It would be nice if you could provide some links. It is sad that people who have made a life-changing decision could be so close-minded against some women who just want equalism.
Science vs. Creationism
- Thread starter dodo
- Start date
It would be nice if you could provide some links. It is sad that people who have made a life-changing decision could be so close-minded against some women who just want equalism.
Half the bloggers at freethoughtblogs.com talk about it. Shakesville, skepchic, etc.
Thanks. Will check them out. I should read more blogs.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....ok, your the genius! So what happened to the Aborigines, the Native Americans, and the Japanese? I guess they all "evolved" separately on or in there native lands? From Biblical chronology the flood occurred in 2370*B.C.E
Noah and his family entered the ark in the 600th year of Noah’s life, the 2nd month (October-November), the 17th day. (Ge 7:11) One year later (a year consisting of 360 days) was the 17th day, 2nd month, 601st year. Ten days after that would be the 27th day of the 2nd month, when they came out; a total of 370 days, or parts of 371 separate days, spent in the ark. (Ge 8:13,*14) In the log that Noah kept, it appears he used months of 30 days each, 12 of them equaling 360 days. In this way he avoided all the complicated fractions involved had he used strictly lunar months consisting of slightly more than 29 1⁄2 days. That such calculations were used in the account is evident from the fact that a five-month period consisted of 150 days.—Ge 7:11,*24; 8:3,*4.
With the Deluge great changes came, for example, the life span of humans dropped very rapidly. Some have suggested that prior to the Flood the waters above the expanse shielded out some of the harmful radiation and that, with the waters gone, cosmic radiation genetically harmful to man increased. However, the Bible is silent on the matter. Incidentally, any change in radiation would have altered the rate of formation of radioactive carbon-14 to such an extent as to invalidate all radiocarbon dates prior to the Flood.
MVP
Well-Known Member
Can you please stop quoting that mythology book - it has no relationship to the answer I am asking.
So you guess all these nations evolved into what they were before the flood and what they are now from Noah's family and spread all over the world from Middle East in just a few years? We do have undeniable evidence of people activity in all continents way before " supposed" flood and after... how did that happen? Did your creator just "magically recreated and teleported" thousands of people all over the world? And changed their racial features, languages and general advancement levels at the same time?
Do you understand that you trying to sell magic fairies, trolls and unicorns here?
To be sure, there are a lot of issues with new Feminists as well as New Athiests. I have no issues with feminists.
More Watchtower material. You don't think it's a big deal that you continue quoting sources without giving a citation?
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001150?q=earth+day&p=par
ctrl+f the quoted statement.
What the difference between the "new Feminists" and other feminists, or the New Atheists and other atheists?
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
“I'm for truth, no matter who tells it." ...isn't that on the bottom of everyone of your posts? So what's the big deal? If I quote, copy and paste and otherwise use material to point out the "truth" then be happy you had the chance to read and absorb it!
Proper attribution is a mark of honest debate.
Absolutely. That CJ can't see that is incredibly telling about his character.
BENTLEY
Well-Known Member
John Angus Campbell on Philip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial:
From an interview with him on the rhetoric of Darwin.
https://www.understandingorigins.org/the_rhetoric_of_darwin.html
From an interview with him on the rhetoric of Darwin.
https://www.understandingorigins.org/the_rhetoric_of_darwin.html
Johnson spoke at lenght in his book, and produced horrible arguments with no appreciable truth. It's very easy, almost ridiculously so, to rebut his arguments. It's much more likely that Campbell witness people correcting Johnson on lies right from the start.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];821817 said:
Science is supposed to be an observation based grasp of things, despite your ideological framework.
In fact, prior to Darwinian insistence that the pursuit of scientific knowledge require the exclusion of God, THE reason to pursue science was to understand God.
As Louis Pasteur said, "Science brings men nearer to God."
Karl Popper (philosopher of science): Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme . . .
Michael Ruse (philosopher of science): Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
Dr. David Berlinski (atheist mathematician): Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions.
Just went with the first one...
Why not state that the bracketed religion is something you put in?
Even more...
The majority of biologists believe in God; there is no requirement to exclude him.
Metaphysics is not religion.
Ruse wrote an entire column explaining that evolution theory was not a religion and that his statement was being taken out of context.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/is-darwinism-a-religion_b_904828.html
Berlinski is not an atheist, and his opinions have always been demonstrated to be ill-founded.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I assumed everyone knew why square brackets are used in the first place.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
"There exists no law of evolution, only the historical fact that plants and animals change, or more precisely, that they have changed. [Popper, 1963b, p. 340; emphasis added]"
......I would like to address or discuss that statement! It is true, that plants and animals change. BUT within boundaries! I have noticed that in recent years, the media, sports writers, just about everyone that points out someone or some team has "changed" uses the expression that they have "evolved" thus perpetuating the bogus theory of Darwin......when what has really happened is a ball player has improved, changed his game, changed his wicked ways, etc. etc. etc. When a "team" makes a change in style of play or the system they were running, have they organically "evolved" or just made changes in the team chemistry or in there decision making? The ball player is still "human" and still plays the sport! The team still plays basketball or football or baseball, they haven't really "evolved" into a team of roller skaters or volleyball players or tennis players. Do you follow my reasoning here?
......I would like to address or discuss that statement! It is true, that plants and animals change. BUT within boundaries! I have noticed that in recent years, the media, sports writers, just about everyone that points out someone or some team has "changed" uses the expression that they have "evolved" thus perpetuating the bogus theory of Darwin......when what has really happened is a ball player has improved, changed his game, changed his wicked ways, etc. etc. etc. When a "team" makes a change in style of play or the system they were running, have they organically "evolved" or just made changes in the team chemistry or in there decision making? The ball player is still "human" and still plays the sport! The team still plays basketball or football or baseball, they haven't really "evolved" into a team of roller skaters or volleyball players or tennis players. Do you follow my reasoning here?
What are the boundaries?
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
WHAT IS EVOLUTION? One definition of “evolution” is: “A process of change in a certain direction.” However, the term is used in several ways. For example, it is used to describe big changes in inanimate things—the development of the universe. In addition, the term is used to describe small changes in living things—the way plants and animals adapt to their environment. The word is most commonly used, though, to describe the theory that life arose from inanimate chemicals, formed into self-replicating cells, and slowly developed into more and more complex creatures, with man being the most intelligent of its productions. This third notion is what is meant by the term “evolution” as used in the context of our discussions!
So we need to clear up something. Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. For example, humans can selectively breed dogs so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears. Some scientists attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.”
However, evolutionists teach that small changes accumulated slowly over billions of years and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apelike creatures into men. These proposed big changes are defined as “macroevolution.”
The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.
However, the facts are this: There are many characteristics of a plant or an animal that are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell. Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species?
What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed?
After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.” And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants . . . died or were weaker than wild varieties.”
And the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”
So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
It makes sense in that the "life-changing decision" they made was to reject consensus morality. Why would they be open to anyone else's values but those of their own liking?