- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:49 am to Patron Saint
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:49 am to Patron Saint
Cheese and crackers
0
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:49 am to beejon
quote:
both Darwinism and belief in God are faith based beliefs
OK fine... so if we are just talking about a 'faith' issue...
There is no need for further debate.
Our existence could be a product of random evolution, a creation/pet project of an almighty deity... God - Buddha - Allah - Odin - Zeus, or we could just be the product of a trash dump by an super advance alien race passing by our solar system...
Can't we all get along?
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:49 am to Roger Klarvin
I think what he is saying, literally, is that it is assumed there was this first living cell that grew and randomly split into plant and animal and fungal life ect.
That assumption is faith. Prove that happened.
You can not, so it is theory.
My theory is that God created, as he said, and that his unique and complex creations evolve and we are blessed to be able to observe and use, if not even coming close to understand his work.
That assumption is faith. Prove that happened.
You can not, so it is theory.
My theory is that God created, as he said, and that his unique and complex creations evolve and we are blessed to be able to observe and use, if not even coming close to understand his work.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:49 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Why do you keep calling evolution random?
Mutations are random, evolution and selection are the very antithesis of random.
Because the events which create increasingly varied and complex life forms are random in Darwianian evolution.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:50 am to beejon
quote:
guesses and suppositions
When will you realize that constantly repeating this phrase doesn't help your point in any way? You fail even a basic understanding of scientific terms and the aspects of evolution you disagree with.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:50 am to Lokistale
quote:
Can't we all get along?
I think we can. Even in our disagreements, we can still get along.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:51 am to Cap Crunch
I can respect this sort of belief. I have gone back and forth in my life from a deistic perspective to a personal God, and I have just always had more questions than answers. I absolutely acknowledge Jesus existed but the lack of real evidence for his divinity, among many other things, prevents me from truly buying into the full Christian narrative. I love the idea of it (some of it anyway) but there are just so many philosophical and theological problems with it.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:52 am to beejon
quote:No, hypothesis means guess. Theory means rigorously tested, and backed up by mountains of evidence.
Theory means guess.
quote:You keep saying "elephant and pine tree split", and just ignore the billion years it took for these things to happen. This split took place in some of the very earliest stages of life on earth. Some cells adapted to survive on energy and nutrients absorbed from their surroundings, while others adapted to survive by consuming other organisms (and their energy and nutrients). Fast forward a few BILLION generations and you have very simple aquatic plants, and very simple worm-like animals. Fast forward a few BILLION more generations, and the simple plants have moved on to shore lines where some adapt to survive on land, and the worm-like creatures have evolved more efficient means of locomotion, or whatever. The possibilities for incremental adaptation are limitless, as is the timeframe for them to result in major changes and diversity. If you accept microevolution, then you accept macroevolution.
Survival of the fittest doesn't begin to offer evidence, proof, for an increasingly diverse and complex life creation. When the elephant-pine tree split occurred several million years ago (note that this is a guess, a theory), how was that survival of the fittest? Evidence please.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:55 am to beejon
quote:
Because the events which create increasingly varied and complex life forms are random in Darwianian evolution.
No they aren't. Mutations are random, but selection actively selects for traits that increase one's ability to mature and reproduce. The events are not random at all. If they were random, nothing would have function and we'd all just be random accumulations of cells with no rhyme or reason to any of it.
For instance, it isn't "random" that the sickle cell trait remains in Africa at such relatively high rates. It gives people a selective advantage against malaria. The initial genetic mutation was random, but if selection were random it wouldn't have stick around.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:55 am to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:56 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
Theory means guess.
quote:
When you trot this out, you move from simply being wrong to being an outright liar.
I realize that many wish to turn to 'scientific' doublespeak when discussing Darwinian evolution, but let's apply the same requirements to Darwinism as to intelligent designers. Theory means guess. There are guesses and suppositions, theories, in Darwinism. The 'it could be this' or 'it might be that', or 'possibly this or that'. Those are theories. Guesses. Suppositions.
quote:
It's not that you're ignorant to what a scientific theory is, it's that you think that if you lie about it enough you'll confuse some folks.
Folks who use 'scientific' doublespeak are being exposed....and don't like it.
quote:
If I actually thought my actions were being judged by some deity that held my eternal future in its hands, I'd try not to be such a tool. Or is it ok if you're lying on what you perceive to be his behalf?
Is it ok for you to have a double standard when demanding evidence and proof for the theories of creationists?
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:57 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
I have gone back and forth in my life from a deistic perspective to a personal God, and I have just always had more questions than answers
I think just about everyone goes through this. I'm 21 years old and can probably say this is where I am right now, along with a lot of people my age. Obviously, there is no easy way to go about it.
