Albatrossity2
Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007
|
Re mooses on the Ark Quote (Ftk @ June 25 2007,00:45) | I don’t think it’s as miraculous an event as one might think, but hell will freeze over before I discuss that one further. I’ll tell ya one thing....it would be one heck of a lot easier to come up with an explanation for the Noah scenario that to believe that a freakin’ blob is responsible for everything we observe in nature today. |
Yeah, I'd like to hear that too. Don't forget to include saltwater critters like blue whales, etc. Quote | What is the difference between what you say in this comment, and what a theistic evolutionist would say? Quote | You must have linked to the wrong comment...I don’t see anything in that post that has anything to do with what a TE might say. |
|
Then you need to read your own writings more carefully. As I pointed out here, icefish must have evolved from an ancestor with good globin genes (as well as lots of other genes that are different from the current genes in the icefish). That is what you call "macroevolution" (aka speciation in this instance). As I recall, you are on record as saying that you can accept "microevolution" but not macroevolution. TEs have no problem with macroevolution. Please explain this confusion. Thanks. Quote | And if you get time, please let us know some examples of unwarranted "speculation" that you found in that college-level intro biology book. Quote | I wouldn’t even know where to begin. On second thought, I’ve mentioned one of them on this thread already. The picture series of a little microbe evolving on it’s own...get real. |
|
Sorry I missed that post; can you provide a link? And I'm also sorry to point out that even if it is true, one example is not really enough, based on statements like "a lot of it is speculation", and "I wouldn't even know where to begin". There must be lots more than just one... Quote | Contrast that to your attitude about science. You refuse to accept the positions of authority figures, despite the reality that their positions are backed by both logic and factual, verifiable evidence. Quote | Dave, there is no “logical, factual, and verifiable evidence” for the blob story. |
|
And nobody said that there is. If you haven't learned by now, biogenensis is not part of evolutionary theory. Nobody is trying to tell you that science understands biogenesis. Let's stick to science like macroevolution and common descent. These are backed up by evidence, supported by almost all authorities in the field, and denied by you. Quote | Is this double standard evidence for "open-mindedness"? How can you apply two entirely different approaches to these areas, and retain any credibility when you claim to be open-minded??? Quote |
I guess I could ask you the same thing. |
|
Unlike you, I can (and will) answer it. I approach everything the same way. If there is evidence and logic behind it, I can accept it. If there is no evidence or if it defies logic, I can't. If new evidence comes up, I can change my mind. So now it's your turn to answer the question. How can you claim to be open-minded when you acccept one viewpoint blindly and profess deep (but ignorant) skepticism about another viewpoint? Quote | All we are asking for is consistency. If you want to be skeptical, be skeptical in all arenas. Quote |
Back atcha again. You’re certainly skeptical about religious beliefs while admitting you don’t have much background on the topic. Yet, you unquestioningly accept that all aspects of the ToE are supported by logical, factual, and verifiable evidence. |
|
Baloney on both counts. I have plenty of "religious background". I did say once that I don't know a lot about other religions; that is a very different thing. Words have meanings, and I use them carefully. I do contend that my religious background is irrelevant in my work as a scientist. Irrelevant is not the same as non-existent. Words matter. Secondly (unlike you), I don't accept anything "unquestioningly". I could give you lots of examples of things that I thought were true when I was a graduate student and which are now known to be wrong based on new evidence. I don't still believe things that I know are wrong. And I include aspects of evolutionary theory in that one. The problem (for you) is that basic evolutionary theory has only been strengthened by new evidence, not weakened. If you have new evidence that weakens it, please share that with us here.
Then go find that mirror.
-------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers
|