Not Darwin's Law, it's God's Law.

[M.D. Rawlings]

Of course, dear. Like most thumpers, just make up the stuff as you go along.

Does she ask, "Why is that, Rawlings?"

No. Of course not.

Mindless Internet Atheist: The Problem of Internet Atheists

 

[BreezeWood]

The guy in the video said that the bible is the word of god. So either god doesn't know what he's talking about, or you don't, for posting someone would contradicts you (among other things). Hmmm. Tough decision? Umm... no.

Please try again.

Please, shut up. Your hermeneutics is crap. Your understanding is crap. Your attitude is crap. You don't have any clue about what Lennox or I are talking about. None. Zip. Zilch.

Fat dude says that the bible is the word of god, then goes on to say that, well, even though the earth isn't at the center of the universe, that doesn't matter, it's still the word of god, even though He was wrong on that. Comical.

The Bible doesn't hold that the Earth is the center of the universe, dummy. The ancients of all cultures believed that, dummy. You don't know what you're talking about.

Of course not, dear. The science texts that are the bibles hold that serpents talk, men live to be 600 years old, the earth is flat and merely 6,000 old.

Perhaps if you knew what you're writing, you wouldn't be such a laughable joke.

More idiocy from know-nothings. Ussher's genealogical calculation has been falsified for decades. According the Bible, Adamic man is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old.

mdr: According the Bible, Adamic man is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old.

.....

Lucy Australopithecus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Lucy is the common name of AL 288-1 ... Lucy is estimated to have lived 3.2 million years ago, and is classified as a hominin.

can we guess - Adamic is not the same as hominin ... or a 3.1 million year difference is simply a negligible amount of time - of course.

.

 

[Hollie]

Of course, dear. Like most thumpers, just make up the stuff as you go along.

Does she ask, "Why is that, Rawlings?"

No. Of course not.

Mindless Internet Atheist: The Problem of Internet Atheists

Does Rawling ask for help to resolve his confusion? No.

Does Rawling continue his charade of viciously circular argumentation: "the bibles are true because I believe the bibles are true". Yes.

Hyper-religious thumpers and contingent reality are forever at odds.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Please, shut up. Your hermeneutics is crap. Your understanding is crap. Your attitude is crap. You don't have any clue about what Lennox or I are talking about. None. Zip. Zilch.

Fat dude says that the bible is the word of god, then goes on to say that, well, even though the earth isn't at the center of the universe, that doesn't matter, it's still the word of god, even though He was wrong on that. Comical.

The Bible doesn't hold that the Earth is the center of the universe, dummy. The ancients of all cultures believed that, dummy. You don't know what you're talking about.

Of course not, dear. The science texts that are the bibles hold that serpents talk, men live to be 600 years old, the earth is flat and merely 6,000 old.

Perhaps if you knew what you're writing, you wouldn't be such a laughable joke.

More idiocy from know-nothings. Ussher's genealogical calculation has been falsified for decades. According the Bible, Adamic man is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old.

mdr: According the Bible, Adamic man is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old.

.....

Lucy Australopithecus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Lucy is the common name of AL 288-1 ... Lucy is estimated to have lived 3.2 million years ago, and is classified as a hominin.

can we guess - Adamic is not the same as hominin ... or a 3.1 million year difference is simply a negligible amount of time - of course.

.

Hush, child. The Bible is not concerned with hominids, but Adamic man only.

 

[Hollie]

Fat dude says that the bible is the word of god, then goes on to say that, well, even though the earth isn't at the center of the universe, that doesn't matter, it's still the word of god, even though He was wrong on that. Comical.

The Bible doesn't hold that the Earth is the center of the universe, dummy. The ancients of all cultures believed that, dummy. You don't know what you're talking about.

Of course not, dear. The science texts that are the bibles hold that serpents talk, men live to be 600 years old, the earth is flat and merely 6,000 old.

Perhaps if you knew what you're writing, you wouldn't be such a laughable joke.

More idiocy from know-nothings. Ussher's genealogical calculation has been falsified for decades. According the Bible, Adamic man is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old.

mdr: According the Bible, Adamic man is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old.

.....

Lucy Australopithecus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Lucy is the common name of AL 288-1 ... Lucy is estimated to have lived 3.2 million years ago, and is classified as a hominin.

can we guess - Adamic is not the same as hominin ... or a 3.1 million year difference is simply a negligible amount of time - of course.

