Evolution

[slowpoke55]

No, there's simply no valid content to your posts about evolution. As I've repeatedly shown your objections are fallacious, shallow and unscientific.

As noted - we can settle the matter right here on this thread. Present the required evidence that demonstrates man and chimp have a common ancestor. Listen...the sound of silence...

Can you be more disingenuous and irrational?

I've presented research and as you admitted in a post above you didn’t even read it.

So audience here’s what we have….

Waldoz says provide evidence

I post scientific research providing evidence.

Waldoz refuses to read it

Waldoz then claims I haven’t presented evidence

That is Waldoz's level of discourse.

Waldoz, your objection to evolution is really philosophical, that's why you keep posting other people's opinions ad nauseum, but the trouble for you is that you fail to provide your case because your objections are fallacious. You can’t even present a valid philosophical objection to evolution, your appeals to authority, circular reasoning, appeals to popularity, etc… will never add up to a VALID argument, DON’T YOU GET THAT?

Now Waldoz, do I think I can convince you that Theory of Evolution is a fact? No, you’re deeply blinded with fallacious reasoning and incapable of objectivity. Those are facts that anyone reading these threads can verify.

Why should your objections be taken seriously?

Edited November 16, 2012 by slowpoke55

[Guest Ehud]

For slowpoke55 and/or ByFaithAlone,

I am very interested in carefully analyzing the evidence for the theory of common descent. I propose the following, how about you pick one of the 15 evolutionary gems described in the Nature article and we can discuss it. Entire books are written on each of those 15 "gems"; simply posting the link and asking for a refutation/critique is treating the evidence very lightly and you can not expect anything other than a light response. I think we all agree that surface level treatment of this subject is a waste of time, so let's park on one evidence for a little bit. Your pick...

Hold the Fort,

Ehud

P.S. It is important to note that articles such as the Nature one posted, are review articles which present interpretted evidence. The actual facts are found in the primary literature. Sourcing review type articles is fine and I'll do it too, but this distinction is important to keep in mind.

[slowpoke55]

Waldoz, your objection to evolution is really philosophical...

You are still missing the boat – Darwinism is philosophy dressed up like science and I reject mythology presented as science.

Now Waldoz, do I think I can convince you that Theory of Evolution is a fact?

I am not sure you could convince a Darwinist that the ToE is fact.

I like how you dodged the rest of my post.

{{{{removed personal attack please review ToS}}}}

Edited November 18, 2012 by GoldenEagle
{{{{removed personal attack please review ToS}}}}

[slowpoke55]

For slowpoke55 and/or ByFaithAlone,

I am very interested in carefully analyzing the evidence for the theory of common descent. I propose the following, how about you pick one of the 15 evolutionary gems described in the Nature article and we can discuss it. Entire books are written on each of those 15 "gems"; simply posting the link and asking for a refutation/critique is treating the evidence very lightly and you can not expect anything other than a light response. I think we all agree that surface level treatment of this subject is a waste of time, so let's park on one evidence for a little bit. Your pick...

Hold the Fort,

Ehud

P.S. It is important to note that articles such as the Nature one posted, are review articles which present interpretted evidence. The actual facts are found in the primary literature. Sourcing review type articles is fine and I'll do it too, but this distinction is important to keep in mind.

My request of Waldoz to critique the work stemmed from his dismissing the post without providing any clue as to why he rejected it, as it turns out he didn't even read it. His dismissal was a deceitful.

Here's a link I referenced about common descent.

A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry

Douglas L. Theobald

http://theobald.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Theobald_2010_Nature_all.pdf

I don't think a surface level treatment of a subject is a waste of time because false and invalid claims are worth addressing.

[ncn]

We are supposed to be very closely connected to chimpanzee's on the "evolutionary" scale.

How come then I wake up craving a cup of coffee and not a banana?

Sorry, just a random thought...

I don't think fez really knew what he was starting when he posted this thread

[enoob57]

We are supposed to be very closely connected to chimpanzee's on the "evolutionary" scale.

How come then I wake up craving a cup of coffee and not a banana?

Sorry, just a random thought...

well if ya get down out of that tree we talk about this... Love- really, Steven

[GoldenEagle]

From the WCF ToS...

Abuse of other posters is not allowed. This includes, but is not limited to, name calling, insulting, harassing, threatening or in any way invading the privacy of another poster. (Eph. 4: 29)

Debate the subject, not the person. It is possible to disagree about a doctrine or subject under discussion without insulting the person with whom you are debating. Also remember that the fact that a person disagrees with you does not mean they are attacking you as a person. This is the main reason that threads get stopped, shut down, and even deleted! Users that cannot respect others will be banned. (Lev. 19:18)

Please continue the discussion with this in mind or this thread will be closed.

Thank you.

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

From the WCF ToS...

Abuse of other posters is not allowed. This includes, but is not limited to, name calling, insulting, harassing, threatening or in any way invading the privacy of another poster. (Eph. 4: 29)

Debate the subject, not the person. It is possible to disagree about a doctrine or subject under discussion without insulting the person with whom you are debating. Also remember that the fact that a person disagrees with you does not mean they are attacking you as a person. This is the main reason that threads get stopped, shut down, and even deleted! Users that cannot respect others will be banned. (Lev. 19:18)

Please continue the discussion with this in mind or this thread will be closed.

Thank you.

God bless,

GE

[jasoncran]

i take the jewish orthodox view on beresherith. its meant to be literal and wasnt intendended to be an anti-evolutionary book.

[DelapsusResurgam]

Interesting. In the view of the Orthodox priest God never turns his back on the individual. The more the individual turns from God the more God loves. And in the end -- in death -- all are raised and there is no separation from God, for God's love burns even more for the one who was lost. I don't know if there is a Hell in the Protestant sense. The Orthodox priest expressed the view that when a person is sent to Sheol, God too dies and joins him there. This is very different from the typical view expressed by Christian members here; very different from what I had been taught. Are you Orthodox? Perhaps the name, Stephanos, is my clue?

I am not Orthodox but I really like their teaching and traditions. I am probably closer to Wesleyan than Orthodox in my beliefs as I am still reading up on Orthodox views and the Early Church Fathers. Wesley has what is called prevenient grace which is very close to the view held by the priest in this video and I associate the two as one. Prevenient Grace says that God gives grace to all humans and in this grace humans are allowed the freedom of will. But God is never not their for the unbeliever as said by the priest. Many have said that Wesley was influenced by the Orthodox church.

And thank you MorningGlory

John Wesley seems to have been quite influenced by Orthodox theology.