Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by Robtard
DeWitt is not being honest with his work... Macroevolution is thought to be the result of millions of years of Microevolution, not just 'poof, there is it'. So in theory, an animal the size and proportions of a cat could drastically change and become the size of an elephant (it's descendent's) given the correct environmental pressures to change and either adapt or die out. In theory, it would also be possible that the original cat-sized animal could branch out and descend into more than one species.

That is rank nonsense.

I will listen to you when you get your B.S. in biochemistry and a Ph.D. in neuroscience just like Dr. DeWitt. Until such time who are you to call this man's honesty into question?

http://theunjustmedia.com/darwinism%20refuted%20true_origin_of_species.htm

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

That is rank nonsense.

I will listen to you when you get your B.S. in biochemistry and a Ph.D. in neuroscience just like Dr. DeWitt. Until such time who are you to call this man's honesty into question?

http://theunjustmedia.com/darwinism%20refuted%20true_origin_of_species.htm

And where do you get off accusing him of speaking bullshit when that's the entirely of what your arguments consist of ?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

That is rank nonsense.

I will listen to you when you get your B.S. in biochemistry and a Ph.D. in neuroscience just like Dr. DeWitt. Until such time who are you to call this man's honesty into question?

http://theunjustmedia.com/darwinism%20refuted%20true_origin_of_species.htm

Be honest, even if he did have a B.S. and a Ph.D you still would not listen to him and still dodge his questions.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

That is rank nonsense.

I will listen to you when you get your B.S. in biochemistry and a Ph.D. in neuroscience just like Dr. DeWitt. Until such time who are you to call this man's honesty into question?

http://theunjustmedia.com/darwinism%20refuted%20true_origin_of_species.htm

What if we refute with the numerous scientists that are arrayed against him? Would that be valid?

And he might very well believe what he is presenting, but that doesn't make it fact - he needs evidence to support his claims, and his theory has to be sufficiently developed to stand up to rebuttal which, to my knowledge, it hasn't.

A scientist publishes, or a group does. Others pick up in journals and oppose it or support it, depending on the problems. Can to list the number of articles your champion here has published? The number who he has had to defend and how many he has succeeded in defending? If I am thinking of the same Dr. DeWitt he doesn't have a good track record in actual scientific debate, he is simply popular with the "Christian Scientists."

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
What if we refute with the numerous scientists that are arrayed against him? Would that be valid?

And he might very well believe what he is presenting, but that doesn't make it fact - he needs evidence to support his claims, and his theory has to be sufficiently developed to stand up to rebuttal which, to my knowledge, it hasn't.

A scientist publishes, or a group does. Others pick up in journals and oppose it or support it, depending on the problems. Can to list the number of articles your champion here has published? The number who he has had to defend and how many he has succeeded in defending? If I am thinking of the same Dr. DeWitt he doesn't have a good track record in actual scientific debate, he is simply popular with the "Christian Scientists."

Buddy, ole, pal, I will give credence to what you say when I see doctorate letters in juxtaposition to your name. I apologize if this steps on your toes but it just amazes me how you are just so predisposed to disbelieve and discount (although this has been your wont since my advent to this forum) information that does not confirm or substantiate what you believe. Do you even know how to be impartial and objective in your analysis of information that confutes what you hold to be true?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I apologize if this steps on your toes but it just amazes me how you are just so predisposed to disbelieve and discount (although this has been your wont since my advent to this forum) information that does not confirm or substantiate what you believe. Do you even know how to be impartial and objective in your analysis of information that confutes what you hold to be true?

Hypocrisy happens to be not only the worst of your traits, but the most frequent.

Like Pittman says, "Practice what you Preach"

Not only do you ignore facts that contradict your point of view and refuse to address them, but you also refuse to answer questions that force you to admit that you don't know for sure.

Your hypocrisy is DISGUSTING 😘

Originally posted by debbiejo
An You compare me to him??? 😆

and yet I tell you this If anyone speaks words that are not from me, then are not from my father 🙄

Jesus

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Can to list the number of articles your champion here has published?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

That is rank nonsense.

