(April 22, 2014 at 10:55 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 5:33 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Sounds like someone's been huffing Ken Ham's fumes to me.

I have a lot of respect for the man. I believe he did a great job debating Bill Nye.

---

(April 21, 2014 at 7:31 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: Ug. I've started and stopped a reply to this about 10 times now and there's just no way to explain selection pressures to a person who's not interested in learning about them. So I'll resort to childish grammar correction:


And implore Rev to google "Evolutionary Arms Race," read Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth, but because those two suggestions are such hardships, just watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTjkSDaXF7s

Thank you for your reply. I am sorry I do not have the time to watch and hour long video at this time. Perhaps at a latter date.

And failed dismally.

Ham is a fraud and liar.

The only reasons he's i\pushing his poison in the US instead of his native Australia is that only in the US can he make money doing it and that if he tried doing it at home he'd be laughed out of the country.

The same is true for Bananaman Comfort.

(April 21, 2014 at 6:50 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: I predict that nothing we can say is going to change Rev's mind. He really doesn't understand the theory of evolution, and based on the links he provided to creationist propaganda, he doesn't want to learn either. This is just an exercise in futility.

Is it your job to change my mind? I doubt I can change yours. However, we can contemplate what each other has to offer.

(April 22, 2014 at 11:01 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 6:50 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: I predict that nothing we can say is going to change Rev's mind. He really doesn't understand the theory of evolution, and based on the links he provided to creationist propaganda, he doesn't want to learn either. This is just an exercise in futility.

Is it your job to change my mind? I doubt I can change yours. However, we can contemplate what each other has to offer.

Your declared goal to be here is to convert some of us.

(April 22, 2014 at 11:01 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 6:50 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: I predict that nothing we can say is going to change Rev's mind. He really doesn't understand the theory of evolution, and based on the links he provided to creationist propaganda, he doesn't want to learn either. This is just an exercise in futility.

Is it your job to change my mind? I doubt I can change yours. However, we can contemplate what each other has to offer.

You have Ken Ham's dishonest, debunked bullshit, and we've heard it many time before.

You have nothing to offer.

(April 22, 2014 at 11:01 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Is it your job to change my mind? I doubt I can change yours. However, we can contemplate what each other has to offer.

That would imply that you're actually willing to take on board what we're saying, when your clear lack of research and continued references to Answers in Genesis display nothing but contempt for us and what we're trying to tell you.

If you want to start contemplating what we're saying, could you start with the repeated theme of this thread, which is that your understanding of evolution is deeply limited, and that relying on Ken Ham to teach you what evolution is will never resolve that issue?

Start from there, and maybe try to fill the gaps in your understanding from people who don't proudly display that their investigative method begins with "evolution is always wrong"?

(April 22, 2014 at 11:01 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Is it your job to change my mind?

Well, its not necessarily my job, i don't get paid to do it. But you are presenting falsehoods about the theory of evolution and seeing as my career is based on biology (which makes no sense without evolution) I feel inclined to try and correct you and make you see the error of your ways.

(April 22, 2014 at 11:01 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: I doubt I can change yours.

And you are right to doubt it, if all you do is paste links to AIG. No evidence to support your assertions, why should I change my mind?

(April 22, 2014 at 11:01 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: However, we can contemplate what each other has to offer.

I think we both know that this isn't going to happen. You won't contemplate anything I or anyone else has to say because all you are looking for is evidence to support your ideas. You will dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your views. And I won't contemplate anything you say, because you don't actually say anything. You just parrot the nut cases at AIG.

(April 21, 2014 at 8:49 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Strange coincidence.

We were watching a NOVA documentary on Darwin and what he didn't know last night.

Posit was that ALL four limbed creatures are descended from Tiktaalik. And all I could think of was "oh the irony that xtians have a fish as a symbol"

You know what is ironic as well, Darwin did not deny that there was a God! In fact, in his sixth addition of Origin he refers to the Creator.

One of best-known criticisms of natural selection was that nothing as complicated as an eye could have evolved purely by chance. Darwin's response was that we can observe many examples of the evolution of light-sensitive cells in nature. The most intriguing thought Darwin had on this subject was that just because we don't understand how something can evolve does not mean that the Creator wasn't behind it. His exact words in the sixth edition of Origin were "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?"[v]. Using the telescope as an example of a man-made optical instrument, he added: "May we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to man?"

reference
Charles Darwin. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Sixth Edition, With Additions and Corrections to 1872. London: John Murray, 1876.

Darwin never said that there was not a Creator. And he never said that the Creator didn't create life.

(April 22, 2014 at 11:20 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: You know what is ironic as well, Darwin did not deny that there was a God! In fact, in his sixth addition of Origin he refers to the Creator.

Don't even care: Darwin isn't a prophet and none of us follow what he says because he says it. A lot of what he thought about evolution was wrong too, but we accept that it happens because it does and we have evidence of that.

That's the difference between a real argument and the arguments from authority you're attempting to make.

(April 21, 2014 at 6:52 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Let's go over this again:
<God exists> + <God has always existed> + <God is all powerful> + <God created the universe> each have no evidence, yet each premise is required for a theist or deist viewpoint.

<Abiogenesis might be how life originated> has evidence behind it.

How are these two "interchangeable" by any stretch of the imagination?

You have a theory with evidence, and somehow have equated that to an unfounded assertion that there must be some sort of magical being, somewhere in the universe, that is empirically unverifiable, unfalsifiable (and therefore not scientific), and this magical being suddenly becomes an "alternative choice" to a well-founded theory with supporting evidence.

What is this, amateur hour?

It's the same as saying <lightening is an electrostatic discharge between charged clouds and the planet> or <Thor exists> <Thor is the God of Thunder and Lightning> therefore <Thor causes lighting> are interchangeable "theories."

What?

In the same vein: Either God exists, or I have a piece of lint in my pocket. I have a piece of lint in my pocket, therefore God does not exist.

Someone should write a mobile app where you can shake your device, and 2-3 random premises appear with a conclusion.

I guarantee you some of the Theists on this board would start copy-pasting arguments whenever they ended in "Therefore God"

You base your beliefs, and they are beliefs, on what you observe naturally. God, is a supernatural being. He created a natural world but there are also supernatural events that have occurred, are presently occurring, and will occur. Just because you have not experienced any doesn't mean the supernatural doesn't exist.

(April 22, 2014 at 11:20 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 8:49 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Strange coincidence.

We were watching a NOVA documentary on Darwin and what he didn't know last night.

Posit was that ALL four limbed creatures are descended from Tiktaalik. And all I could think of was "oh the irony that xtians have a fish as a symbol"

You know what is ironic as well, Darwin did not deny that there was a God! In fact, in his sixth addition of Origin he refers to the Creator.

One of best-known criticisms of natural selection was that nothing as complicated as an eye could have evolved purely by chance. Darwin's response was that we can observe many examples of the evolution of light-sensitive cells in nature. The most intriguing thought Darwin had on this subject was that just because we don't understand how something can evolve does not mean that the Creator wasn't behind it. His exact words in the sixth edition of Origin were "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?"[v]. Using the telescope as an example of a man-made optical instrument, he added: "May we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to man?"

reference
Charles Darwin. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Sixth Edition, With Additions and Corrections to 1872. London: John Murray, 1876.

Darwin never said that there was not a Creator. And he never said that the Creator didn't create life.

So? Quote mining Darwin doesn't disprove his theory. Darwin was agnostic.

And we know how the eye evolved.

Trying to use the "complicated eye" fallacy has been debunked thoroughly.