Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

semlogo

Reconciling Evolution With The Scriptures

Recommended Posts

little child,

you dont even know how to play chess.

Share this post


Link to post
Do you even read your own quotes?

It is debatable, and somewhat controversial, whether or not there is a presence of the vomeronasal system in adult humans.

Many studies have been performed to find if there is an actual presence of a VNO in adult humans. Trotier et al. estimated that around 92% of their subjects that had no septal surgery had at least one intact VNO. Kajer and Hansen, on the other hand, stated that VNO structure disappeared at later stages in development. Won (2000) found evidence of a VNO in 13 of his 22 cadavers (59.1%) and in 22 of his 78 living patients (28.2%). [7] Given these findings, some scientists have argued that there is a VNO in adult humans. [8] However there is no reported evidence that humans have active sensory neurons like those in working vomeronasal systems of other animals.

And just because you believe in vestigial organs doesn't make them vestigial.

Checkmate.

Um, did YOU read it? I'll put the parts where you totally pwnd yourself in red. Next you should look up the definition of vestigial.

Share this post


Link to post

The definition from dictionary.com about doctrine

1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

nowhere does it say doctrine is a belief.

Share this post


Link to post
You need to think for your self, and not be so gullible.

Quoted for delicious, delicious irony.

Share this post


Link to post
The definition from dictionary.com about doctrine1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine. 2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine. 3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church. nowhere does it say doctrine is a belief.

Doctrine IS belief. Look it up. Dictionary.com. Thats where I got it. I check before I post. Not afterwards as you do.

Um, did YOU read it? I'll put the parts where you totally pwnd yourself in red. Next you should look up the definition of vestigial.

Yes, I did, and it proves my point that "vestigial" is in the eye of the beholder, not in reality.I just read this from uncommondescent.com, it's food for thought and an interesting conversation:

(all the below quoted from uncommondescent website:)

â??Apart from their YEC brethren, IDers tend to accept the evidence for geologic processes operating over vast timescales, and they donâ??t dispute it when geologists contend that these processes were unguided. Why donâ??t they demand proof that these processes were unguided? Could it have anything to do with the fact that their religious beliefs conflict with unguided macroevolution, but not with unguided geology?â?

You should study geology. There is evidence of both gradual and catastrophic forces having occurred in the past and operating today in the world. We can witness massive earth quakes, volcanos, tsunamis and rock slides, sedimentation and erosion before our eyes as well as plate tectonic movements, plate formation at the mid ocean ridges. All the pieces fit together and I am sure there will be adjustments in it over time. So all holds together but one thing geology has never done is form any complex specified information. Now biology has nothing similar except for micro biology which we all accept and yet life has complex specified information forming over time and no known process that can do it. Nothing in the current world shows this tendency to form complex specified information. Geology produces complexity but it is not specified. That is why we can accept geology and not biology. One process leaves a host of forensic evidence on how the non specified complexity has formed, the other leaves no information on how the complex specified information has formed. In fact the geological evidence is extremely persuasive for ID. There are gradual processes working over time that can be observed in the current world for geology but none in biology except for micro evolution which does not produce complex specified information. There is no forensic evidence that micro evolution leads anywhere but to devolution which is the opposite of macro evolution.

[quoting Rib] â??I ask them: In your view, what would count as sufficient empirical evidence for unguided macroevolution?â? How about some examples either in the fossil record or in the current world. None exist. Macro evolution has no empirical evidence behind it. It is not science, but an ideology. Why donâ??t you start presenting empirical evidence for macro evolution. If you could, you would be a Nobel prize winner.

Share this post


Link to post
The definition from dictionary.com about doctrine1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine. 2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine. 3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church. nowhere does it say doctrine is a belief.

Here, this came directly from dictionary.com:

doctrine

noun

a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school WordNet

Share this post


Link to post
Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate.

Therefore, I win.

If you are trying to say that that is what I was doing, then you're simply being childish and unreasonable.

Maybe I would behave as you do if I were losing the argument as well.

Not a single one of you is refuting the facts WITH facts, which is an expected outcome when all you have is neo-Darwinistic theory, and blind trust in it.

