to the atheists on the board

AXE please answer what about the talk origins statement is proof of species to species evolution?

Answer: NOTHING.

And that is the point. YOU are setting up a strawman by
claiming that since they claim that the same process
which causes microevolution is the same processes which
causes macroevolution **THEY HAVE NO PROOF**, or that
they are **ADMITTING NO PROOF*** for macroevolution.
e are on the same page now.

Well we should drop this because we are close but they do not claim the same process which causes microevolution causes macro.

They state the "synthesists" "extrapolate". = the believers guess. They do not even cite who the synthesists are or what they make their guesses on. You could be a synthesist. Talk Origins doesn't not even affirm the extrapolation is legitimate.

But at least I now know they we read the same thing you just do not like my characterization of it--- and that is fine.


But what about STUUUUUU. Who claimed that columbus was up against religion who believe in a flat earth.

I demand an explanation (I guess stu could support his claim) or a retraction and an apology to all delusional people.

Darwinists are the cause of much disinformation.
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

When did man first have the ability to generate a concept of a God to believe in?

Conception of God comes before belief in God.
More...

State it however you like. How did it begin?
 
How did it begin?

How did man come to believe in God?

Maybe he formed a concept of God, something greater than himself, then came to believe in the God of his understanding through positive results of belief in God.

Maybe God planted the thought in his mind.

Or it could be that God came down and told man to believe in him.

I wasn't there, I can only speculate.

Do you have any evidence or proof of what took place?

Or do you just have a different opinion?

Quote from dbphoenix:

State it however you like. How did it begin?
More...
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

How did it begin?

How did man come to believe in God?

Maybe he formed a concept of God, something greater than himself, then came to believe in the God of his understanding through positive results of belief in God.

Maybe God planted the thought in his mind.

Or it could be that God came down and told man to believe in him.

I wasn't there, I can only speculate.

Do you have any evidence or proof of what took place?

Or do you just have a different opinion?
More...

So, in other words, you don't know, in which case, no matter what direction this particular discussion takes, you are most likely to resort to the "faith" card.

If your faith is so strong, surely it can withstand an exploration of religious history. Your librarian can help you out.
 
What does the strength of my faith have to do with what other people believe?

Resorting to the "faith" card is the foundation of faith, in the same way resorting to the "logic" card is the foundation of logic.

Both require an assumption to begin the construction of their respective philosophies.

You claim to know, I challenge you to prove you know who was the very first man who came to believe in God, and how he came to that belief.

I think if you bring forth your "knowledge" that I can effectively reduce it to speculation and conjecture...i.e. opinion.

Quote from dbphoenix:

So, in other words, you don't know, in which case, no matter what direction this particular discussion takes, you are most likely to resort to the "faith" card.

If your faith is so strong, surely it can withstand an exploration of religious history. Your librarian can help you out.
More...
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

What does the strength of my faith have to do with what other people believe?
More...

If you're truly interested in the subject, you'll investigate it. Otherwise, I'd just be talking to myself.

Based on your comments, tho, I suspect that examining your faith is not a very attractive propect to you. But you're hardly alone in that.
 
You assume facts not in evidence.



Quote from dbphoenix:

If you're truly interested in the subject, you'll investigate it. Otherwise, I'd just be talking to myself.

Based on your comments, tho, I suspect that examining your faith is not a very attractive propect to you. But you're hardly alone in that.
More...
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

You assume facts not in evidence.
More...

Only because you can't answer the question. If you want to answer it, fine. If you prefer to tapdance, I'm done.
 
"Well we should drop this because we are close but they do not claim the same process which causes microevolution causes macro. "

I agree. They do not claim this directly. To refresh:
However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes

"CAN BE extrapolated" here simply means that the process
we observe in microevolution *IS A VALID POSSIBILITY* for macroevolution.

But they dont assert it ACTUALLY causes it. Cause is a bit different.
But there is also no reason to believe there is something which
causes the process of microevolution to stop working before
macroevolution occurs.


"They state the "synthesists" "extrapolate". = the believers guess. They do not even cite who the synthesists are or what they make their guesses on. You could be a synthesist. Talk Origins doesn't not even affirm the extrapolation is legitimate. "

Its not relevant. Agree or disagree, in both cases, there was
never an admission that there was no evidence for macroevolution.



"But at least I now know they we read the same thing you just do not like my characterization of it--- and that is fine."

Not quite accurate. I dont like that fact that you asserted
they embarrassingly ADMITTED there was no evidence for macroevolution.
This was your original claim that I contested.
This is simply not the case, and the 29+ evidences for macroevolution
on the same website is further evidence that they would
make no such claim.


But what about STUUUUUU. Who claimed that columbus was up against religion who believe in a flat earth.

Im not interested in this revisionist debate.

To quote an atheist web site that seemed to do a good analysis
of this stuff:

There are many scientific areas where the dogmatic blinders of religion have shielded the truth. However, after a detailed analysis of original historic works, and overcoming our own personal bias, we simply found that flat earthism is not a very good example of this theological phenomenon.

Although the theists arent being entirely fair either:
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat_earth_myth_ch4.html



peace

axeman
 
>You claim to know, I challenge you to prove you know
>who was the very first man who came to believe in God,
>and how he came to that belief.

>I think if you bring forth your "knowledge" that I can
>effectively reduce it to speculation and conjecture...i.e.
>opinion.

That is one thing I've noticed about people in general (it's not limited to theists in any way) -- they really don't want to go back and learn where a lot of what they believe in came from and what it is based on. It must be frightening as it chances minimizing much of what they stand for.

This was one of the roots of what became my "belief system" many years ago -- I threw out all that I had *been taught* and relied only on what I had *learned* for myself. (the difference was startling).

Searching is best accompanied by an open mind -- not a mind full of canned conclusions.

JB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top