fairly big deal. The calculations run in line with the argument of irreducible complexity

The deck of cards/dice argument has been vastly refuted. That is, because it is a fallacy. We are able to shuffle the cards, and role the dice. After a while I am sure these events could take place. The problem is that we are shuffling (so to speak) the process of macro evolution, and trying to replicate it in the laboratory. Unfortunately, we haven't gotten anything that shows its correct. Not to mention, it takes intelligence to create and throw the dice.

The calculations show that the events are so improbable, that when they do happen (assuming they do), it has taken a great deal of time. Before the evolution process would be complete, the sun would cease to support life on this planet.

How many changes does the cell need to complete before it's a worm? How many positive changes are needed per year? per hundred years? Thousand?

The problem you are having is that you are ignoring that Mendel demonstrated mutation occurring, and how modern genetic research demonstrates that all organisms are borne with hundreds if not thousands of mutations. A few are positive, a few are negative, most are neutral. At this point you aren't arguing that Evolution and Genetics is wrong based on evidence, but based on a very bad calculation and because they have to be wrong.

It's not a bad calculation, the math is right and correct. There is no evidence to suggest its wrong, like I said.

No. Simply no. As I already mentioned Darwin was a Deist, Mendel was a devote Christian, Ken Miller is a Christian, and the man Who discovered the Human Gnome is a devote Christian. There are also tons of Atheists that don't even understand the basics of Evoltion, and many Christians that understand what Evolution is and are not deterred by it and accept it.

Atheists don't subscribe to Darwinian Evolution? What do they subscribe to? I never made the argument that some Christians don't believe in Evolution. Here you go again making things up, arguing purely with yourself.

Actually, stating the bible describes a young earth is also a presupposition. Accepting the Bible as true is also a presupposition. Accepting the Bible as inerrant is also a presupposition.


The Bible doesn't have to be inerrant to have truth in it.
A person can accept the message of Jesus without sticking to a young earth.
A person can deny the assistance of God and/or Jesus without any knowledge or Evolution or genetics.

At the end of the day it all comes down to whether a person is convinced by the evidence laid before them. That is what we should walk away with in these discussions. Either a person is convinced or not or whether a person can convince another of their position. I think that is all we can do while also being a gracious and polite as possible.

Thanks for your time everyone and thank you for reading.

duari suggests: A majority of those reading the bible for the first time without presuppositions, will conclude that the earth was created in 6 days. That's because the bible supports that message as the clearest. No added knowledge needed.

If you would like, I can show you why your group of statements are fallacious.

You don't really have an edge in this discussion, as an Atheist that is. All I see is an Atheist with an angry diatribe against myself, religion, and the fact that you don't like your theory to be smeared. Thank everyone all you want, it's not helping your case. Specifically arguing against me.

 

[duari91]

Milkdrops - Thanks for your time everyone and thank you for reading.

No really, Thank You ... no need for me to reply.

[edit by Moderator]

Either a person is convinced or not or whether a person can convince another of their position.

"Convince another" on discussion boards is a rather rare event wouldn't you say...?

Isn't that the truth. There are those on this very board who literally deny what the bible says. I would say its more probably for hell to freeze over until those people accept certain things.


MilkDrops: If you would again like to have a more in-depth discussion about evolution. Feel free to PM me. [edit by Moderator]

Jamsie: Invitation forwarded to you as well. If you would like me to show that the bible vastly supports a young earth, I can show you. Let's see if you can prove that the natural conclusion of the bible is an old earth. No one has yet, you could be the first.

Good luck! Looking forward to the PMs gentlemen.

 

[Jamsie]

duari91 - You don't really have an edge in this discussion, as an Atheist that is. All I see is an Atheist with an angry diatribe against myself, religion, and the fact that you don't like your theory to be smeared. Thank everyone all you want, it's not helping your case. Specifically arguing against me.

Guess I missed something in Milkdrops reply....I didn't see an "angry diatribe". My only point was that by planting a human name to a discovery in whatever field does not necessarily dismiss God from the "equation".

