The theists really really learn to read. You all run around screaming macro evolution is NOT fact, **WHEN NO ONE HAS CLAIMED THIS***. Could you state the obvious any more??? Find me some scientists and atheists who CLAIM macroevolution is FACT. I dont see people saying this at all. Macroevolution **IS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY**, which means it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. Learn to use those eyes and actually READ what were saying. I dont know how many times have to say this, and how many threads I have to say this before these clueless theists FINALLY GET IT. WHy do we debate with people who dont even read??? peace axeman
What exactly IS a "liberal"? AAA, how about defining that word? And in what way do these evil doers "want to control the school curriculum and use it to brainwash students"? How do they do it with history texts? How are they "slanted and full of bias"? And in what "unconscionable" way to they "politicize science"? I am truly not looking for an argument here. Just a little understanding. Thanks for any help you can give me. Peace, RS
"Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails." Thanks for the reference I re-read it. Now, I am no expert. But it seems to me the guy is saying that synthesists (sin theiests? spanish for without god? joke) claim that since we have intra species change in the genes it can be guessed that it would also work for inter species. So therefore macro evolution should not be challenged. If this is the best talk orgins can do... Please straghten me out if I misunderstood what I am reading. I mean that type of argument is very similar to the one my four year presented today to get a second serving of ice cream.
JEM:So therefore we have macro evolution should not be challenged. It does NOT say this at all. Yet another strawman by the theists. You guys hug onto this fallacy like its a security blanket. Read it again and tell us what it REALLY says. Here is a big clue for you: "....so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. " It never said macroevolution should NOT be challenged. peace axeman -------------------------------- "Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails." Thanks for the reference I re-read it. Now, I am no expert. But it seems to me the guy is saying that synthesists (sin theiests? spanish for without god? joke) claim that since we have intra species change in the genes it can be guessed that it would also work for inter species. So therefore we have macro evolution should not be challenged. If this is the best talk orgins can do... Please straghten me out if I misunderstood what I am reading. I mean that type of argument is very similar to the one my four year presented today to get a second serving of ice cream. [/B][/QUOTE]
JEM:So therefore we have macro evolution should not be challenged. It does NOT say this at all. Yet another strawman by the theists. You guys hug onto this fallacy like its a security blanket. Read it again and tell us what it REALLY says. Here is a big clue for you: "....so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. " It never said macroevolution should NOT be challenged. peace Trivial irrelevant and trivial. When you think about what the author said I believe that what he said is tantamount to saying it should not be challenged but this is so obviously not the point. AXE get with the game. The great evolutionists' best argument for macro evolution is the existence of micro evolution? This is stunning ---and yet you pick arguments about "never said not be challenged" strawman junk. DUDE you guys just lost the whole evolution argument and you are focusing on meaningless distinctions. Let me see because I observe my kids eye color to be different from my wife's or mine I must accept the fact my ancestors were monkeys and muck. This is the big evidence of species to spieces evolution. (Please do not lecture me on what changes in the gene pool really means this was stated for effect.) And you think theists are grasping at straws.
When you think about what the author said I believe that what he said is tantamount to saying it should not be challenged but this is so obviously not the point. AXE get with the game You clearly made the error, so it is YOU who should "get with the game". Your just pissed that you look so foolish now for claiming the author is implying that all challenges against macroevolution should be dropped. He is clearly not saying that, and no decent scientist would propose something that is so opposite to the scientific method. All I can say is LEARN TO READ. You blatantly committed a strawman here. So YOU get with the program. Your going off the deep end. DUDE you guys just lost the whole evolution argument and you are focusing on meaningless distinctions. You truly are delusional if you believe this. Feel free to continue believing in your unsupported fantasy worlds in the sky. peace axeman
The burden of proof in on the one making the claim. If you claim creator God then prove it. Science makes NO claim against creator God. From this then creationists only have to generate enough faith and say God created everything and they are right. So then anti-creationists only have to generate enough faith and say God did not create anything and they are right. Please note , no science , just creationists and anti-creationists. Faith has no validation on its own. It is only an expression. Faith in a theory has a lot of validation, as a theory is already "valid" as you put it, as a well substantiated explanation supported by an accepted knowledge of something. The theory of evolution has already surpassed numerous standards of validity. Faith (in the context of religious belief) has not. Pass on that. Too weird for me ! I see no confusion. They are mutually exclusive. So now creator God didnât fashion man from mud. Above you said he did. It can be seen from this having faith only makes for confusion There is no theory. For a theory you would require a well substantiated, supportable explanation. Theists have not yet come up with anything like that. Druids? Theists? Which attempt to push is that then?? If it is science pushing at the boundaries of knowledge then it has provided a lot more than faith alone ever has. For one thing it validates 'faith' in evolution. The 'mechanics of faith' is a meaningless phrase. It is simply an introverted characteristic of going round in circles. Nothing wrong in holding a faith, but it has no validity on its own. If evolutionists are âattempting to generate a scientific proofââ¦, they are doing a great service for validation. If all the creationists can do is attempt to generate faith in creator God, then the anti-creationists will do as much by generating faith in no creator God