I will listen to you when you get your B.S. in biochemistry and a Ph.D. in neuroscience just like Dr. DeWitt. Until such time who are you to call this man's honesty into question?

http://theunjustmedia.com/darwinism%20refuted%20true_origin_of_species.htm

Originally posted by crazy
Be honest, even if he did have a B.S. and a Ph.D you still would not listen to him and still dodge his questions.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Halfway there. So if I come back in 3-4 years with my doctorate, you'll believe me wholeheartedly when I tell you you're a backwards fundamentalist Luddite.

You would still need to overcome your anger management issues for me to take anything you say seriously.

You'd probably have to stop being the joke of the forum for me to care whether or not you take me seriously, honey bunny.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You'd probably have to stop being the joke of the forum for me to care whether or not you take me seriously, honey bunny.

You obviously care enough to keep on responding to me. I have already informed you that you are under no obligation to reply to my posts or even look at them. I don't know why you waste your time to be quite frank. I only respond back to you because you first respond to me (it is never the other way around that I can recall).

Ah the classic line of the attention whore/troll; how very whobish.
"You care because you respond."
Silly, I care because I want to have sweaty man-on-man love with you, so you can carry my babies.

Just a few examples of how much you care little troll man:

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I bet this is xmarksthespot talking I can tell by how livid the post is (looks up at the name in the post). Originally posted by xmarksthespot [/I, I guess I was right.

[i]Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Evolution certainly hasn't solved your anger management issues. Jesus Christ could solve your anger problems.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Buddy, ole, pal, I will give credence to what you say when I see doctorate letters in juxtaposition to your name. I apologize if this steps on your toes but it just amazes me how you are just so predisposed to disbelieve and discount (although this has been your wont since my advent to this forum) information that does not confirm or substantiate what you believe. Do you even know how to be impartial and objective in your analysis of information that confutes what you hold to be true?

Irony - what you just posted.

You, with your distinct lack of "doctorate letters" next to your name, say how none of us are justified to comment on this here chappy with his Christian agenda.

I ask, reasonably, if that means you will only listen if we post links to other people with "doctorate letters" next to there names.

You return with this... well drivel. Double standards if you ask me. What makes your champion here special other then the fact he is one of the minority of people with a semi-secientific background who supports your claims? How are you being impartial by refusing to acknowledge that I or others could produce many, many more scientists with views that don't support you chap and who are more evidenced and whose theories have stood the test of time? You accuse us of that with one hand, and the other commit the same thing.

Which led me to ask - what is your chaps actual achievements in his field? How well has he defended his theory? Were are his publications?

Once again you dodge the question and choose to answer a question of your own devising. You want to present someone as reputable support for your stance expect him to be judged by the same measure as any scientists is judged. I have said so many times - just because a person believes the Bible does not give them special benefits. If their theories don't work, then they don't work.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
God made world. God made world that run to scientific reasoning. God and science are incompatible...

Ah, did I miss something JIA? Clearly if the world works in a scientific fashion then God and science need not be diametrically opposed.

Except that doesn't work because all species that have existed did not exist at the same time. It is something you need to get your head around - large mammals, humans etc - did not exist till thousands of years after the dinosaurs died out.

Birds didn't exist in the beginning.

Not all dinosaurs existed at the same time. Some species didn't come about till millions of years after another.

That phrase doesn't work. Either evolution exist, or God has been periodically coming back to wipe out species and make new ones for millions of years.

Except that if he created the heavens creating light wouldn't be needed - since light is natural by product of stars, and stars are a part of the heavens... so sounds like God is doubling up, claiming one creative moment is actually two.

Though like animals all plant life did not... in fact appear at one.

Here God takes credit for natural processes involving gravity which leads to orbit - since this is going on all over the universe where ever a planet orbits a star. Or a moon a planet.

Nope, no birds for millions of years.