Jamsie: Invitation forwarded to you as well. If you would like me to show that the bible vastly supports a young earth, I can show you.

Perhaps if you would like to discuss our differing views of Genesis based on scripture you should start a new Thread. Since my views might require a title I consider myself a Command/Fiat Mediate Creationist. So I easily accept an old earth and evolution.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Milkdrops - Thanks for your time everyone and thank you for reading.

No really, Thank You ... no need for me to reply.

Either a person is convinced or not or whether a person can convince another of their position.

"Convince another" on discussion boards is a rather rare event wouldn't you say...?

You are quite welcome. I would agree that it is very rare, but it does happen. I mostly just come by the boards to pass some time.

 

[duari91]

duari91 - You don't really have an edge in this discussion, as an Atheist that is. All I see is an Atheist with an angry diatribe against myself, religion, and the fact that you don't like your theory to be smeared. Thank everyone all you want, it's not helping your case. Specifically arguing against me.

Guess I missed something in Milkdrops reply....I didn't see an "angry diatribe". My only point was that by planting a human name to a discovery in whatever field does not necessarily dismiss God from the "equation".

Right, I saw what you were saying. I was trying to show that the specific theory doesn't suggest that there is a guidance of any kind. A lot of scientists are on record saying that it is a random process. Which is what is in our school textbooks. If it isn't random, and guided, it is plausible. I have no problem subscribing to that.

[edit by Moderator]

Jamsie: Invitation forwarded to you as well. If you would like me to show that the bible vastly supports a young earth, I can show you.

Perhaps if you would like to discuss our differing views of Genesis based on scripture you should start a new Thread. Since my views might require a title I consider myself a Command/Fiat Mediate Creationist. So I easily accept an old earth and evolution.

[/quote]

Elaborate.

I don't provide those discussions to people who are unable to be very open. To you personally, I can. That is why the PM function is a cool feature of the forum.

 

[Jamsie]

duari91 - Elaborate.

If you would like to discuss our various views of the Genesis creation account then I would be glad to do so. I specifically said "based on scripture" because I find any in-depth discussion of "scientific evidence" quite fruitless and gave that up years ago. One can parade authoritative views from both sides which to me ends in a merry-go-round discussion to no end. I believe that Genesis 1 quite clearly allows for an old earth and for evolution scripturaly ...again the specific details of which I have little interest in pursuing.

I don't provide those discussions to people who are unable to be very open. To you personally, I can. That is why the PM function is a cool feature of the forum.

[edit by Moderator]

 

[Milk-Drops]

He would have to choose which one was most fit. He would even have to choose each variation, and each mutation.

Are you saying a god is not capable of such a task?

Clearly, they believed the cell was not that complex.

I'm not sure who you are refering to, considering Darwin never stated that the first organism had to be a single cell. His statement was that he concieve that all life possibly sprout from a single organism. He did not define such an organism though.

It isn't made up variables.

Unless the math is based on the original organism forward, it is in fact made up variable. Not even geneticists know what exactly the first organism looked like. Also, where did they get their time factors? Did they calculate for punctuated equilibrium? What genes were they testing for? Like I said, they are basically slapping a number on an event that already happened. I'm still sitting in this chair and the current models of both Evolution and genetics still hold up to scrutiny.

Seeing as we have never observed any of these complex systems ever progress in the order they suggest.

That should indicate that the Mathematicians have some flaws in their predictions then.

It's a fairly big deal. The calculations run in line with the argument of irreducible complexity

IC has the same problem that the calculation faces. It presupposes that an event is impossible, after an event has already happened.

The deck of cards/dice argument has been vastly refuted. That is, because it is a fallacy. We are able to shuffle the cards, and role the dice.

I don't see how that makes my examples a fallacy because even if the deck is shuffled there are 52 cards in the deck and still 6 sides to a die. So the stats of what you will draw will always be predictable no matter how many times you shuffle or roll a die for the first string. Just like an organism will have to eventually have to multiply to start the process. There is no fallacy going on.