The burden of proof in on the one making the claim. If you claim creator God then prove it. Science makes NO claim against creator God. The burden of scientific proof is on the scientist. Theists don't claim scientific proof, they claim faith as a path to know God experientially. I personally don't see where either the evolutionists nor the creationists are having all that much success in their work, as both positions are trying to make a scientific case for that which can never be tested. Imagine someone creates a pool of primordial goo. Out of that goo randomly, spontaneously springs life. They then conclude that life comes from goo. We could agree that the physical elements of what we call life came from goo, but could we know that the goo springing to life was not the work of God? No, we could only speculate and use terms "random" and "spontaneous" yet logically it is possible the the event not random, but by design of a Creator. If we narrow it down to certain laws of "Nature" we still have the questions unanswered as to: 1. Where did the laws of nature come from 2. Why are there laws of nature 3. Do we know if those laws are eternal or not Science simply cannot answer some why questions, no matter how much they know the answers to some what questions. Once someone has absorbed the truth of what it is that cannot be known via senses and relativistic logic into their consciousness, they will either not address the why questions, or they will seek to get those answers with tools that can go beyond the sensory and relativistic means. This is where the practice of faith comes into place. From this then creationists only have to generate enough faith and say God created everything and they are right. Some people say they are right for themselves. Some people say they have found what is right for all others. Seems to me that this type of person is found in both the theistic and atheistic camps. Can it be true that faith is right for me and not right for you? All I can say with some degree of confidence is that there are many failed theists who have become atheists. Why they failed is a subject of unanswerable debate. Atheism is after all just a belief system. So then anti-creationists only have to generate enough faith and say God did not create anything and they are right. That seems to be what happens. Please note , no science , just creationists and anti-creationists. One religion versus another religion. Nothing new here. Faith has no validation on its own. It is only an expression. Logic validates itself, so it is circular. Faith in a theory has a lot of validation, as a theory is already "valid" as you put it, as a well substantiated explanation supported by an accepted knowledge of something. The majority of those who practice faith report positive belief in God. Do we conclude that they are delusional, or do we report that those who practice faith in God and fail did not practice faith properly? The theory of evolution has already surpassed numerous standards of validity. This is pure unadulterated circular logic. It is a theory that has been accepted, yet lacks proof. It meets the standards of a group of people who set the standards. Where is the check? Where is the scientific skepticism? Faith (in the context of religious belief) has not. Faith does not try to meet the standards of science, that is why it is called faith. Pass on that. Too weird for me !I see no confusion. They are mutually exclusive.So now creator God didnât fashion man from mud. Above you said he did. You are free to pass, free will. It can be seen from this having faith only makes for confusionThere is no theory. For a theory you would require a well substantiated, supportable explanation. Theists have not yet come up with anything like that.Druids?Theists?Which attempt to push is that then?? If it is science pushing at the boundaries of knowledge then it has provided a lot more than faith alone ever has. You are preaching science over faith for yourself, that is your choice. However, not having had success with faith, you preach it is wrong to the faithful. I think you confuse me with other people who have pushed religion on you. That is not something I do, I simply share my experiences and let people decide for themselves. If you have no interest in finding a Supreme Being, why would that be my business? It is one thing to discuss the failings of mankind with their abuse of religion and attempts to control people with it. I am not representing religion, I am just talking about faith in God. For one thing it validates 'faith' in evolution.The 'mechanics of faith' is a meaningless phrase. It is simply an introverted characteristic of going round in circles. I see the evolutionists going round in circles here. Some can simply present a theory, a possibility, which is not inconsistent with my own beliefs that God is the creator of evolution. Others become dogmatic about it, and practice their theory with the faith of a theist. Nothing wrong in holding a faith, but it has no validity on its own. Validation of logic is what? If evolutionists are âattempting to generate a scientific proofââ¦, they are doing a great service for validation. They may discover the what, but they have no answer for why. If all the creationists can do is attempt to generate faith in creator God, then the anti-creationists will do as much by generating faith in no creator God. People tend to support their own belief systems.
Funny....no matter how many times contradictions are found in ARTs belief system, he clearly believes if he says the same thing over and over again... it will suddenly become true. Theres no place like home...theres no place like home... Theres no place like home...Theres no place like home... Theres no place like home............ Click click go ART's little glittering shoes peace axeman