Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Evolution and Religion

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 33
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 22 33 template Next
  • #111
    Originally posted by loseyourname Here you affirm that they are not new species.



    Here you say that they are. The process, in domestication, has been sped up through the use of selective breeding. However, natural selection on its own has the same effect; it just takes longer to manifest. This does not constitute an argument for intelligent design, although perhaps intelligent intervention took place. There is no way to know that. What we do know is that species evolved. As I said earlier, perhaps God prodded the procees along. The process itself took place either way.
    Noticed how I used "new species" in quotations?



    Originally posted by loseyourname I sent you a PM about this. If you would like me to reopen it, send me a PM. I would prefer that our responses to these debates be submitted in separate threads where they will be on topic, so that we can return the soul thread to its previous topic. This has nothing to do with new powers. The thread was my thread. I have deleted threads of mine before when they went off topic and nobody complained that I was abusing that power.
    Then I'll create a thread titled "Anything about God, morality, soul, etc.".
    Achkerov kute.

    Comment

    • #112
      Originally posted by Anonymouse Noticed how I used "new species" in quotations?
      One cannot interbreed with the other. You need not use the quotation, as that is the definition of species.

      Then I'll create a thread titled "Anything about God, morality, soul, etc.".
      Please don't do that. We have several topics being discussed. One is the nature of space/time and whether or not it is objectively measurable. One is whether or not faith can give knowledge. Another is the validity of Christian faith in particular. These are separate topics. They should be in separate threads.

      Comment

      • #113
        Originally posted by loseyourname One cannot interbreed with the other. You need not use the quotation, as that is the definition of species.
        A dog is a dog, despite claims of "semantics" it turns into nothing more than a "dog". You see here we have a problem for evolutionists. If Darwin and Evolution depend on "natural selection", humans interfering in "artificial selection" is misleading. You cannot use the latter as evidence of the former. Plant and animal breeders employ intelligence and specialized knowledge to select breeding stock and to protect their charges from natural dangers. Darwin's theory, rather his main point was to establish that purposeless and random natural processes can substitute for intelligent design. Now this seems to be a contradiction. It's either one or the other, and this doesn't bode too well for evolution.


        Originally posted by loseyourname Please don't do that. We have several topics being discussed. One is the nature of space/time and whether or not it is objectively measurable. One is whether or not faith can give knowledge. Another is the validity of Christian faith in particular. These are separate topics. They should be in separate threads.
        I answered you in your old thread, Nature of God.
        Achkerov kute.

        Comment

        • #114
          Originally posted by Anonymouse A dog is a dog, despite claims of "semantics" it turns into nothing more than a "dog".
          I do not think you quite understand what a dog is. "Canine" comes from "canis"; that is a genus. You can call a lamp a dog if you like.

          Comment

          • #115
            Originally posted by Anonymouse A dog is a dog, despite claims of "semantics" it turns into nothing more than a "dog". You see here we have a problem for evolutionists. If Darwin and Evolution depend on "natural selection", humans interfering in "artificial selection" is misleading. You cannot use the latter as evidence of the former. Plant and animal breeders employ intelligence and specialized knowledge to select breeding stock and to protect their charges from natural dangers. Darwin's theory, rather his main point was to establish that purposeless and random natural processes can substitute for intelligent design. Now this seems to be a contradiction. It's either one or the other, and this doesn't bode too well for evolution.

            I don't think you understand natural selection too well, Mousy. There isn't any contradiction between these two. I'm not sure what to say to you. I can't even fathom why you would think there is.

            Comment

            • #116
              There is a logical contradiction which you choose not to see and ignore, which I am sure neither you nore dusken will admit here. Natural selection is not artificial selection. What you pointed out is artificial selection, i.e. requiring intelligence. It is fundamentally different from natural selection. Au contraire, it is you who do not have an idea of what natural selection is.

              Human breeders can breed animals all they want. They breed sheep, they breed pigeons, they breed dogs and produce variations among them for purposes absent in nature, including sheer delight by "playing God" in seeing how much variation can be achieved.

