RE: Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth
August 14, 2013 at 11:51 am
(This post was last modified: August 14, 2013 at 12:01 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(June 23, 2013 at 9:27 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: ALTER2EGO -to- POPEYES PAPPY:
Unfortunately, popeyespappy, when the moderator Stimbo referred to me as a "maroon," it was because Stimbo thought I was the one making the fallacious claim that evolution "theory" is fact. It turns out that Esquilax was the one making that fallacious claim about "theory" being fact and I was merely correcting Esquilax.
The theory of gravity is a theory that explains how gravity works. That gravity exists/happens is a fact. Does this analogy help you get the point being made? The theory of evolution explains how evolution works. That evolution exists/happens is a fact.
(June 23, 2013 at 9:27 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: In other words, the title of "maroon" was misdirected. It was intended for the person (Esquilax) who was making the claim about "theory" being a fact. Notice again what Stimbo said at Post 126. This time, keep your eyes on the words that are bolded in light blue.
Not so. You misunderstood both Stimbo and Esquilax. Esquilax did not claim a theory is a fact. Neither did Stimbo. Their claim is that evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution is the explanation for that fact.
(June 23, 2013 at 9:27 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: @ popeyespappy:
Did you see why Stimbo used to word "maroon"? It was directed at the person who argued that evolution "theory" is fact, and Stimbo thought I was the one arguing it. As you can see, I was arguing against evolution theory being fact.
I'm not sure whether it is worse to be this obtuse authentically or deceptively.
(June 23, 2013 at 9:27 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: Now you have also made the same fallacious claim about "theory" being "fact." According to Stimbo, a person who thinks "theory" is fact is a "maroon". You follow my drift?
Maroon may not be a strong enough word to describe how thick you're being. Such a word may not exist in English.
If I misunderstood the theory of evolution and the evidence for it as badly as you do, I wouldn't believe it either.
(July 11, 2013 at 7:21 am)little_monkey Wrote: Explaining evolution to a creationist is like teaching calculus to someone who failed high school algebra. It's a waste of time.
I was a creationist once. It doesn't happen before your eyes, but Alter2Ego can't escape learning something here. She has to read at least enough to make a retort out of. We're planting a seed that may take years to sprout...or never germinate. But our time isn't wasted.
(August 4, 2013 at 12:02 am)Alter2Ego Wrote: As for your views on Charles Darwin's philosophy, during which he flip-flopped between atheism and paganism, I have him pegged as atheist for several reasons. One important reason is that he attempted to kick Jehovah to the curb by pushing abiogenesis theory (the believe that life can come from non-life by itself). Even after abiogenesis theory was debunked by Louis Pasteur in 1859, Charles Darwin persisted in speculating abiogenesis theory.
The 'abiogenesis' that Pasteur disproved was the folklore that things like baby mice and flies and maggots and worms could form spontaneously under the proper conditions. His work didn't address 'abiogenesis' of a barely functional protocell over 3 billion years ago at all.