God creating animals out of nothing?

So you say, and in the process subscribe to a religious theory that does not work - from the most basic since all life did not exist at once. Species came and went over millions of years. Either the Genesis account is wrong... or the Genesis account is wrong.

You have forgotten (or failed to recognize) how much of a wordsmith I am bruh. I said that God and evolution is diametrically opposed I said nothing about science. 😉

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You have forgotten (or failed to recognize) how much of a wordsmith I am bruh. I said that God and evolution is diametrically opposed I said nothing about science. 😉

First of all - don't forget my post above this one.

Ah, so essentially it is "science is fine as long as it cures my cancer and keeps my house warm but the moment a theory comes along that doesn't fit the Bible is is out, even if it has a mass of evidence supporting it to the Bibles... well, virtual no evidence."

Seems pretty hypocritical. Evolution and Science seem to be going hand in hand, it is the Bible that is the odd one out.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
First of all - don't forget my post above this one.

Ah, so essentially it is "science is fine as long as it cures my cancer and keeps my house warm but the moment a theory comes along that doesn't fit the Bible is is out, even if it has a mass of evidence supporting it to the Bibles... well, virtual no evidence."

Seems pretty hypocritical. Evolution and Science seem to be going hand in hand, it is the Bible that is the odd one out.

Actually, science (the many, variegated discoveries that have been made through its instrumentality) confirms the Bible.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Actually, science (the many, variegated discoveries that have been made through its instrumentality) confirms the Bible.

Oh really?

Except with evolution.

And certain areas of physics.

And astronomy.

And with....

So it seems hard to say evolution is completely irreconcilable with the Bible, especially when the Genesis account just doesn't work. Either it is completely wrong, completely metaphorical (and thus reflective of scientific reasons such as evolution.)

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Irony - what you just posted.

You, with your distinct lack of "doctorate letters" next to your name, say how none of us are justified to comment on this here chappy with his Christian agenda.

I ask, reasonably, if that means you will only listen if we post links to other people with "doctorate letters" next to there names.

You return with this... well drivel. Double standards if you ask me. What makes your champion here special other then the fact he is one of the minority of people with a semi-secientific background who supports your claims? How are you being impartial by refusing to acknowledge that I or others could produce many, many more scientists with views that don't support you chap and who are more evidenced and whose theories have stood the test of time? You accuse us of that with one hand, and the other commit the same thing.

Which led me to ask - what is your chaps actual achievements in his field? How well has he defended his theory? Were are his publications?

Once again you dodge the question and choose to answer a question of your own devising. You want to present someone as reputable support for your stance expect him to be judged by the same measure as any scientists is judged. I have said so many times - just because a person believes the Bible does not give them special benefits. If their theories don't work, then they don't work.

Semi-scientific? (laughs with abandon) You cannot even give the man credit where credit is obviously due. You have trouble just acknowledging his credentials. The man has all kinds of accolades (in the scientific arena and community) and you are still reluctant (could it be denial? I don't rule this out because I have concluded in times past that I think that you are in denial) Can't you see friend how what I have been saying all along about your prejudice (not racial, that is not what I mean) and bias against anything that goes against what you believe is the root of your inability to judge or rather give anything that I submit to you fair scrutiny and equal time? I am just flabbergasted that a person with your high intelligence quotience (I am not being sarcastic, I have commended your intellect in times past) could persist in being so biased and prejudiced for one of a better way to say it. You constantly affirm how open-minded that you are (yeah, you are inordinately open-minded about anything and everything just as long as it does not support the Bible). From my perspective I have yet to see any evidence, earmarks, or signs of your impartiality. But (sighs) I will continue to have hope that one day you will, and so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Semi-scientific, I just can't get over how you just willfully chose not to give this man credit. I would wager that you have given others who do not even remotely rival this man's qualifications your undivided attention, time, support, and above all your credence.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Oh really?

Except with evolution.

And certain areas of physics.

And astronomy.

And with....