              This contradicts natural selection, it has nothing to do with "speeding up" the process; natural selection being wholly unregulated and purposeless, whereas this requires intelligence.
              Achkerov kute.

              Comment

              • #117
                Originally posted by Anonymouse There is a logical contradiction which you choose not to see and ignore, which I am sure neither you nore dusken will admit here. Natural selection is not artificial selection. What you pointed out is artificial selection, i.e. requiring intelligence. It is fundamentally different from natural selection. Au contraire, it is you who do not have an idea of what natural selection is.

                Human breeders can breed animals all they want. They breed sheep, they breed pigeons, they breed dogs and produce variations among them for purposes absent in nature, including sheer delight by "playing God" in seeing how much variation can be achieved.

                This contradicts natural selection, it has nothing to do with "speeding up" the process; natural selection being wholly unregulated and purposeless, whereas this requires intelligence.
                Wasn't this addressed with the idea of the speed at which the change would occur? It requires intelligence to get it done at a certain speed. That much is obvious.

                You have argued before, earlier in the thread, that it was completely impossible. The arguement on the side of the evolutionist is that it is possible and can be shown to be possible. Nobody has the luxury of observing first hand for 10,000 years if something is changing naturally or not. But one can see that it is possible and show that it can be expanded to a geater period of occured prehistory.
                Last edited by dusken; 02-20-2004, 03:33 PM.

                Comment

                • #118
                  Originally posted by dusken Wasn't this addressed with the idea of the speed at which the change would occur? It requires intelligence to get it done at a certain speed. That much is obvious.
                  Then, if you admit intelligence, there is no randomness, but only purpose and thus you didn't "evolve" it, but you created a new thing, since whatever humans make they "Create".

                  Originally posted by dusken You have argued before, earlier in the thread, that it was completely impossible. The arguement on the side of the evolutionist is that it is possible and can be shown to be possible. Nobody has the luxury of observing first hand for 10,000 years if something is changing naturally or not. But one can see that it is possible and show that it can be expanded to a geater period of occured prehistory.
                  What are you talking about? I never argued against intelligence. All my argument was based on the evolutionists' premise that all change is random and purposeless, without intelligence. Artificial selection shows intelligent human thought, not random mutations.
                  Achkerov kute.

                  Comment

                  • #119
                    Originally posted by Anonymouse Then, if you admit intelligence, there is no randomness, but only purpose and thus you didn't "evolve" it, but you created a new thing, since whatever humans make they "Create".

                    What are you talking about? I never argued against intelligence. All my argument was based on the evolutionists' premise that all change is random and purposeless, without intelligence. Artificial selection shows intelligent human thought, not random mutations.
                    You are mangling my words and ideas. I do not understand what is difficult about seeing that it would take human intelligence to make something occur quickly that would normally take natural selection significantly longer to duplicate. This is very obvious. You are addressing a non-existent fallacy.

                    Comment

                    • #120
                      Originally posted by dusken You are mangling my words and ideas. I do not understand what is difficult about seeing that it would take human intelligence to make something occur quickly that would normally take natural selection significantly longer to duplicate. This is very obvious. You are addressing a non-existent fallacy.
                      Why, you ask? Because it is only assumed that natural selection can accomodate all those changes and produce new species. Like I said, there is no empirical data, other than educated guesses, and hence why evolution is a theory that is desperately trying to maintain validation, and not a scientific law. Hence, intelligent interference has nothing to do with natural selection, it is a contradiction, the very antithesis of what Darwinism is about.

                      I don't even have to get into the "whys" of why a dog will always be a dog, and not become an elephant or anything else. Evolutionists assume that it can become more, by pointing to the faulty past of the "fossils" and saying "look they changed from fossil A to fossil B", basically assuming that they evolved since it looks so "obvious", not proving it
                      Achkerov kute.

                      Comment

                      Previous 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 22 33 template Next
                      Working...
                      X