Posted on 02/08/2011 9:57:23 AM PST by Natufian
No, the disagreement does not. But the method of using ridicule to attempt to discredit IS a method used by libs.
I presented Facts in this thread, based on my own observations, having to do with snakes AND the truth revealed in the bible. In return, there was no presentation of facts, but mocking that book and my faith.
Lib tactics.
Thus, if it sounds like a duck, it might be a duck.
Evolution did not happen at all.
I do know what I am arguing against. I am arguing against those that would try to discredit the Bible based on an unproven theory.
Creation happened, not evolution. Dogs make dogs, and regardless of the time allowed, dogs will not ‘evolve’ to birds.
The convoluted ‘faith’ required to believe in increasing complexity and life changing basic forms over time.
I see that you didn’t answer MY question, either, about repeating the experiment of
Molecules to Man evolution.
Are you beginning to see the futility of an evidentiary-based argument on this topic?
Do you understand that this is actually a presuppositional argument?
Evos and creation scientists both look at the EXACT SAME EVIDENCE, that exists IN THE PRESENT, and interpret that evidence through their presuppositions, their worldview, and come to radically different conclusions. These conclusions are, for the most part, an affirmation of the presupposition that they started from.
Do you, and this is a big one, even recognize that you have presupposed assumptions that you’re basing your interpretation on? Actually, most people don’t think that way, especially if they haven’t been exposed to the idea that there are actually other presuppositional views of the world.
Again, do you see the futility of an evidentiary argument?
Most creationists, having studied BOTH presuppositional mindsets, do understand this futility. That’s why the logic based approach actually yields much more benefit, if both parties can agree to think on that level.
Given that, I’ll give you a bit of your “red meat” that you’ve asked for, but you have to actually be able to step out of your presuppositions to get it.
You asked me what allows for, or what “causes” adaption to occur and what “stops” it.
Adaptive ability was inherent in the first created kinds (species). The first creatures’ DNA and trait expressive abilities contained everything necessary for the population of that kind (lest you again accuse me of individual adaptation) to adapt to their environment (polar bears vs grizzlies & black bears, for example).
These more specialized versions of the original kinds have LESS adaptive information than their forebears :) and eventually become relatively homogeneous within their populations, and adaptation tends to cease because of the loss of broad spectrum adaptive information.
Notice the lack of “adding” of information through the mutation process. Birth defects rarely add a benefit to the species, and creatures have built in mutation detection and repair systems, so mutations, though they occur, cannot be the primary driving factor behind adaptation.
Now, the limbic part of your brain is probably shorting out. “That’s not right! That’s wrong! That’s... DANGEROUS!”.
Examine your presuppositions of evolutionary assumption:
simple to complex, adding information to the DNA by mutation, long periods of time, etc.
Now, I hope I’ve given you some insight into the creationist view of “evolution” so that you can argue without setting up straw men (though, to your credit, I didn’t see this happening with you), and perhaps see that there isn’t any “magic bullet” evidence that will “finally convince those creationists they’re wrong”.
Always keep in mind, rocks don’t talk, evidence doesn’t “speak”, they must be interpreted. And that interpretation cannot avoid being filtered through your presuppositions.
As I just posted, it’s a matter of presuppositional thinking.
There are similarities between (most) evos and (most) libs in that they don’t even recognize that they HAVE presuppositions.
The thing is, both “liberal” ideology and evolutionism can be shown to be internally inconsistent and really come down to begging the question of their presupposition.
ah! I’m mortally humiliated by the presence of a little red X!
Yep, the Lord is a very creative God. The variations of life in this world are incredible.
-- Instructions of Malden, Massachusetts, for a Declaration of Independence, May 27, 1776
You're trotting out the arguments of the Left, on America's premiere conservative forum, and I'm the one being "silly"? I don't think so.
Those are some of the most pathetic strawmen I’ve ever seen. Really unconvincing.
Evolutionary ‘THEORY’ runs counter to the creation account in the Bible. It is therefore a tool being used to attempt to discredit the Bible. IF Genesis can be ‘shown’ to be false then the rest can follow.
After all, ‘science’ says that the creation account is false. Therefore, we can also use ‘science’ to show that just about anything else God-related in the Bible is false.
The Red Sea splitting? That would be false, as ‘science’ says that is not possible. The three Hebrew children thrown in the fire? False, ‘science’ would say that their fate would be to burn, no survivors there. And finally, Jesus rising on the third day? Forget it, ‘science’ has PROVEN, the dead are dead, especially after 3 days.
Be a ‘tool’ if you wish. I will stand on the Bible as truth.
Choose whatever life form you wish to ‘transform’ via ‘evolution’ No animal changes over time into something other than itself. Yet that is the claim. A common ancestor the ‘splits off’, continues to change, fish from non-fish, mammals from non-mammals, human from non-human. And dogs from non-dogs.
See, you just cannot resist the ridicule part of your argument. For me, “It is better to put trust in the Lord, than have confidence in man”.
*Knock me over with a feather!*
Let me get on the phone with Nature. You have upended 160 years of biology, paleontology, botany and geology with that sentence! Oh wait... No scientist has ever said that dogs “evolved” into birds. In fact, they would also all agree that “dogs make dogs.”
You said - Since you are well-versed in dogs, here’s a simple quiz:
What’s this?
And this?
And this?
And this?
And those are all living today. Imagine the variety of all those extinct animals!
What is it you hope to prove by showing photos of the variety of animals that are presnet? Besides showing an example of the creative perfection of the Lord. They do nothing to prove anything of the process you seem to have faith in.
Man, this argument is classic.
1)
Hey! Look at how all these dogs are different!
This proves evolution is true [when you start from an evolutionary assumption]. (again, this is “equivocation”)
2)
Hey! Look at how all these dogs are different!
This proves that the dog kind was created with the capacity for huge variety [when you start from a creationist assumption].
The difference is that person two recognizes his own presupposed assumptions and he recognizes person one’s as well.
Person one doesn’t recognize that he has any presuppositions and concludes that his opponent is just an idiot for not seeing it his way.
I know. Unless you subscribe to their narrow-minded, self-indulgent dogmatic spin and no other, you are a "heretic", leftist, liberal, RINO, etc.
What is ironic is that the Founding Fathers were quite liberal in their views, and very open to diverse opinions and beliefs, and followers of live and let live philosophy of freedom from "official truth".
Let alone confusing the founding fathers with a thread about the evolution of snakes.
Doesn't seem to take much for some to steer off the subject. I think they visit any forum just so they can badger others who don't agree with them.
They believed whatever they believed. And I believe what I believe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