.

Hush, child. The Bible is not concerned with hominids, but Adamic man only.

Right. Because the A&E fable requires humanity to be "created", magically *poofed* into existence 6,000 years ago.

Yeeeee haw.

 

[Taz]

The guy in the video said that the bible is the word of god. So either god doesn't know what he's talking about, or you don't, for posting someone would contradicts you (among other things). Hmmm. Tough decision? Umm... no.

Please try again.

Please, shut up. Your hermeneutics is crap. Your understanding is crap. Your attitude is crap. You don't have any clue about what Lennox or I are talking about. None. Zip. Zilch.

Fat dude says that the bible is the word of god, then goes on to say that, well, even though the earth isn't at the center of the universe, that doesn't matter, it's still the word of god, even though He was wrong on that. Comical.

The Bible doesn't hold that the Earth is the center of the universe, dummy. The ancients of all cultures believed that, dummy. You don't know what you're talking about.

Of course not, dear. The science texts that are the bibles hold that serpents talk, men live to be 600 years old, the earth is flat and merely 6,000 old.

Perhaps if you knew what you're writing, you wouldn't be such a laughable joke.

More idiocy from know-nothings. Ussher's genealogical calculation has been falsified for decades. According the Bible, Adamic man is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old.

Fat dude quoted the bible passage that HE said meant that the earth was in the center of the universe. You posted it, you douchebag.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Right. Because the A&E fable requires humanity to be "created", magically *poofed* into existence 6,000 years ago.
Yeeeee haw.

But of course the Bible holds no such thing.

Does she ask, "Why is that, Rawlings?"

No. Of course not.

Mindless Internet atheists: The Problem of Internet Atheists

One of the respondents nails it:

Max. You left out some points. For instance, the internet atheist relies on Google Scholarship and Wikipedia. They think clicking to any YouTube video made by someone living in his mother’s basement is a valid argument. They by default do not have to read anything by evangelical scholarship since it’s ipso facto stupid. All Christians want to create a theocracy and believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and the days of Genesis are literal. In fact, every passage of Scripture must be interpreted literally.​

Never mind that Ussherian fundamentalism is the minority view in the history of Christendom, before and especially since the age of science. Never mind that scripture itself, on the very face of it, clearly does not support a literal, 24-hour-day-creation scenario for all six days, let alone a uniformly identical duration of time for each of the six days or even for the seventh day of rest. Never mind that we have known for decades from archeology what biblical scholars suspected for centuries, i.e., that the biblical genealogy is not a chronologically comprehensive succession, but a succession of the major patriarchic lineages by intent, more often than not encompassing a large, unknown number persons at a time, that Adamic man is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old according to scripture, though even that is a conservative estimate based on the genealogies pertinent to the biblical narrative only. . . . Hence, in fact, the Bible doesn't actually tell us precisely how old Adamic man is, any more than it tells us how old the Earth or the Universe is.

Internet atheists don't want to deal with the hermeneutics of real scholarship informed by geology or archeology because in that case all their pat arguments are rendered moot, the stuff of bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseeds.

Most atheists are leftists, of course, statists; most are epistemological relativists, slogan-spouting irrationalists . . . the Bob Ewells of the world.

The vast majority of atheists on this and other forums are know-nothings, irrational twits.

We must pity them, as their contempt for the Bible-believing Christian is that of ignoramuses like Bob Ewell . . . while they think of themselves as being logical, well-reasoned free thinkers. How pathetic is that?

 

[Hollie]

Of course, dear. Like most thumpers, just make up the stuff as you go along.

Does she ask, "Why is that, Rawlings?"

No. Of course not.

Mindless Internet Atheist: The Problem of Internet Atheists

Does Rawling ask for help to resolve his confusion? No.

Does Rawling continue his charade of viciously circular argumentation: "the bibles are true because I believe the bibles are true". Yes.

Hyper-religious thumpers and contingent reality are forever at odds.

Does she ask, "Why is that, Rawlings?"

No. Of course not.

