PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution theory
       Christians should accept the evolution theory

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 05:37 AM on October 5, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 03:50 AM on October 5, 2009 :
I know Hitler was involved with the RC church but he was also an evolution supporter. Remember it has been mentioned that the RC church is not opposed to evolution?


Hitler grew up Catholic and sang in the Church choir, and was forced to do so. The RC church doesn't have a doctrine related to evolution other than that the two can co-exist; most Catholics are evolutionists, but some are creationists. If I'm not mistaken you have been shown several times that Hitler wasn't in favor of Darwinian evolution, and Darwin would have been opposed to what Hitler did if he was alive at the time.


'Origin' was also one of the many books that the Nazis burned.  One has to wonder why, if Hitler so loved Darwin and his writings, that his book would have been burned.

I'll give YECs this - they are not very consistent in their logic.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:16 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:50 AM on October 5, 2009 :
A very gracious apology.  Do you learn from this that the sources you are using cannot be trusted?


I do believe this has absolutely nothing to do with sources being trusted or not.


Of course not.  If you did care about such things as being virtuous and honest, then your source list would be pitifully short.  Menton, Wells, Luskin, Bowden, Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Egnor, Sarfati, Coppedge, etc. would be right off.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:24 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Hmmm -it is popular isn't it. Didn't anybody ever tell you that popularity is no indicator of truth.
But, when it's coupled to intelligence, knowledge and expertise, is a good indicator of something being right. It's not a proof, but it's a darn good indicator.

No other good SCIENTIFIC explanation has been proposed that can successfully explain what evolution can explain.
If you exclude supernatural creation from the realm of possiblity, then there are no contenders.
He said SCIENTIFIC explanation.
Some materialistic explanation just has to be true, doesn't it.
No. It only has to work. That's pretty much all we ask of it. We've told you this tons of times.

Science used to be a search for the truth, not a search for the best naturalistic explanation for everything (whether naturalism explains it or not).
Yeah, science used to be crappy.

Useless yes. But its not just me saying so, it's a pretty popular opinion these days and becoming more popular every day
Popularity serves you well when you like its sway. Does it not?

Thick-Twice
(...)And macroevolution is an established fact.

Really is it,So why is not called the fact of evolution. Not as it is called theory of evolution?
For the same reason why the Theory of Gravity is called that: it explains a great number of different facts.

You're indulging in a logical fallacy called "equivocation". You're giving the word "theory" a vulgar meaning, while we're talking about the scientific meaning.

Now is when you should lower your head in shame, but will rise your ignorant chin instead. I've seen it lots of times.

Facts don't support your position, so words are all you people have.

Darwin believed the white man,Had attained higher evolution (Superior),And that the white man would wipe out the black people as they are not a favoured race(inferior).
Ad hominem and argument from adverse comsequences. It wouldn't be relevant EVEN if it was true.

Creationists can deliver logical fallacies with an amazing economy of words.

Stalin applied Darwin’s principles of natural selection using economics.
And this woman shot her son in order to send him to Heaven, and herself to Hell.

Again, you're using an argument from adverse comsequences, which wouldn't be relevant EVEN if it was true.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:58 PM on October 17, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution = the big bang
Evolution = abiogenesis
Evolution = dogs giving birth to cats
Evolution = pigs growing wings
Evolution = gain in "information"
Evolution = fish wishing for legs
Evolution = variation of allele frequencies
Evolution = atheism
Evolution = a religion
Evolution = the religion of atheism

Thick-Twice
(...)And macroevolution is an established fact.

Really is it,So why is not called the fact of evolution. Not as it is called theory of evolution?
They tried to teach me music theory once. Ridiculous, music is only a theory. Right?

I can imagine what creationists will say when scientists work out some Theory of Everything.


Everything is just a theory!


(Edited by wisp 11/3/2009 at 07:47 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:14 AM on November 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Hmmm -it is popular isn't it. Didn't anybody ever tell you that popularity is no indicator of truth.
orion
A day doesn't go by when there isn't some new insight or discovery made about evolution.  Useless you say?
Useless yes. But its not just me saying so, it's a pretty popular opinion these days and becoming more popular every day



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:23 AM on November 3, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.