Check out the SARS virus or many other viruses:
Ok, I just looked and I couldn't see the bastards! Where are they?
Gumaggoo
So non-creationist - what do you think of those who still accept creation?
by AK - Jeff 66 Replies latest jw experiences
-
gumby
-
Warlock
Ok, I just looked and I couldn't see the bastards! Where are they?
Check your sack, you nut.
Warlock
-
Little Drummer Boy
Re: So non-creationist - what do you think of those who still accept creation?
I simply think that they haven't yet had the opportunity or desire to research evolution properly and so they misunderstand what the theory of evolution really is and I don't think less of them for it. It is their choice. I once was a creationist. We all have to decide how we will spend our time. Some of us devote a little time to scientific things. Others devote enormous amounts of time to scientific study.
I didn't understand the basics of evolution at one point in time. I didn't then think that it was true. But the more that I researched, the more that I saw how I had previously misunderstood evolution. The misunderstanding of the theory (specifically “selection” as used in discussing evolution) is what I think is the key to the whole problem. I certainly can't hold a candle to AlanF or Kid-A (to use those two as examples) when it comes to debating the subject or simply raw knowledge of evolution. But I did enough research, given the time that I wanted to devote to it, to satisfy myself that evolution is the correct view of things.
When all is said and done, Jeff, I like you and hope I get to meet you one day. Your contributions to the board, insights, and experiences are valuable to me – creationist that you are.
I won't let a little thing like “how did we get here?” stand in the way.
LDB
-
LtCmd.Lore
Lore,
I want proof, not a jawbone.
Warlock
But my whole point is: The way you describe evolution, indicates that you wouldn't even understand the proof, because you don't know what evolution is. Unless you do some research on your own, you wouldn't understand proof of evolution anymore than I would understand proof of the trinity. But here goes a very quick version: Do you agree that Chihuahuas and Poodles are related? How about Poodles and Bulldogs? How about Bulldogs and German Shepards? How about German Shepards and Irish Wolfhounds? How about Irish Wolfhounds and Chihuahuas? If you agree that Irish Wolfhounds and Chihuahuas are related, then how can you say that you don't believe in evolution?
Do you agree that Hummingbirds and Finches are related? How about Finches and Parrots? How about Parrots and Doves? How about Doves and Crows? How about Crows and Chickens? How about Chickens and Turkey? How about Turkey and Emu? How about Emu and Ostrich's? How about Ostrich's and Hummingbirds? If you believe that Hummingbirds and Ostrich's are related, then how can you say you don't believe in evolution?
Then there a housecats and Lepords. Salamanders and Crocadiles. Ticks and Scorpions.
But my point has already been made: The proof of evolution is all around us, Creationists simply don't realize it because they don't know what evolution acctually is all about. Lore -
Warlock
Lore, different "types" of birds, different "types" of cats, and different "types" of dogs are not examples of evolution as far as I'm concerned.
Warlock
-
AK - Jeff
When all is said and done, Jeff, I like you and hope I get to meet you one day. Your contributions to the board, insights, and experiences are valuable to me – creationist that you are.
Same here - substitute 'evolutionist that you are'. The meaning of this thread comes out in your post. We can get along, the same as we can get along if we have diverse views of many other issues. That is my intent - let's all get along, Unfortunately this sort of thread usually creates too many firestorms. It did. I wish it hadn't. On another thread I said some things I shouldn't have I suppose. I shall not return there.
We shall meet someday soon my friend, I hope.
Jeff
-
LtCmd.Lore
Lore, different "types" of birds, different "types" of cats, and different "types" of dogs are not examples of evolution as far as I'm concerned.
Warlock
Define type? be more specific.
In science there are eleven descriptors Starting from the most broad and ending in the most specific, they are: Life, Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species and Breed. Any change in species is evolution. 'As far as you're concerned' what would be an example of evolution? (Which acctually would be your definition of evolution, not the scientific one... which is my whole point anyway.) If a change in breed doesn't count, does a change in species count? Are you aware that Dogs and Wolves are acctually different species? Or is only good enough if it's a change in Genus? Well that takes a heck of a lot more time then a change in breed or species. But it's all the same thing!!! The WTS would have you believe that microevolution happens, but macroevolution doesn't. They are the same! The only difference is the amount of time. Over a million years microevolution IS macroevolution. By saying 'type' you are being extremely vauge, which meens that if I give an example you can simply say: "Dogs and Wolves are still the same type" or "Dogs and foxes are still the same type!" or "Dogs and Weasels are still the same type! Gimme some evidence!" That's called moving the goalposts. And it meens that no evidence is good enough for you. But now we're getting COMPLETELY off the topic and I can see this degressing into a firestorm. Lore