Mindless Internet atheists: The Problem of Internet Atheists

One of the respondents nails it:

Max. You left out some points. For instance, the internet atheist relies on Google Scholarship and Wikipedia. They think clicking to any YouTube video made by someone living in his mother’s basement is a valid argument. They by default do not have to read anything by evangelical scholarship since it’s ipso facto stupid. All Christians want to create a theocracy and believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and the days of Genesis are literal. In fact, every passage of Scripture must be interpreted literally.​

Never mind that Ussherian fundamentalism is the minority view in the history of Christendom, before and especially since the age of science. Never mind that scripture itself, on the very face of it, clearly does not support a literal, 24-hour-day-creation scenario for all six days, let alone a uniformly identical duration of time each of the six days or even for the seventh day of rest. Never mind that we have known for decades from archeology what biblical scholars suspected for centuries, i.e., that the biblical genealogy is not a chronologically comprehensive succession, but a succession of the major patriarchic lineages by intent, more often than not encompassing a large, unknown number persons at a time, that Adamic man is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old according to scripture, though even that is a conservative estimate based on the genealogies pertinent to the biblical narrative only. . . . Hence, in fact, the Bible doesn't actually tell us precisely how old Adamic man is, any more than it tells us how old the Earth or the Universe is.

Internet atheists don't want to deal with the hermeneutics of real scholarship informed by geology or archeology because in that case all their pat arguments are rendered moot, the stuff of bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseeds.

Most atheists are leftists, of course, statists; most are epistemological relativists, slogan-spouting irrationalists . . . the Bob Ewells of the world.

The vast majority of atheists on this and other forums are know-nothings, irrational twits.

We must pity them, as their contempt for the Bible-believing Christian is that of ignoramuses like Bob Ewell . . . while they think of themselves as being logical, well-reasoned free thinkers. How pathetic is that?

Yeah. How pathetic is that?

"The bibles are true because I believe the bibles are true".

It's then true that serpents talk, men rise from the dead (spawning the law of Anti-Gravity), Arks on cruises from global floods (that never happened), men live to be 600 years old and the planet is 6,000 years old.

Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream........

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Fat dude quoted the bible passage that HE said meant that the earth was in the center of the universe. You posted it, you douchebag.

Look, everybody, Bob Ewell! Stop picking your nose, bucktooth. It's unsightly. The Medieval, Roman Catholic notion of geocentricism is strictly based on the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian model imposed on scripture via papal decree.

Moreover, you're talking about the physical center of the universe, dingus batus. Neither Lennox nor the Bible put the Earth at the physical center of the universe, dingus batus. Just how dingus batus are you? The Earth is the spiritual and soteriological center of the universe according to the Bible, dingus batus. These are not the same thing, dingus batus.

 

[orogenicman]

You can't prove it's impossible with mathematics, you are simply making up the numbers. In addition, you are quoting me odds, given enough time, those odds can be overcome. That's all I'm going to say about that as I have already stated numerous times that the purpose of this thread wasn't to argue evolution's merit, but to ask Creationists if they could consider evolution to be the mechanism that God used to create life.

And I will repeat again for you, time has nothing at all to do with it. The math would still be the same were the time extended to infinity. Of course God could use anything at all he so desired. I fail to see the purpose though. In my own view, God's purpose was to populate the earth. This is why He created Adam and Even and every living thing at the most effective age for child birth and reproduction. I will accept microevolution as reality though.

So you are strictly Creationism?

I suppose one might say that. I don't believe something was made from nothing without an intelligence creating something to begin with. It requires intelligence to make a paper airplane and that is a far cry from being life. If you can tell me from where the atoms or amino acids came from that was supposed to start life, I will listen. I do believe in microevolution or adaptation.

It's not only evolution per se but I submit that there is also an intelligence that holds it all together and prevents everything from flying into each other. Someone keeps order.

Natural selection is neither nothing nor random. And you are right, it does require a measure of intelligence. For instance, an animal likes to eat ants. Ants realize this and dig deeper. In response, some of the animals have a longer tongue. Those with the longer tongue survive because they can reach the ants. The ants dig deeper still so as not to be eaten. And the animals grow longer tongues. And so on and so on in an arms race that has been going on since life first evolved on this planet. Each lifeform depends on other life forms and visa versa. And so what one does affects the others, and their offspring, and their offspring.

That's microevolution which I've stated twice already that I support. I do not support macroevolution. I've already posted the odds of both a single asexual cell and a four cell organism subdividing and mutating via natural selection and challenged you to disprove my calculations. The challenge is still open to you.

Macroevolution, which is a meaningless term since micro-macro run on the same principles, does not require your support to be real any more than gravity or winged flight requires your support. It is not for us to disprove your "calculations". It is for you to provide supporting evidence for your own extraordinary claim. Scientists have been doing this for evolution for nearly 150 years. Your turn.

