betsy Posted November 28, 2012 Author Report Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) What's not being debated by real scientists is that evolutionary changes to plants and animals has led to the present diversity of life on Earth. As I mentioned previously, there were evolutionary theories prior to Darwin that started because of the need for a theory to explain diversity -- especially the geographic diversity of life....and having all of the animals walk out of a boat two-by-two couldn't do the job any more! But I'm not talking about animals walking out of the boat two-by-two. Yes there is evolution. Within kinds. It's that other assumptive scenario that's being debated upon. So, you can't pretend every scientist is Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, and that there are no other theories besides creationism. I agree. I guess we'll just have to keep waiting, just so to have the satisfaction of saying, "I told you so." Edited November 28, 2012 by betsy Quote
Sleipnir Posted November 28, 2012 Report Posted November 28, 2012 It's that other assumptive scenario that's being debated upon. What 'assumptive scenario'? Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
cybercoma Posted November 28, 2012 Report Posted November 28, 2012 Oh, you didn't get the memo? Scientific theories are just assumptions. They're not models supported by facts and evidence used to explain the natural world or anything. Quote
cybercoma Posted November 28, 2012 Report Posted November 28, 2012 Watch the video Betsy.... She did. It's nothing more than philosobabble. Quote
Mighty AC Posted November 28, 2012 Report Posted November 28, 2012 Yes there is evolution. Within kinds. Why do you believe evolution is limited to "kinds" when there is no justification for this idea in either science or the Bible? I've asked this before but either you didn't provide a response or I missed it. Here is an examination of the 31 occurrences of "kind" in the Bible. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Sleipnir Posted November 28, 2012 Report Posted November 28, 2012 Oh, you didn't get the memo? Scientific theories are just assumptions. They're not models supported by facts and evidence used to explain the natural world or anything. -Sigh- I guess arguing with a person that renounced the use of reasoning is like administrating medicine to the dead. Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
WIP Posted November 28, 2012 Report Posted November 28, 2012 i saw an interesting documentary on plants...how plants display animal behaviour without brains...I never though of plants as being capable of displaying behaviour but apparently they do... I think I might have seen that awhile back too. I guess it is explained as an example of emergence, but it certainly is uncanny order arises out of chaos. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted November 28, 2012 Report Posted November 28, 2012 But I'm not talking about animals walking out of the boat two-by-two. Yes there is evolution. Within kinds. It's that other assumptive scenario that's being debated upon. I have heard the evolution "within kinds" offered up before. It's the fallback position that many creationists started taking as the numbers of species who cannot interbreed just got too large. There are estimated to be 350,000 and 400,000 different species of beetles now, in four sub orders. So, offering up an explanation that all species of beetles arose from an original pair might make the job easier....until the question is asked: how did we end up with so many different kinds of beetles today? But, if you've decided to cut loose The Flood, and all of the land animals being taken onboard an ark as allegory, why not offload the rest of the creationism? I noticed a link had already been posted to a Christian site where an author has produced a paper that he claims resolves a lot of the claims about the biblical reference to 'kinds;' may as well see if that satisfies as a way to get religion up to date with science. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
cybercoma Posted November 28, 2012 Report Posted November 28, 2012 -Sigh- I guess arguing with a person that renounced the use of reasoning is like administrating medicine to the dead. Exactly. Quote
Peter F Posted November 30, 2012 Report Posted November 30, 2012 WHOLE skeletons of mammoths are found, even whole mammoths with undigested vegetation in their stomachs. No signs of being hunted. Headline World News Tonight: Animal dies with food in its stomach! Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
betsy Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) But, if you've decided to cut loose The Flood, and all of the land animals being taken onboard an ark as allegory, why not offload the rest of the creationism? You gotta be kidding me? Top 10 Scientific Frauds and Hoaxes April 9, 2008 http://listverse.com...uds-and-hoaxes/ Famous Evolution Hoaxes and Exaggerations By David Dewitt, Ph.D., Oct. 1999 http://www.oocities....es/famhoax.html Following your own logic above, why not offload science? I noticed a link had already been posted to a Christian site where an author has produced a paper that he claims resolves a lot of the claims about the biblical reference to 'kinds;' may as well see if that satisfies as a way to get religion up to date with science. As the "within kinds" is repeatedly stated in Genesis, obviously that information is a blue-print by the Creator. It could be open to interpretations as to what God means by, "kinds." And