I really do actually like having these kind of discussions on here if there were a way to keep the trolls out. I don't really have a problem discussing my beliefs and always like to hear others beliefs as well.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:57 am to RTOTA
quote:
When will you realize that constantly repeating this phrase doesn't help your point in any way? You fail even a basic understanding of scientific terms and the aspects of evolution you disagree with.
I keep repeating, and will continue to keep repeating, what Darwinist theory is based on. Guesses and suppositions. Not evidence. Not proof.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:04 am to Roger Klarvin
In all seriousness... I have faith that there is a God... a loving God.
However, I also believe that He gave us the capacity to learn, to discover, and to advance our knowledge to benefit all of His creations (He did charge Adam and Eve to care for His garden).
I am aware that our discoveries, knowledge, and advancements may contradict some fundamentals principles of the Bible, but that is OK... as long as my faith in Him remains intact.
However, I also believe that He gave us the capacity to learn, to discover, and to advance our knowledge to benefit all of His creations (He did charge Adam and Eve to care for His garden).
I am aware that our discoveries, knowledge, and advancements may contradict some fundamentals principles of the Bible, but that is OK... as long as my faith in Him remains intact.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:05 am to beejon
quote:Again, you are describing a hypothesis. Once a hypothesis is supported by overwhelming evidence, coupled with absolutely zero evidence to the contrary, it becomes a theory.
Theory means guess. There are guesses and suppositions, theories, in Darwinism. The 'it could be this' or 'it might be that', or 'possibly this or that'. Those are theories. Guesses. Suppositions.
quote:The only thing being exposed is your ignorance.
Folks who use 'scientific' doublespeak are being exposed....and don't like it.
Here is the difference between intelligent design and evolution:
Intelligent design has one book as supporting evidence, and mountains of evidence that shows a lack of intelligence in the way living organisms are "designed" that conflicts with ID.
Evolution has tons of evidence to support it, and one book as evidence that conflicts with it.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:07 am to Cap Crunch
quote:
Gravity is a law. If an apple falls from a tree it will hit the ground
Gravity is a Theory, it is not a Law, we dont fully understand how gravity works but we can explain its effects mathmatically
This post was edited on 2/5/14 at 1:10 am
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:10 am to beejon
quote:
Folks who use 'scientific' doublespeak are being exposed....and don't like it.
There is no
big enough!Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:10 am to Korkstand
quote:
quote:
Theory means guess.
quote:
No, hypothesis means guess. Theory means rigorously tested, and backed up by mountains of evidence.
Darwinian evolution theory isn't backed up by rigorously tested evidence and backed up by mountains of evidence. There isn't a single bit of evidence, of proof, for Darwinian evolution. It's based on guesses and suppositions. Theory means guess.
quote:
Survival of the fittest doesn't begin to offer evidence, proof, for an increasingly diverse and complex life creation. When the elephant-pine tree split occurred several million years ago (note that this is a guess, a theory), how was that survival of the fittest? Evidence please.
quote:
You keep saying "elephant and pine tree split",
Yes, because of the Darwinian guess, supposition, that a random event occurred millions of the years in the past which through trillions more random event, each producing increasingly complex organisms, until we see the elephant and pine tree today.
quote:
and just ignore the billion years it took for these things to happen. This split took place in some of the very earliest stages of life on earth. Some cells adapted to survive on energy and nutrients absorbed from their surroundings, while others adapted to survive by consuming other organisms (and their energy and nutrients). Fast forward a few BILLION generations and you have very simple aquatic plants, and very simple worm-like animals. Fast forward a few BILLION more generations, and the simple plants have moved on to shore lines where some adapt to survive on land, and the worm-like creatures have evolved more efficient means of locomotion, or whatever. The possibilities for incremental adaptation are limitless, as is the timeframe for them to result in major changes and diversity. If you accept microevolution, then you accept macroevolution.
This is creation by accident really. Accident after accident creating more and more complex life forms. This life is so varied and complex we still don't understand it. There is no proof for such a view.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:15 am to beejon
You suck. Really, really bad. Im at a loss for words
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:16 am to beejon
quote:
Because the events which create increasingly varied and complex life forms are random in Darwianian evolution.
no the mutations may be random, their ultimate success or failure is guided by selected environmental pressures where the mutations now give an advantage and propagate thru a specie over many generations or fail to give an advantage and die out.
this really is simple stuff
This post was edited on 2/5/14 at 1:18 am
Page 22 of 31
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News