After a while I am sure these events could take place. The problem is that we are shuffling (so to speak) the process of macro evolution, and trying to replicate it in the laboratory. Unfortunately, we haven't gotten anything that shows its correct. Not to mention, it takes intelligence to create and throw the dice.

What you are presenting is a fallacy called a red hearing to lead the conversation away from what was originally implied. The statement is that the calculation gives off some arbitrary large percentage the evolution can happen in the way that it has. I pointed out that there is also a large stat when it comes to the order you draw cards or the sequential numbers you get when rolling dice. Intelligence doesn't matter because that isn't what is being tested.

The calculations show that the events are so improbable, that when they do happen (assuming they do), it has taken a great deal of time. Before the evolution process would be complete, the sun would cease to support life on this planet.

First Evolution doesn't have an end goal, and there is no reason to believe that if evolution was started over that this exact scenario would be its ending mark. That is why I stated that the number is arbitrary, and since the sun isn't burnt out while I'm typing this and the concepts of both genetics and evolution still hold up, I can say that the calculation is flawed.

How many changes does the cell need to complete before it's a worm? How many positive changes are needed per year? per hundred years? Thousand?

there is no single worm, worm is a catch all phrase given to organisms that fit a specific criteria. Also, I wouldn't be playing a number's game, I would instead use genetics to trace back where the classification "worm" spread off from and look at the mutations that help diversify from there. I'm not playing with percentages, I'm looking at observed speciation.

It's not a bad calculation, the math is right and correct. There is no evidence to suggest its wrong, like I said.

Except the part where the concepts behind Evolution and genetics still hold validity and the sun isn't burn out. That is evident that the calculation is flawed.

Atheists don't subscribe to Darwinian Evolution? What do they subscribe to?

I can't speak for all atheists. You'd have to ask them directly. For example, Ayn Rand was a very vocal atheist but rejected Evolution.

I never made the argument that some Christians don't believe in Evolution. Here you go again making things up, arguing purely with yourself.

I actually never said you made these arguments. Instead you took an aside that I made in closing and assumed I was attacking you.

If you would like, I can show you why your group of statements are fallacious.

There is no need to ask my permission.

You don't really have an edge in this discussion, as an Atheist that is.

That is ad hominem fallacy. You are attacking the concept of me being an atheist instead of the merits of my argument.

All I see is an Atheist with an angry diatribe against myself, religion, and the fact that you don't like your theory to be smeared. Thank everyone all you want, it's not helping your case. Specifically arguing against me.

I'm sorry that you see me in such a negative light and hold such an unwarranted presupposition of my nature. Thank you for the time anyway. Even if you did make a personal stab at me in a prior post to this response.

 

[duari91]

Are you saying a god is not capable of such a task?

He is capable of anything, but that is not what he tells us that he did.

I'm not sure who you are refering to, considering Darwin never stated that the first organism had to be a single cell. His statement was that he concieve that all life possibly sprout from a single organism. He did not define such an organism though.

The common understanding of the complexity of the cell (at that time period) was far off from reality. Now we know that irreducible

Unless the math is based on the original organism forward, it is in fact made up variable. Not even geneticists know what exactly the first organism looked like. Also, where did they get their time factors? Did they calculate for punctuated equilibrium? What genes were they testing for? Like I said, they are basically slapping a number on an event that already happened. I'm still sitting in this chair and the current models of both Evolution and genetics still hold up to scrutiny. That should indicate that the Mathematicians have some flaws in their predictions then.

You can get time factors a number of ways. With a viable theory, we should be able to simulate it in a computer program. As a programmer, there has NEVER been a viable program simulating evolution. None. I have seen people try to create one before, and what they end up with is something that is not evolution. They give the program foresight, and add a number of constraints. The calculations are made using the foresight and constraints (those doing the calculations want to give evolution the best chance possible). Even under the constraints and foresight, the programs show how long these changes take. The theory cannot even support a basic simulation, so no it fails when it is questioned. The fly experiments attest to this, and support my conclusion.

IC has the same problem that the calculation faces. It presupposes that an event is impossible, after an event has already happened.