we wait for credible unbiased science to find the answer. But like I said, my belief does not cripple me or bind me - I can go where evidence(s) lead. IF tomorrow science irrefutably concludes that I'm related to the monkey....or the bird.....or the frog.....or the cockroach.....I can accept and live with that. That still does not negate creation. But like you said, there's got to be a lot of other theories floating around. Perhaps science ought to drop evolution and look at the others. Why keep flogging a dead horse? Why keep trying to resurrect the dead? Only Jesus can do that. Edited November 30, 2012 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Posted November 30, 2012 Headline World News Tonight: Animal dies with food in its stomach! Isn't that taking Saipan's statement out of context? Perhaps you shoud follow that particular flow of discussion between Saipan and other poster, and respond within that context. Quote
Sleipnir Posted November 30, 2012 Report Posted November 30, 2012 Top 10 Scientific Frauds and Hoaxes April 9, 2008 http://listverse.com...uds-and-hoaxes/ Famous Evolution Hoaxes and Exaggerations By David Dewitt, Ph.D., Oct. 1999 http://www.oocities....es/famhoax.html I failed to see the significant of the post. Following your own logic above, why not offload science? Haven't you been doing that in your previous post that doesn't make sense? As the "within kinds" is repeatedly stated in Genesis, obviously that information is a blue-print by the Creator. It could be open to interpretations as to what God means by, "kinds." And we wait for credible unbiased science to find the answer. Its been given numerous times and you rejected it because it contradict your religious belief. IF tomorrow science irrefutably concludes that I'm related to the monkey....or the bird.....or the frog.....or the cockroach.....I can accept and live with that. So you're accepting it now I'm guessing. But like you said, there's got to be a lot of other theories floating around. Perhaps science ought to drop evolution and look at the others. You have no idea what a scientific theory is. Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
Michael Hardner Posted November 30, 2012 Report Posted November 30, 2012 Couldn't find this on here, but I apologize if it's a repost: Pat Robertson challenges creationism Washington (CNN) – Televangelist Pat Robertson challenged the idea that Earth is 6,000 years old this week, saying the man who many credit with conceiving the idea, former Archbishop of Ireland James Ussher, “wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years.”The statement was in response to a question Robertson fielded Tuesday from a viewer on his Christian Broadcasting Network show "The 700 Club.” In a submitted question, the viewer wrote that one of her biggest fears was that her children and husband would not go to heaven “because they question why the Bible could not explain the existence of dinosaurs.” “You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas,” Robertson said. “They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible.” http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/pat-robertson-challenges-creationism/ Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Mighty AC Posted November 30, 2012 Report Posted November 30, 2012 Betsy does not subscribe to the young earth position or Noah's flood. She believes science has proven those stories to be allegorical. She even believes in evolution; with the added notion that a god has imposed invisible 'change barriers' that limit possible evolutionary changes to 'kinds'. I have shown that there is no biblical or scientific grounds for such a position and have asked her to explain it. Unfortunately, she has avoided this question several times. So Betsy, please acknowledge that you have been asked this question: http://www.mapleleaf...860#entry858330 If you do not wish to answer it, that's fine, just let me know. If my question or points require clarification, just ask and I will provide it. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
cybercoma Posted November 30, 2012 Report Posted November 30, 2012 Couldn't find this on here, but I apologize if it's a repost: Pat Robertson challenges creationism http://religion.blog...es-creationism/ I posted it in The Bible thread, but here is probably better. Betsy has ignored it. However, since another evangelical came out today and said that Pat Robertson has fallen victim to secular thinking, expect evangelicals to double-down against science. Quote
wyly Posted November 30, 2012 Report Posted November 30, 2012 You have no idea what a scientific theory is. and she'll resist/ignore all attempts to understand that....it's common for creationist to repeatedly ignore the true definition of "scientific theory", if they accepted the scientific definition of theory it would require them to admit "creationism theory" does not meets the criteria of scientific but only opinion based on nothing but myth.... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
betsy Posted December 1, 2012 Author Report Posted December 1, 2012 Couldn't find this on here, but I apologize if it's a repost: Pat Robertson challenges creationism http://religion.blog...es-creationism/ Well, unless science shows evidence that indeed earth is 6,000 years old .....so far, the evidence is clear that earth is waaaaaaaaaaay older than that. Quote