Share this post


Link to post
There is no forensic evidence that micro evolution leads anywhere but to devolution which is the opposite of macro evolution.
You have been presented with evidence against this claim -- remember the skin cells? Contrary to your apparent belief, your skin cells don't just survive after they flake off your body. Scientists have observed a mutation that allows them to do this. If you put enough of these beneficial mutations together over the span of thousands of generations, macroevolution will occur. It's just that simple.

Also, don't feed us this horseshit about IDers believing in geology. If they did, they'd believe in evolution, too, because there's no other good way to explain the ages of and distribution of fossils (which are part of geology). How do IDers account for the lack of mammalian remains in all 600 million year old strata? How do IDers account for the fact that therapsids always appear in the fossil record before seals and whales? How do IDers account for the fact that scientists very commonly find transitional fossils exactly where evolution would predict them to be?

They can't. They are junk scientists.

â??I ask them: In your view, what would count as sufficient empirical evidence for unguided macroevolution?â? How about some examples either in the fossil record or in the current world. None exist. Macro evolution has no empirical evidence behind it. It is not science, but an ideology. Why donâ??t you start presenting empirical evidence for macro evolution. If you could, you would be a Nobel prize winner.
Good -- Wikipedia deserves one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Share this post


Link to post
If you are trying to say that that is what I was doing, then you're simply being childish and unreasonable.

Maybe I would behave as you do if I were losing the argument as well.

Not a single one of you is refuting the facts WITH facts, which is an expected outcome when all you have is neo-Darwinistic theory, and blind trust in it.

you are the little child. go home and let the big boys talk.

Share this post


Link to post
you are the little child. go home and let the big boys talk.

What a group we have here

Kyle, who doesn't understand the language.

Mills, who is subject to typing fits that discredit his maturity

semlogo, who doesn't read his own references

Bee Eff, who believes anything anyone in authority tells him.

remember the skin cells? Contrary to your apparent belief, your skin cells don't just survive after they flake off your body. Scientists have observed a mutation that allows them to do this. If you put enough of these beneficial mutations together over the span of thousands of generations, macroevolution will occur. It's just that simple.

Actually, if you believe that such beneficial mutations result in macroevolution, you are more a person of faith than any religious fundamentalist. This is merely another neo-Darwinist assertion that falls to pieces when you do any experiments trying to prove it. But then, so do all your other assertions.

Share this post


Link to post

Going back to the original problem. You said atheism is a set of belief. Look up the definition. A(without) theism

If you are "amath" or "Atoothfairy" that says nothing about what you believe. You are without math. You are without the tooth fairy. There is no beleif system that holds all atheists together like the belief system of christians or muslims or any other group. ATHEISM is the absense of belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Mills, who is subject to typing fits that discredit his maturity
The least you could do it spell my name right. :P
remember the skin cells? Contrary to your apparent belief, your skin cells don't just survive after they flake off your body. Scientists have observed a mutation that allows them to do this. If you put enough of these beneficial mutations together over the span of thousands of generations, macroevolution will occur. It's just that simple.

Actually, if you believe that such beneficial mutations result in macroevolution, you are more a person of faith than any religious fundamentalist. This is merely another neo-Darwinist assertion that falls to pieces when you do any experiments trying to prove it. But then, so do all your other assertions.