 

[orogenicman]

Do you believe in a worldwide flood? No? Then you don't believe the bible.

do you believe this statement to be true?.....if so, then you are irrational......

I was actually hoping to discuss the matter with someone who believes in the bible, not you.

but you see.....it is not necessary to believe in what you claim about the Bible to believe in the Bible......the Bible is not inaccurate, I am not disbelieving, it is merely that you are an idiot.........

You don't believe in noah and the flood, as told in the bible. Probably a shipload of other stories as well. You might be a bible aficionado, but you're no true follower of Jesus and the bible. Get over it.

What are you, 10 years old?

 

[orogenicman]

Wow, the ignorance and hate expressed here just takes my breath away. Moreover:

"For example, there has never been any monolithic paradigm regarding the duration of the days of creation, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe. . ."

Erm,

1) Yes there was and still is;
2) Bishop Ussher;
3) Bishop Ussher, and many more.

Wow. Just wow. I mean, you know, like, shut up, you silly man. What we have here is some gibberish about ignorance and hate, reminiscent of the barking madness routinely spouted by Hollie, followed by some gibberish, presumably, about Ussher's age for the Earth. By the way, is that supposed to be a syllogism?

No, of course not, it's just a weirdly constructed line of . . . gibberish.

orogenicman: "Yes there was and still is" a monolithic paradigm, "Bishop Ussher", "Bishop Ussher, and many more."


That's monolithic as in uniformity.

Are you claiming that Ussher's age for the Earth, premised on a literal, 24-hour-day-creation scenario and biblical genealogy, is the historically monolithic view of Christendom before his time and since?

What are the two major presuppositions on which Ussher premised his age for the universe that have been falsified?

What were the views of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, Hilary and Philo?

Do you comprehend the distinction between hermeneutics and scripture?

As to my supposed ignorance, pay close attention to the date this article was posted on my blog: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2013/12/elementary-my-dear-watson-rebuttal-of_9.html

Read the article.

Stop writing in gibberish.

Answer the questions in the above . . . if you can.

From your article: "Ultimately, those who spurn the authority of God's word do so because they cannot hear or will not heed the voice of the Good Sheppard."

That is your opinion, of which you are entitled. I for one, but I think I speak for many scientists, believe that science doesn't rely on what you or I do or do not believe. It is completely indifferent and must be so, not out of spite, but out of necessity. If we are to discover objective truth free of our personal biases, it must be indifferent. Why? Because if "god did it" and only "God did it" does it for you, explains everything about this world, then I don't need you in the laboratory. Because you have already shut your mind to all the possibilities for discovery that science has to offer. So go ahead and use your snake oil to treat cancer. I'll keep the oncologists' phone number in my rolodex, just in case.

 

[orogenicman]

The guy in the video said that the bible is the word of god. So either god doesn't know what he's talking about, or you don't, for posting someone would contradicts you (among other things). Hmmm. Tough decision? Umm... no.

Please try again.

Please, shut up. Your hermeneutics is crap. Your understanding is crap. Your attitude is crap. You don't have any clue about what Lennox or I are talking about. None. Zip. Zilch.

Fat dude says that the bible is the word of god, then goes on to say that, well, even though the earth isn't at the center of the universe, that doesn't matter, it's still the word of god, even though He was wrong on that. Comical.

The Bible doesn't hold that the Earth is the center of the universe, dummy. The prescientific ancients of all cultures believed that, dummy. You don't know what you're talking about.

It was the Catholic Church, using Aristotle's flawed work as immutable truth, that maintained (under the threat of severe punishment), the lie that was a geocentric universe. Man was God's most important work, and so he had to put the Earth in the center of the universe, according to church doctrine. But as Galileo is rumored to have said even as he was being punished for his 'heresies':

"It still moves", referring, of course, to the fact that Earth orbits about the sun.

 

[the_human_being]

And I will repeat again for you, time has nothing at all to do with it. The math would still be the same were the time extended to infinity. Of course God could use anything at all he so desired. I fail to see the purpose though. In my own view, God's purpose was to populate the earth. This is why He created Adam and Even and every living thing at the most effective age for child birth and reproduction. I will accept microevolution as reality though.

So you are strictly Creationism?