betsy Posted December 1, 2012 Author Report Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Betsy does not subscribe to the young earth position or Noah's flood. She believes science has proven those stories to be allegorical. She even believes in evolution; with the added notion that a god has imposed invisible 'change barriers' that limit possible evolutionary changes to 'kinds'. I have shown that there is no biblical or scientific grounds for such a position and have asked her to explain it. Unfortunately, she has avoided this question several times. So Betsy, please acknowledge that you have been asked this question: http://www.mapleleaf...860#entry858330 If you do not wish to answer it, that's fine, just let me know. If my question or points require clarification, just ask and I will provide it. So I see you speak about, "scientific ground." Well, glad to see you've brought that point over here on Darwin... because I was just about to, since it's only logical to do so since there is a co-relation between evolution and the Big Bang. SO, for the sake of clarity and relevance, let me re-post the gist of my argument from the other topic, The Bible. http://www.mapleleaf...c=18914&st=1860 Well, we're not talking about what went after the Big Bang. We're talking about the CAUSE of all that. Just like there wouldn't be any evolution - diversification of life happening - without there being any life at all to begin with..... there wouldn't be any expansion and cooling, and hydrogen and helium, etc. without the so-called Big Bang happening first. Based on that clear explanation, we do really have to backtrack and deal with the Big Bang. You've cited, "scientific ground." We all agree that the fundamentals of science is based on OBSERVATION and TESTING. So I'll have to ask the same un-avoidable question. DID ANYONE EVER OBSERVE SOMETHING COMING OUT FROM NOTHING? YES or NO? I guess we're also grounded and wouldn't go anywhere without this question being answered here. DOO-WAP CHOIR need not shy away. Answer the question. Edited December 1, 2012 by betsy Quote
cybercoma Posted December 1, 2012 Report Posted December 1, 2012 Well, unless science shows evidence that indeed earth is 6,000 years old .....so far, the evidence is clear that earth is waaaaaaaaaaay older than that. science also has evidence that things evolve. We can even see it happen by domesticating crops and animals. That doesn't stop you from denying Darwin's theory of natural selection though. Quote
betsy Posted December 1, 2012 Author Report Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) science also has evidence that things evolve. We can even see it happen by domesticating crops and animals. That doesn't stop you from denying Darwin's theory of natural selection though. You're laughable, Cybercoma....in that you don't even understand what you're talking about! Domestication of crops and animals, and natural selection in one sentence???? In the Convention on Biological Diversity, a domesticated species is defined as a "species in which the evolutionary process has been influenced by humans to meet their needs."[1] Therefore, a defining characteristic of domestication is artificial selection by humans. Humans have brought these populations under their control and care for a wide range of reasons: to produce food or valuable commodities (such as wool, cotton, or silk), for types of work (such as transportation, protection, and warfare), scientific research, or simply to enjoy as companions or ornaments. http://en.wikipedia....i/Domestication ARTIFICIAL Selection, Cybercoma. ARTIFICIAL. In its strictest sense, it refers to the initial stage of human mastery of wild animals and plants. The fundamental distinction of domesticated animals and plants from their wild ancestors is that they are created by human labour to meet specific requirements or whims and are adapted to the conditions of continuous care and solicitude people maintain for them. http://www.britannic...2/domestication Furthermore, I've said it numerous times that I believe in evolution within species, but not macro-evolution. To insist your way of painting me as denying natural selection is either dishonest of you, or simply your ignorance. Either way, you've shown clearly what I've always said about you. You're all hot air and posturing. You only proved me right. How can you be taken seriously? Let me ignore you, shall we? You've earned it. Let me see who among the other DOO-WAPS will come out sharing your ignorance..... Edited December 1, 2012 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted December 1, 2012 Author Report Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Quit trolling, betsy. Oh, that so-much abused word. Or maybe in your case, misunderstood. Just the same way you misunderstand domestication and natural selection. Your definition of a "troll" is someone who makes a valid point that you cannot refute, or argue with. "Trolling" to you is a valid point that exposes you, and that which you cannot refute, or argue with. In other words, a fact that you do not agree with. Nuff said. Edited December 1, 2012 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted December 1, 2012 Author Report Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Back to the topic. Mighty AC? WIP? The Choir? DID ANYONE EVER OBSERVE SOMETHING COMING OUT FROM NOTHING? Answer the question already, guys....so we can proceed. Otherwise we're stuck here. I don't know why you seem to be afraid of answering a simple yes or no. C'mon, who's brave enough to come forward and tackle it. Yes or no? Edited December 1, 2012 by betsy Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.