You don't get to just assert that this is true -- you have to provide evidence for your assertion, and explain why it supports it. This isn't Fast and Testimony Meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
You have been presented with evidence against this claim -- remember the skin cells? Contrary to your apparent belief, your skin cells don't just survive after they flake off your body. Scientists have observed a mutation that allows them to do this. If you put enough of these beneficial mutations together over the span of thousands of generations, macroevolution will occur. It's just that simple.Also, don't feed us this horseshit about IDers believing in geology. If they did, they'd believe in evolution, too, because there's no other good way to explain the ages of and distribution of fossils (which are part of geology). How do IDers account for the lack of mammalian remains in all 600 million year old strata? How do IDers account for the fact that therapsids always appear in the fossil record before seals and whales? How do IDers account for the fact that scientists very commonly find transitional fossils exactly where evolution would predict them to be?They can't. They are junk scientists. Good -- Wikipedia deserves one.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossilshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
Ya gotta love the fact that people keep trying to prove Darwinism and failing miserably. The first thing you read on the list of transtional fossils, which, by the way, is incredibly short given that there should be billions of these things, is this: This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. Sourced additions are welcome and you can help by expanding it.This is a very tentative list of transitional fossils And then how many transitional fossils are we treated to? 48? give or take. Included among those are the problematic ones I have already discusses, such as the hyracotherium, which could just as easily be a prehistoric hippo, or hyrax, as a horse. But 48? Where are the billions and billions predicted by evolution?This list is a discredit to the notion of any transitions at all. To rebut your second link, to which you add no clarifying statements, I give you this link:http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/200...gh-part-ii.htmlhttp://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent...orkshop-series/So there, take that! 2 links for 1.
Going back to the original problem. You said atheism is a set of belief. Look up the definition. A(without) theismIf you are "amath" or "Atoothfairy" that says nothing about what you believe. You are without math. You are without the tooth fairy. There is no beleif system that holds all atheists together like the belief system of christians or muslims or any other group. ATHEISM is the absense of belief.
if you go only by word analysis, you may have a point. But language is more than merely definitions, its usage. I speak 3 languages and I think I know what the word atheist means in common usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Ya gotta love the fact that people keep trying to prove Darwinism and failing miserably. The first thing you read on the list of transtional fossils, which, by the way, is incredibly short given that there should be billions of these things, is this: This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. Sourced additions are welcome and you can help by expanding it.This is a very tentative list of transitional fossils And then how many transitional fossils are we treated to? 48? give or take.
Do you mean that it claimed to only be an incomplete list, then only gave a fraction of the transitional fossils that we'd expect to see? OH NOES IT IS LOGICALLY CONSISTENT WITH ITSELF BETTAR NOT BELIEVE IN EVILUTION!!!111one
Included among those are the problematic ones I have already discusses, such as the hyracotherium, which could just as easily be a prehistoric hippo, or hyrax, as a horse. But 48? Where are the billions and billions predicted by evolution?This list is a discredit to the notion of any transitions at all. To rebut your second link, to which you add no clarifying statements, I give you this link:http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/200...gh-part-ii.htmlhttp://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent...orkshop-series/So there, take that! 2 links for 1.
Those are links to people who believe in evolution. Furthermore, if their ideas are true, they'd only rebut the idea that all life forms to ever exist on the planet share a common ancestor; they wouldn't rebut the idea that humans share a common ancestor with trees and crocodiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Yes, I did, and it proves my point that "vestigial" is in the eye of the beholder, not in reality.

No it doesn't, littlechild. Read it again. The organ exists in many babies, and may or may not exist in adults, but if it does, it's non-functional. It's used by reptiles for smell. It's a vestigial organ.

:P

Share this post


Link to post
mfbukowski

I think most people including LDS do not have a definition of truth. Mine is based on William James and Wittgenstein and others who are pragmatists or in their camp. It is more complex than I have let on. Defining truth is not an easy thing. If one theory has more truth than another, it is more useful than the other. It is more useful to think about the world going around the sun than the other way around; rockets go where they are supposed to go etc. I believe it is more useful to think as a Mormon because it puts more pheonomena into a useful reasonable framework than any other theory I have found which purports to describe these phenomena. Evolution as a theory works because it is the simplest explanation of how species get generated. If there is ever a better one which brings more phenomena into account as well, it will become "truth". But yes, I have no problem with truth varying, because it does. I think one who does not understand that truth is relative to propositions only doesn't understand what truth is. Only statements are true or false, and circumstances change what is "true". Even something as simple as "that car is red" will change if it is night time. The car will not be red, but grey to our perceptions. We can say "well yes, but during the day it is red", but that is a different proposition. Matching paint colors in the dark is not an easy job! But metaphorically many are in the dark and trying to "see" what the truth is.

I think most people including LDS do not have a definition of truth.