I suppose one might say that. I don't believe something was made from nothing without an intelligence creating something to begin with. It requires intelligence to make a paper airplane and that is a far cry from being life. If you can tell me from where the atoms or amino acids came from that was supposed to start life, I will listen. I do believe in microevolution or adaptation.

It's not only evolution per se but I submit that there is also an intelligence that holds it all together and prevents everything from flying into each other. Someone keeps order.

Natural selection is neither nothing nor random. And you are right, it does require a measure of intelligence. For instance, an animal likes to eat ants. Ants realize this and dig deeper. In response, some of the animals have a longer tongue. Those with the longer tongue survive because they can reach the ants. The ants dig deeper still so as not to be eaten. And the animals grow longer tongues. And so on and so on in an arms race that has been going on since life first evolved on this planet. Each lifeform depends on other life forms and visa versa. And so what one does affects the others, and their offspring, and their offspring.

That's microevolution which I've stated twice already that I support. I do not support macroevolution. I've already posted the odds of both a single asexual cell and a four cell organism subdividing and mutating via natural selection and challenged you to disprove my calculations. The challenge is still open to you.

Macroevolution, which is a meaningless term since micro-macro run on the same principles, does not require your support to be real any more than gravity or winged flight requires your support. It is not for us to disprove your "calculations". It is for you to provide supporting evidence for your own extraordinary claim. Scientists have been doing this for evolution for nearly 150 years. Your turn.

Yes just like they claimed just a very few years ago that all dinosaurs were cold blooded reptiles. I don't have to prove anything at all. I'm as educated as most of your so-called scientists and probably have more of a mathematics background as well. At least you might look up the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. There is a huge difference between the two.

 

[the_human_being]

Wow, the ignorance and hate expressed here just takes my breath away. Moreover:

"For example, there has never been any monolithic paradigm regarding the duration of the days of creation, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe. . ."

Erm,

1) Yes there was and still is;
2) Bishop Ussher;
3) Bishop Ussher, and many more.

Wow. Just wow. I mean, you know, like, shut up, you silly man. What we have here is some gibberish about ignorance and hate, reminiscent of the barking madness routinely spouted by Hollie, followed by some gibberish, presumably, about Ussher's age for the Earth. By the way, is that supposed to be a syllogism?

No, of course not, it's just a weirdly constructed line of . . . gibberish.

orogenicman: "Yes there was and still is" a monolithic paradigm, "Bishop Ussher", "Bishop Ussher, and many more."


That's monolithic as in uniformity.

Are you claiming that Ussher's age for the Earth, premised on a literal, 24-hour-day-creation scenario and biblical genealogy, is the historically monolithic view of Christendom before his time and since?

What are the two major presuppositions on which Ussher premised his age for the universe that have been falsified?

What were the views of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, Hilary and Philo?

Do you comprehend the distinction between hermeneutics and scripture?

As to my supposed ignorance, pay close attention to the date this article was posted on my blog: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2013/12/elementary-my-dear-watson-rebuttal-of_9.html

Read the article.

Stop writing in gibberish.

Answer the questions in the above . . . if you can.

From your article: "Ultimately, those who spurn the authority of God's word do so because they cannot hear or will not heed the voice of the Good Sheppard."

That is your opinion, of which you are entitled. I for one, but I think I speak for many scientists, believe that science doesn't rely on what you or I do or do not believe. It is completely indifferent and must be so, not out of spite, but out of necessity. If we are to discover objective truth free of our personal biases, it must be indifferent. Why? Because if "god did it" and only "God did it" does it for you, explains everything about this world, then I don't need you in the laboratory. Because you have already shut your mind to all the possibilities for discovery that science has to offer. So go ahead and use your snake oil to treat cancer. I'll keep the oncologists' phone number in my rolodex, just in case.

Just what "laboratory" are you in? Are you certain you're not confusing a laboratory with a pub? Are you one of the Church's Fried Chicken fry cook scientists that haunt these threads?

 

[orogenicman]

The guy in the video said that the bible is the word of god. So either god doesn't know what he's talking about, or you don't, for posting someone would contradicts you (among other things). Hmmm. Tough decision? Umm... no.

Please try again.

Please, shut up. Your hermeneutics is crap. Your understanding is crap. Your attitude is crap. You don't have any clue about what Lennox or I are talking about. None. Zip. Zilch.

Fat dude says that the bible is the word of god, then goes on to say that, well, even though the earth isn't at the center of the universe, that doesn't matter, it's still the word of god, even though He was wrong on that. Comical.

