(March 7, 2013 at 9:29 am)John V Wrote:

(March 7, 2013 at 9:26 am)Esquilax Wrote: Hence the need for them to build up over time. It's the same thing that we do with dogs; breed for the traits that we find desirable, and watch them slowly entrench in the animal over time. You can see those changes occurring.

You need to read up on this. With dog breeding we're not building up new traits, we're actually breeding out existing variability.

Consider it concision rather than misrepresentation. It's rather a large subject, but the point remains the same; we're selecting desirable traits and retaining them, while, as you say, breeding out ones we don't want. This wouldn't be possible without evolution.

(March 6, 2013 at 6:13 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 6, 2013 at 10:01 am)Faith No More Wrote: It also spews shit.

Exactly right, shit being the disbelievers, sinners and everyone opposed to God.

The word "sanctimonious" comes to mind.

(March 7, 2013 at 10:01 am)Esquilax Wrote: Consider it concision rather than misrepresentation. It's rather a large subject, but the point remains the same; we're selecting desirable traits and retaining them, while, as you say, breeding out ones we don't want. This wouldn't be possible without evolution.

No, the point is not the same, and even your misunderstanding wasn't a refutation of his point. That people can intelligently breed out variation to get what they want in no way counters the argument that small changes generally do not have enough impact on reproductive success to fixate in a species.

(March 7, 2013 at 1:48 pm)John V Wrote:

(March 7, 2013 at 10:01 am)Esquilax Wrote: Consider it concision rather than misrepresentation. It's rather a large subject, but the point remains the same; we're selecting desirable traits and retaining them, while, as you say, breeding out ones we don't want. This wouldn't be possible without evolution.

No, the point is not the same, and even your misunderstanding wasn't a refutation of his point. That people can intelligently breed out variation to get what they want in no way counters the argument that small changes generally do not have enough impact on reproductive success to fixate in a species.

Oh yes, I'm sorry. I thought that the fact that we can literally observe it happening in labs, see it reflected in genetic data and through the fossil record, and see more than a few interesting and advantageous singular mutations in modern humans might have also corroborated my claims a bit too.

I really don't see how much more of a refutation there can be. It's happening. We know it is. Apologies if this comes across as aggressively blunt, but seriously: when you can watch the changes occur and spread through populations of shorter-lived species, I really don't know what additional refutation is needed.

I don't see what is so impressive about being able to explain evolutionary theory if your understanding of evolutionary theory, from a naturalistic perspective always hinges on some sort of faith that when you assemble all the pieces together, a complete understanding of the processes will vindicate naturalism.

How is this different from religious faith? You can say this is a God of the gaps argument, but how are atheists not doing exactly the same thing when they assume naturalism is in the gaps.

Evolutionary theory doesn't disprove Christianity, and it doesn't even offer a competing view of the process of life being created. It is just one piece of the puzzle. I think the arrogance of the atheist movement regarding evolutionary theory is probably just a mask for an inner sense of uneasiness about basing their whole scientific religion on a theory that, at most, explains a very small part of the reason why life originated on earth.

I already told you, I'm not going to talk to you while you keep spouting nothingy bullshit, Strodel.

Maybe if you can actually provide me with a detailed- and correct- definition of what evolution is, we might discuss it further. But I'm convinced that you barely understand your own position, let alone anyone else's.

(March 6, 2013 at 10:43 pm)jstrodel Wrote: I do not know how I could live without this intense, specific and necessary comfort that I receive from the tangible presence of God.

Sorry for chiming in so late on this, but it struck me.


Here we have a person who, by their own admission was a drug addict who used and abused hard drugs to the point that it was extremely dysfunctional and required treatment.

This suggests several things to me. First, this person's brain is likely no longer operating according to factory specifications.
Second, the person may be unusually vulnerable to addictions and addictive behaviors.
And also, that this person has a prior demonstrated obsession with unusual experiences.

And here we have this person, testifying to having experiences which are not shared by the bulk of his peers (even among Christians, much of his experience is outside the norm).
Moreover, he claims that if he were deprived of the continuing presence of certain of these experiences, he doesn't know "how he could live."

No offense, js, but I'm not sure I need a transcendent creator to explain the facts of your experience.

This is why I cut to the chase and called him an idiot, which based on experience, is the main relevent fact in vast majority of cases where christians come to this forum sporting a thread bare charade of thoughtfulness and reasonableness.

(March 7, 2013 at 2:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Oh yes, I'm sorry. I thought that the fact that we can literally observe it happening in labs, see it reflected in genetic data and through the fossil record, and see more than a few interesting and advantageous singular mutations in modern humans might have also corroborated my claims a bit too.

You thought that these things support your claims, so you brought up an incorrect position on dog breeding? That makes no sense.

Quote:I really don't see how much more of a refutation there can be. It's happening. We know it is. Apologies if this comes across as aggressively blunt, but seriously: when you can watch the changes occur and spread through populations of shorter-lived species, I really don't know what additional refutation is needed.

OK, if you have such support for your position, bring it in, but be careful to see that you're actually supporting the position and not pulling a bait-and-switch or other error.

jstrodel Wrote:Evolutionary theory doesn't disprove Christianity...

Can you let your fellow Christians know?