I think most people including LDS would disagree with you. Your definition of it may vary from others but that doesn't necessarily make yours more valid. It is better to understand how each may differ so as to better communicate. Yes truth can vary in some cases. In other cases like the proposition 2+2=4 is true in an absolute an objective way. The same can be said of the proposition of Joseph had ancient plates in his possession. This is either true or false, no in between. Many of the truths we each may consider truth are of a more subjective nature then even the proposition of the car is red. Some of the truths may not be truths for all(ex Chocolate tastes great). Your definition of truth seems to revolve around how useful or successful something is(I can see some of the value in that), which I still don't think would be the same as how most would define it. It also seems to concentrate more on subjective truth. BTW the world does go around the sun is also an objective truth proposition.

Evolution as a theory works because it is the simplest explanation of how species get generated. If there is ever a better one which brings more phenomena into account as well, it will become "truth". But yes, I have no problem with truth varying, because it does.

I do agree with this. Your proposition here is really only on which theory or explanation best explains species generation. As such evolution is true in the sense of it being the best explanation to date. If another theory comes along which better explains it, then it becomes more true in the sense that it would be the best explanation at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
if you go only by word analysis, you may have a point. But language is more than merely definitions, its usage. I speak 3 languages and I think I know what the word atheist means in common usage.

Words are concepts that we use to help us conceptualize the world. The words we use are very important because language is the only way man can properly discuss ideas( aside of course from art).

Confusion is the enemy of clarity.

If you do not have clear definitions, you are creating confusion.

You should know by now most people on here don't give a %^*# about common usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Yes truth can vary in some cases. In other cases like the proposition 2+2=4 is true in an absolute an objective way. The same can be said of the proposition of Joseph had ancient plates in his possession.

2+2=4 is an a priori proposition, and I agree those are always true, but not very interesting. They describe the way our minds work. They are true "by definition."

Historic propositions are not as easy as they seem. They are extremely difficult to verify. To a large degree they have to be taken on faith. Even the proposition "the egyptians built the pyramids" seems to be subject to some (probably totally unfounded) controversy. It gets difficult when we look at historical statements like "Columbus discovered America".. Did he really? How about the Vikings, those coming over the land bridge etc?

And we know that the truth or falsity of Joseph having ancient plates is impossible to prove either way. Both sides have evidence. So it is irrelevant whether or not it is of a type of proposition which might be true or false. What difference would that make?

Share this post


Link to post
mfbukowski Posted Today, 11:33 PM

2+2=4 is an a priori proposition, and I agree those are always true, but not very interesting. They describe the way our minds work. They are true "by definition."

Don't tell the mathematicians that :P Although these types of truths may not be interesting to you, they are to some, and many of them make a difference to all.

And we know that the truth or falsity of Joseph having ancient plates is impossible to prove either way. Both sides have evidence.

100% certainty is impossible, but almost everything is, so we all have to make decisions based on the information at hand.

So it is irrelevant whether or not it is of a type of proposition which might be true or false. What difference would that make?

I thinks it's obvious the difference it would make.

Share this post


Link to post
What a group we have here

Kyle, who doesn't understand the language.

Mills, who is subject to typing fits that discredit his maturity

semlogo, who doesn't read his own references

Bee Eff, who believes anything anyone in authority tells him.

I read the reference. You apparently did not. You post nothing but junk pseudo-science, which is apparently all you read on the subject of evolution. Garbage in, garbage out.

Share this post


Link to post
What a group we have here

Kyle, who doesn't understand the language.

Mills, who is subject to typing fits that discredit his maturity

semlogo, who doesn't read his own references

Bee Eff, who believes anything anyone in authority tells him.

I don't believe everything that someone in authority tells me. I do, however, believe that their opinions must be respected until adequate evidence states otherwise. This is very different from "believing anything anyone in authority tells me". I doubted evolution for a long time, adamantly so. I have, however, in the course of my own research, both in the experimental analysis of behavior and literature reviews, concluded that evolution is more plausible than any other possibility. I believe that one of two things is true: either God used evolution in the creation or God does not exist. Given this, the former is the position I take. I do not believe that anyone who has conducted an honest and unbiased study combined with prayer on subject can come to a conclusion that evolution was not a major tool in the creation of all living things.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×