Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Time For Class Proving Evolution

"...in which are some things hard to understand which the untaught and the unstable distort, as also the rest of the Scriptures to their own destrucdtion."

I accept Jesus at His Word. He scares me when He speaks about His return in 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8.

I Corinthians 2:14
"But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."

As long as Ringman and TAK keep their "knowledge" of evolution to the black holes of the internet, home schooling, and their neighbors occupying the folding chairs in their garages' on Tuesday night...


I ain't got no beef.

Stick to your "combat arms background", which you proclaimed on this thread about evolution vs. creation.....WTF?
Because you don't know your ass from your hat about the current subject matter.

"Uh, I was with the Green Beret. Special Unit Battalions, Commando Airborne Tactics, Specialist Tactics, Unit Battalion. It was real hush hush. I was Agent Orange. That was my name. Agent Orange. Agent Orange, that was me." - Take_a_knee

.....I bet you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night too....huh?

The fun thing for me to remembers is that I used to be an evolutionist. In fact the reason I was an evolutionist is because I didn't beleive God existed so logically I evolved. But one day while reading an article by an evolutionist I was dismayed that he contridicted another evolutionist I believed. The problem was the guy writing the article had scientific facts on his side. I did some checking and discovered more errors. I was devistated and consulted a schrink.

From this I concluded there must be Infinite Intelegent Energy. This because to me we live in what appears to be an infinite universe. As time went on, like so many of the Ph.D and Master's degree scientists I have read, I began to see lots and lots of problems with the theory.

An example is the idea that the bacteria are evolving into something else. They are not. They are loosing information from their DNA. That is the opposite direction from dirt to doctors of divinity. Years ago some human bodies were discovered in the permafrost of North America. They had been buried in the mid 1800's. They were in almost perfect condition. An autopsy was performed. Guess what! Some of the resistant strains were already there!

If one wants to limit evolution to change, I can go for that. It is science. Blithe wrote about it as a creationist years before Darwin did. It is called adaptation. If one wants to include nothing turning into something and something turning into man with a brain with so many connections they can't even be counted, that is the same as the princess kissing a frog and turning it into a man.

Let's consider the brain. A thousand miles by thousand miles equals a million square miles. Each square mile has 10,000 trees. Each tree has 100,000 leaves. This is less than the number of connections in a brain that suposedly came from pond scum by loosing information from its DNA. Sounds scientific to me.

How does evolution fail? I don't get it. Did gravity fail lately? How about the flat earth? There is no arguing with beliefs. Not even gravity can change that Magic.

I love religion. It has been making a lot of people behave themselves for a long time. Control of the masses.

As a christian and in my not so vho: solely seeking and leaning on the bible, as a some sort of geological, historical, or any other scientific instrument is...


flat out,


fools gold.

One benefit of this kerfuffle is that before it began I found it unfathomable, incredible, unbelievable that anyone without a tinfoil hat could be utterly convinced that science is a gigantic conspiracy against religion. My long association with scientists and how they work, their depth and breadth of knowledge in their fields, ability to think analyitcaly and especially, to be painstakingly honest in their evaluations, even when the evaluations contradict a pet idea ... well you can see why it took me a while to understand that anyone could come up with such an utterly lunatic conspiracy idea and take it seriously.

I have a hypothesis about how the falacy of the "anti-god conspiracy" took root and it is pretty simple: true believers are so invested in their beliefs that they look at everything through their "Jesus glasses", as Ham-the-charlitan put it. They are trained as children, or train themselves, to actively avoid thinking analyitcaly. To them, faith, gullibility with a halo, is the highest virtue and belief is equivalent to knowledge. Science proceeds with Methodological Naturalism, blithly ignoring assertions made without evidence, because that is the only way that science can logicaly proceed. As science goes about its business of objectively improving our understanding of the natural world it takes over ground that was once occupied by religion. (The moon isn't a goddess/-blasphemy! The sun isn't flaming chariot driven by a god?-blasphemy! The Earth isn't the center of creation?-blasphemy!). Since there is no place that science can logicaly stop, reilgion and cherished beliefs are continually pushed into a smaller corner and god, as an explanation for anything at all, is running out of gaps to hide in. (Well, you can't prove that god didn't cause the big bang! Well, you can't prove that god didn't create the universe to look old!) And all of science must be involved in the conspiracy because no branch of science validates supernatural belief; they all ignore the supernatural but chip away at it just by finding reality.

I would like to say, "get over it!" "Take a good look at reality and realize just how amazing it all is compared to a paltry collection of Bronze Age fables."

But it would be useless.

Parents and pornographers do the same act.

RM,

You should demand a complete refund. Your narrative reveals that you were unstable to begin with and the shrink either failed in helping you or worse, blazed a trail to the batshit crazy brick road.

Anybody that needs the level of absolute infallibility that you do to remain sane can't be but be highly vulnerable.

But do carry on. The level of entertainment on this thread could not exist without your Internet persona.

Hint1: A couple pseudo MS and pseudo Ph.D. former evos that converted to ID is not really a logical argument for ID but just another variation of strawman.

Hint2: Avoid anything Bart Ehrman unless you want your head to explode and another trip to the shrink.

Clever.

There are more than a few Evangelical pulpit pounders, gleefully lining pockets with fleece from their flocks, that would whole heartedly agree to your point.

Oh yeah, real good behavior. If you don't include a whole pile of wars, enslavement, rape, and just about every other crime one can think of.

They'll destroy your argument by asking why those germs haven't already evolved into people.

That's the mechanism for change. Just add eons of time and you have variation from the original which is radical enough to cause humans to classify them into a different species. Long enough time and classification into a different genus. Long enough time and classification into a different family, etc.

Yes, I've noticed that.

Wow, I was right. And I was just joking.

I don't think it's less genetic material. It's just that genes get turned off along the way, so there are fewer and fewer functioning genes. Evolution/adaptation seems to favor the turning off of genes over the turning back on. For example, one line of theropod dinosaur evolved into birds. Then when the dinosaurs-proper became extinct, leaving all sorts of unfilled niches, many species of birds essentially reoccupied the niches that their ancestors had occupied, by losing flight and gaining size, but their wings didn't grow back into functioning hands. They just became useless. That's because the genes for hands were shut off when they became wings, and it seems evolution disfavors the switching back on of genes once shut off.

Can I take that as an admission that you might be wrong in your overly literal interpretation of genesis?