It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
It helps me call your comments complete bullsh*t without the use of f*cking profanity.

tangled bank wrote:

<quoted text>
Have you read the actual Reznick/Ricklefs review from Nature? Would it surprise you that if you did - you would see the above quote is totally out of context and that Charles Darwin offered a way of resolving this issue?
From Reznick and Ricklefs 2007 Review, "Darwin’s bridge between microevolution and macroevolution"
http://lecture.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~cty/guang_y...
"Charles Darwin argued that, although natural selection is the sole mechanism that causes evolution, both divergence and extinction shape the larger-scale patterns that emerge from this process."
"The keys to Darwin's thinking about macroevolution are the principle of divergence and extinction. There is compelling evidence of a role for biotic interactions in at least some extinction events, and a complementary relationship between divergence and extinction finds enough support for Darwin’s proposal to merit further consideration as a viable link between microevolution and macroevolution."
"It is the integration of information from the fossil record, the population and evolutionary dynamics of extant organisms, and phylogenetics that will provide the ultimate test of Darwin’s bridge (divergence/extinction) between
microevolution and macroevolution."
"Many people see "On the Origin of Species" as a beautiful fossil, but we view it as a living document that continues to offer insights and to enlighten modern research. It contains a wealth of ideas that have slipped through the cracks of the modern synthesis and, when appropriately updated, can provide inspiration for addressing some of the major unanswered questions in evolutionary biology."

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
How is a problem if they work just as well as the bible? My statement falsifies your claim as to the specialness of the bible.
The Bible addresses a great many issues. That is good. But it does not address them perfectly.
And to call the Tao Te Ching a "false source" can only be made by someone who has never read it.
Oh, and just to clarify our relationship, I consider you to be a false christian just the same as I consider all fundamentalists (that I know of) to be false christians.
Anyone who thinks the bible is literal misses out on 99% of the inspiration which is locked into metaphor and analogy.

Judged:

1

1

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
I only refute false science sites. If you want to make an argument using real science and logical arguments no one will be more pleased than myself.
<quoted text>
But as a Christian I have a duty to call out false Christian teachings and other sin in people who claim to be a christian. Lying is not a Christian behavior. Leading people into error is not a Christian behavior. Driving non believers even further from God is not a Christian behavior.
<quoted text>
I am quoting science and scientists. Evolution is a fact, you can like it, you can hate it, you can deny it. But none of that changes the fact of evolution. To me it is not more profound that god can create a universe than that God can create a universe that creates itself (in a sense). I will go with this larger view of God and you can have the smaller version.
<quoted text>
No, I think that you, deep down, know better. But you feel a obligation to argue for your beliefs even if they are not founded on solid ground. Not checking an obviously biased source just because it agrees with you is lying. You can try to squirm out of it if you like.
<quoted text>
This is not true, I think. This forum would get pretty boring to someone not engaged in it. I do not believe in the majority lurker theory. We are either speaking to each other or are talking to the wind. In any case I make my cases and they are still out there for you to see. I have talked a lot about early Christianity which has been my interest for at least three decades now. You can feel free to try to refute them if you like, but please do so from an educated, not ignorant, standpoint.

Judged:

1

1

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Really, I will put my reputation against your reputation any day of the week and thrice on Sunday. I have been around here for years and have posted at great length on many subjects and provided SOLID references not just linked to fringe sites.
<quoted text>
I post to discredit the message, not the person. I have been arguing with marksman for 3 years, but if he came to town I would gladly welcome in my house for dinner. But I have nothing but disdain for many of his delusional ideas about pyramids and science.
Next, if you have been even partially conscious I am not an atheist. If you have read enough of my posts this is something of a given. However, I do NOT subscribe to the diluted, distorted fundamentalist cults running around that attempt to warp peoples minds and even publish books on indoctrinating the young before they have enough knowledge to make rational choices. Fundamentalism is a product of mid 1800's thinking and is a distortion of the message of Christ.

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text>You are the dis-honest one...
The writers of the bible are witnesses of the biblical events while the scientist are not but they are trying to reconstruct the past,which is impossible...

David wrote:

<quoted text>
Such a genuinely nice and likeable sort you are, but I have no interest in what you call anything since I have no value for you or anything you've ever written. I consider it a high honor that you dislike me. Thanks. I appreciate it. Have a good day. Have some more smokes.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

I'll pray for you.

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text>You were not there...

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
And neither were you and that make you an idiot.

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Bullshit. Christians of ONE denomination frequently have a VERY hard problem with Christians of OTHER denominations. Often to the point where they point at eachother and say "THEY aren't TRUE Christians".
Just ask Marky...He's said as much.
<quoted text>
So what?

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
Seasons don't fear the reaper, nor do the wind, the Sun or the rain. We can be like they are.
-- Blue Oyster Cult
-- http://www.youtube.com/watch...

MichiganGEL wrote:

Dogen wrote:
Happy Evolution Sunday to All!!!
<quoted text>
Only if your version of evolution is purely naturalistic.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text> I can't speak for anyone else,but I certainly haven't agreed that there are errors in the bible. I saw your post about unfulfilled prophices but didn't have time to reply in detail. An as of yet unfulfilled prophecy is not an unfulfilled prophecy.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text> Ezekiel 4:3-6 clearly shows that in this case, a day is prophesied as a year. "I have laid on you a day for each year." This prediction revealed that Israel would be punished for a combined period of 430 years.(390 + 40).
The beginning point for this world wide captivity occurred in the spring of 536 b.c. at the end of the 70 years of predicted captivity in Babylon (Jeremiah 25:11) However, in the month of Nisan, 536 b.c. only a small population of the jews returned home to Israel. Naturally the jewish children born in Babylon had little connection to their parents homeland of Israel.
We deduct 70 years from this 430 years because they had been fulfilled. This leaves us a period left of 360 years, not yet fulfilled as of spring 536 b.c. and the Jews still haven't returned to Israel. If the Jews,(in 536 b.c.) were prophesied to return to Israel and establish the rebirth after 360 years, why didn't it happen in 176 b.c.?

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>No, there is physical evidence of the Exodus Dolly. You need to read, "The Signature of GOD".

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>1...Moses didn't have to be there to write an account of creation. All GOD had to do was tell him how it occurred and for him to write it down.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text> 2...And it is not impossible for Moses to have written these books. GOD could have simply told Moses how he would die and document it.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text> 3....As far as creation, you have no less blind faith than any Christian.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text> If you believe the fantasy that something came from nothing which had no cause, then your beliefs are more faith based than that of the creationists. Science nor you have any observable evidence on the origin of the universe or life, so injoy your blind faith there pal!