The Bible doesn't hold that the Earth is the center of the universe, dummy. The ancients of all cultures believed that, dummy. You don't know what you're talking about.

Of course not, dear. The science texts that are the bibles hold that serpents talk, men live to be 600 years old, the earth is flat and merely 6,000 old.

Perhaps if you knew what you're writing, you wouldn't be such a laughable joke.

More idiocy from know-nothings. Ussher's genealogical calculation has been falsified for decades. According the Bible, Adamic man is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old.

Even if it were true that the Bible makes that claim, it is wrong. I find it ridiculous that modern people who understand the truth of nuclear science (reactors, bombs, etc.) could be so intellectually and even a bit emotionally retarded when it comes to one of the most fundamental aspects of that science: The fact of the regularity of nuclear decay. And the fact that at least 20 other methods repeatedly verify those findings. The fact that thousands of laboratories all cross this globe are performing these same tests with much the same results. Now, if those findings are wrong, it would have to entail the most elaborate hoax in all of history, and I think that only someone who is utterly delusional and possibly psychotic would believe that to be the case.

 

[orogenicman]

So you are strictly Creationism?

I suppose one might say that. I don't believe something was made from nothing without an intelligence creating something to begin with. It requires intelligence to make a paper airplane and that is a far cry from being life. If you can tell me from where the atoms or amino acids came from that was supposed to start life, I will listen. I do believe in microevolution or adaptation.

It's not only evolution per se but I submit that there is also an intelligence that holds it all together and prevents everything from flying into each other. Someone keeps order.

Natural selection is neither nothing nor random. And you are right, it does require a measure of intelligence. For instance, an animal likes to eat ants. Ants realize this and dig deeper. In response, some of the animals have a longer tongue. Those with the longer tongue survive because they can reach the ants. The ants dig deeper still so as not to be eaten. And the animals grow longer tongues. And so on and so on in an arms race that has been going on since life first evolved on this planet. Each lifeform depends on other life forms and visa versa. And so what one does affects the others, and their offspring, and their offspring.

That's microevolution which I've stated twice already that I support. I do not support macroevolution. I've already posted the odds of both a single asexual cell and a four cell organism subdividing and mutating via natural selection and challenged you to disprove my calculations. The challenge is still open to you.

Macroevolution, which is a meaningless term since micro-macro run on the same principles, does not require your support to be real any more than gravity or winged flight requires your support. It is not for us to disprove your "calculations". It is for you to provide supporting evidence for your own extraordinary claim. Scientists have been doing this for evolution for nearly 150 years. Your turn.

Yes just like they claimed just a very few years ago that all dinosaurs were cold blooded reptiles. I don't have to prove anything at all. I'm as educated as most of your so-called scientists and probably have more of a mathematics background as well. At least you might look up the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. There is a huge difference between the two.

One involves the origin of species. The other involves the origin of higher orders of life (genera and above). Both operate under the exact same principles. Both have significant evidence to support them. And Rawlings, I seriously doubt about your claim to being highly educated. If it is true that you've spent a lot of time and money educating yourself, damn. Ask for a refund.

 

[orogenicman]

Wow, the ignorance and hate expressed here just takes my breath away. Moreover:

"For example, there has never been any monolithic paradigm regarding the duration of the days of creation, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe. . ."

Erm,

1) Yes there was and still is;
2) Bishop Ussher;
3) Bishop Ussher, and many more.

Wow. Just wow. I mean, you know, like, shut up, you silly man. What we have here is some gibberish about ignorance and hate, reminiscent of the barking madness routinely spouted by Hollie, followed by some gibberish, presumably, about Ussher's age for the Earth. By the way, is that supposed to be a syllogism?

No, of course not, it's just a weirdly constructed line of . . . gibberish.

orogenicman: "Yes there was and still is" a monolithic paradigm, "Bishop Ussher", "Bishop Ussher, and many more."


That's monolithic as in uniformity.

Are you claiming that Ussher's age for the Earth, premised on a literal, 24-hour-day-creation scenario and biblical genealogy, is the historically monolithic view of Christendom before his time and since?

What are the two major presuppositions on which Ussher premised his age for the universe that have been falsified?

What were the views of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, Hilary and Philo?

Do you comprehend the distinction between hermeneutics and scripture?