I don't see how that makes my examples a fallacy because even if the deck is shuffled there are 52 cards in the deck and still 6 sides to a die. So the stats of what you will draw will always be predictable no matter how many times you shuffle or roll a die for the first string. Just like an organism will have to eventually have to multiply to start the process. There is no fallacy going on.

Everyone challenges Evo scientists to falsify IC, but they are unable to. It's quite easy to falsify it by the way.

It's a fallacy for two reasons. First off, it doesn't even relate to the calculations that I propose. Not one bit. It takes you (intelligent being) to create and throw the dice. Lastly, the gap in calculations is enormous. The chances of the deck/cards is childs play compared to the calculations I proposed. It just doesn't make any sense.

What you are presenting is a fallacy called a red hearing to lead the conversation away from what was originally implied. The statement is that the calculation gives off some arbitrary large percentage the evolution can happen in the way that it has. I pointed out that there is also a large stat when it comes to the order you draw cards or the sequential numbers you get when rolling dice. Intelligence doesn't matter because that isn't what is being tested.

I haven't distracted you from the main point at all. I was falsifying your weak case to match the card/dice calculations to mine. It would have been a red hearing if I completely distracted the topic and started moving the topic on to tree rings (or something similar). Your learning though.

First Evolution doesn't have an end goal, and there is no reason to believe that if evolution was started over that this exact scenario would be its ending mark. That is why I stated that the number is arbitrary, and since the sun isn't burnt out while I'm typing this and the concepts of both genetics and evolution still hold up, I can say that the calculation is flawed.

The numbers matter because it shows that evolution isn't even viable in the first place. Meaning you are sitting there by other means.

there is no single worm, worm is a catch all phrase given to organisms that fit a specific criteria. Also, I wouldn't be playing a number's game, I would instead use genetics to trace back where the classification "worm" spread off from and look at the mutations that help diversify from there. I'm not playing with percentages, I'm looking at observed speciation.

No. We need to see how many transitions it would take to get a specific type of animal from simple life, to something more complex. If the theory has no answer or explanatory power for this, then it fails. This is the exact reason why no one can demonstrate it in a simulation. Because it is incapable of demonstrating anything.

Except the part where the concepts behind Evolution and genetics still hold validity and the sun isn't burn out. That is evident that the calculation is flawed.

The basic data stands, but only your interpretation of the data tells you that it is flawed.
The calculation isn't flawed. It shows us that the theory isn't at all viable in a reasonable timeline.

I can't speak for all atheists. You'd have to ask them directly. For example, Ayn Rand was a very vocal atheist but rejected Evolution.

I actually never said you made these arguments. Instead you took an aside that I made in closing and assumed I was attacking you.

Then there is no need to bring up random things to the discussion. We were talking about the terminology of Gen. Either contribute to the discussion properly, or don't comment at all.

There is no need to ask my permission.

We all remember what happened the last time I did that.

That is ad hominem fallacy. You are attacking the concept of me being an atheist instead of the merits of my argument.

Remember in our private discussion, I taught you what this means. It literally means "against the man." I don't reject your conclusion based upon you being an atheist. I merely said you don't have an edge discussing the variations of christian doctrine. Specifically because you don't currently experience them. You aren't a Christian.

I didn't commit an ad hominem. You are learning, though. I commend you for that.

I'm sorry that you see me in such a negative light and hold such an unwarranted presupposition of my nature. Thank you for the time anyway. [edit by Moderator]

Actions speak louder than words. No personal sight necessary.

 

[jeff77]

I like reading and posting occasionally in the science forum. It's mostly curiosity for me, but come on guys what is the point in getting upset at a screen-name and an avatar? I hate to see Christians attacking personally over these discussions but to attack a non-Christian in a Christian environment is.......depressing.

 

[turnorburn]

Your still dancing Barbarian.. did Adam and Eve evolve as in from monkeys.. evolution says they did.. another way to mock Gods power and glory.. Evolution is the doctrine of Atheists evolution is the doctrine of communism evolution is the doctrine of humanists and its the religion of evolution..

tob