So it seems hard to say evolution is completely irreconcilable with the Bible, especially when the Genesis account just doesn't work. Either it is completely wrong, completely metaphorical (and thus reflective of scientific reasons such as evolution.)

Correct, except with evolution.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[COLOR=darkblue]Semi-scientific? (laughs with abandon) You cannot even give the man credit where credit is obviously due. You have trouble just acknowledging his credentials. The man has all kinds of accolades (in the scientific arean and community) and you are still reluctant

As I have said before - I approach any and all sources equally, as any student is meant to. If they don't pass muster then I will say as much.

I can give a long list of scientists who were hot stuff originally, mainly due to them not facing the criteria a researcher has to today - and now when they are looked at they get labeled with "pseudoscience" - because it is justified.

(could it be denial? I don't rule this out because I have concluded in times past that I think that you are in denial)

This coming from the person who can blindly go on and on about something but when a hard question is asked suddenly say "I don't think I should answer"? You walk a tightrope trying to ignore the valid problems that have been raised with your religion. It isn't denial I have - it is an open mind. It is being prepared to look at what is being presented, use my mind, and ask questions if questions need to be asked.

I'm not the one quoting a scientist simply because he has "Christian" in his resume. I'm not the one refusing to give equal time to other scinetists simply because there views don't support the Biblical claim. It is you who are in denial, to scared to actually look at the data on offer as you fear it might cause you to doubt.

True strength isn't running from a challenge, it is facing it or finding a way around it.

Can't you see friend how what I have been saying all along about your prejudice (not racial, that is not what I mean) and bias against anything that goes against what you believe is the root of your inability to judge or rather give anything that I submit to you fair scrutiny and equal time?

Above - tell me. I have done a lot of research. If I approach a source, and find fault with it, am I being unreasonable saying as much?

You can present your champion here - but tell me, if I give a list of scientists who don't agree with him are you going to admit they may have a point or not? Are you going to disagree with them, you with no doctorate letters beside your name?

I am just flabbergasted that a person with your high intelligence quotience (I am not being sarcastic, I have commended your intellect in times past) could persist in being so biased and prejudiced for one of a better way to say it. You constantly affirm how open-minded that you are (yeah, you are inordinately open-minded about anything that does not support the Bible) but I have yet to see any evidence, earmarks, or signs of this.

As above again. It is not being biased to not support a person with an obvious agenda who has utilised a scientific theory that has been opposed in a valid and convincing manner by many other scientists.

Understand this - I am not simply going to accept his claim because he has "doctorate letters" by his name. Especially when there are many other far more reputable scientists, both Christian and otherwise, who disagree with him and do not possess that massive agenda.

And once again - You can present your champion here - but tell me, if I give a list of scientists who don't agree with him are you going to admit they may have a point or not?

But (sighs) I will continue to have hope that one day you will, and so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Semi-scientific, I just can't get over how you just willfully chose not to give this man credit. I would wager that you have given others who do not even remotely rival this man's qualifications your undivided attention and support.

Says the man who enjoys posting absurd links about the teaching of evolution being attributed to crime and refuses to support it when the multitude of holes in the theory are pointed out.

Says the man who doesn't give equal respect to scientific theories put forward by scientists who aren;t supporting the Bible.

Says the person who enjoys Chick tracts with their multitude of inaccuracies, absurdancies and downright mistruths.

You critique of my research style would carry far more weight if it didn't reflect so much on your own style. As I have said - I will approach every "expert" you present in the same manner as I have been taught through my studies. I will applaud them when they deserve it and question them when they say something questionable.

I don't care if they are Christian, Muslim or Atheist. The content they present matters, as does the agenda they might have in presenting it as they do. The man we are speaking of here has some serious problems, and he isn't even well supported through publishing. I am being far more open minded in questioning such claims as you are in simply accepting them because a Christian is making them.

You can present your champion here - but tell me, if I give a list of scientists who don't agree with him are you going to admit they may have a point or not?