As to my supposed ignorance, pay close attention to the date this article was posted on my blog: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2013/12/elementary-my-dear-watson-rebuttal-of_9.html

Read the article.

Stop writing in gibberish.

Answer the questions in the above . . . if you can.

From your article: "Ultimately, those who spurn the authority of God's word do so because they cannot hear or will not heed the voice of the Good Sheppard."

That is your opinion, of which you are entitled. I for one, but I think I speak for many scientists, believe that science doesn't rely on what you or I do or do not believe. It is completely indifferent and must be so, not out of spite, but out of necessity. If we are to discover objective truth free of our personal biases, it must be indifferent. Why? Because if "god did it" and only "God did it" does it for you, explains everything about this world, then I don't need you in the laboratory. Because you have already shut your mind to all the possibilities for discovery that science has to offer. So go ahead and use your snake oil to treat cancer. I'll keep the oncologists' phone number in my rolodex, just in case.

Just what "laboratory" are you in? Are you certain you're not confusing a laboratory with a pub? Are you one of the Church's Fried Chicken fry cook scientists that haunt these threads?

Since I don't drink, your ad hominem is meaningless, and a poor response to my reply. Care to try again?

 

[orogenicman]

Natural selection is neither nothing nor random. And you are right, it does require a measure of intelligence. For instance, an animal likes to eat ants. Ants realize this and dig deeper. In response, some of the animals have a longer tongue. Those with the longer tongue survive because they can reach the ants. The ants dig deeper still so as not to be eaten. And the animals grow longer tongues. And so on and so on in an arms race that has been going on since life first evolved on this planet. Each lifeform depends on other life forms and visa versa. And so what one does affects the others, and their offspring, and their offspring.

Nonsense. There are two aspects of natural selection according to evolutionary theory: the compound, reciprocal aspect of (1) adaptation and selection pressure which are nonrandom and (2) genetic mutation or drift which is random relative to selection pressure.

And how do those two principles refute my post, above?

 

[the_human_being]

Wow, the ignorance and hate expressed here just takes my breath away. Moreover:

"For example, there has never been any monolithic paradigm regarding the duration of the days of creation, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe. . ."

Erm,

1) Yes there was and still is;
2) Bishop Ussher;
3) Bishop Ussher, and many more.

Wow. Just wow. I mean, you know, like, shut up, you silly man. What we have here is some gibberish about ignorance and hate, reminiscent of the barking madness routinely spouted by Hollie, followed by some gibberish, presumably, about Ussher's age for the Earth. By the way, is that supposed to be a syllogism?

No, of course not, it's just a weirdly constructed line of . . . gibberish.

orogenicman: "Yes there was and still is" a monolithic paradigm, "Bishop Ussher", "Bishop Ussher, and many more."


That's monolithic as in uniformity.

Are you claiming that Ussher's age for the Earth, premised on a literal, 24-hour-day-creation scenario and biblical genealogy, is the historically monolithic view of Christendom before his time and since?

What are the two major presuppositions on which Ussher premised his age for the universe that have been falsified?

What were the views of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, Hilary and Philo?

Do you comprehend the distinction between hermeneutics and scripture?

As to my supposed ignorance, pay close attention to the date this article was posted on my blog: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2013/12/elementary-my-dear-watson-rebuttal-of_9.html

Read the article.

Stop writing in gibberish.

Answer the questions in the above . . . if you can.

From your article: "Ultimately, those who spurn the authority of God's word do so because they cannot hear or will not heed the voice of the Good Sheppard."

That is your opinion, of which you are entitled. I for one, but I think I speak for many scientists, believe that science doesn't rely on what you or I do or do not believe. It is completely indifferent and must be so, not out of spite, but out of necessity. If we are to discover objective truth free of our personal biases, it must be indifferent. Why? Because if "god did it" and only "God did it" does it for you, explains everything about this world, then I don't need you in the laboratory. Because you have already shut your mind to all the possibilities for discovery that science has to offer. So go ahead and use your snake oil to treat cancer. I'll keep the oncologists' phone number in my rolodex, just in case.

Just what "laboratory" are you in? Are you certain you're not confusing a laboratory with a pub? Are you one of the Church's Fried Chicken fry cook scientists that haunt these threads?

Since I don't drink, your ad hominem is meaningless, and a poor response to my reply. Care to try again?

Not really. I've already made my case. If you know a tad of mathematics, you should be able to dispute my calculations. Anyone could. But no one has.