Great video series for Old Earth Creationism

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1123
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 103 times

Re: Great video series for Old Earth Creationism

#16

Post by DBowling » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:20 pm

Audie wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:51 pm
Citing pop pseudoscience from a crackpot
( Behe) just makes it more distasteful.
And your baseless statements about Behe reveal more about your knowledge and credibility than it does about Behe's professional credentials.

Have you even read Behe's books?
Or are you just repeating ignorant nonsense from Behe's detractors?
I thought you meant ToE was easily disproved.
I meant exactly what I said...
Behe and Meyer have demonstrated that the Darwinian processes of Random Mutation and Natural Selection alone are incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record (especially the Cambrian Explosion), and they also cannot explain the structure, complexity, and diversity of information that we see in the DNA of life today.

If you had actually read Meyer's book, Darwin's Doubt, you would be aware that Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossil finds since the time of Darwin only exacerbate the difficulties that Darwin was already aware of when he wrote Origin of Species.

Your baseless name calling does nothing to change those facts.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Old School
Posts: 9740
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 600 times
Been liked: 625 times

Re: Great video series for Old Earth Creationism

#17

Post by Kurieuo » Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:18 pm

Many do not know what they're talking about when it comes to Meyer and Behe. They believe the evidence strongly supports common descent, and don't disregard evolution per se, which is something many mistakenly think about them.

What they do challenge that certain biological systems happened via pure random chance via Darwinian evolutionary processes (i.e., natural selection acting upon random mutations). That, was/is their challenge. Some thing are so irreducible complex that the odds of them forming by chance are unbelievable.

If I might predict where the direction things are headed over the next century, sciences, the one view that has dominated for a long period of time is the Darwinian paradigm which invoke randominity. Yet, I think Process Structuralism will become more accepted, and certain forms are a much more complex and difficult position to knock.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1123
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 103 times

Re: Great video series for Old Earth Creationism

#18

Post by DBowling » Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:44 am

Kurieuo wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:18 pm
Many do not know what they're talking about when it comes to Meyer and Behe. They believe the evidence strongly supports common descent, and don't disregard evolution per se, which is something many mistakenly think about them.
I'm not sure Behe and Meyer share precisely the same perspective on common descent.

Michael Behe unambiguously embraces common descent.
"I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it."
~ Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996

"I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent. But the root question remains unanswered: What has caused complex systems to form?"
~ Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996

"I'd like to emphasize that the focus of my argument will not be descent with modification, with which I agree. Rather, the focus will be the mechanism of evolution. How did all this happen, by natural selection or intelligent design? My conclusion will not be that natural selection doesn't explain anything, rather the conclusion will be that natural selection doesn't explain everything."
Stephen Meyer is a bit more skeptical regarding common descent.
Evolution can mean many different things. I've written an essay called "The Meanings of Evolution". I've identified at least six different meanings. Many other people who write in the area would agree. But three key meanings. It can mean change over time. It can mean common ancestry or the idea of universal common ancestry - Darwin's tree of life, picture of the history of life. And it can also mean - it can refer to a mechanism. Specifically the idea that natural selection acting on various forms of mutations is sufficient to produce the form and function that we see around us and the appearance of design. Now when we use the term 'Neo-Darwinism', we do so because we want to be clear about what we're challenging and what we're not. The theory of intelligent design does not challenge the first two meanings of evolution - change over time or the idea of common ancestry. Though some of us are skeptical about universal common ancestry. But it does specifically challenge the idea that a purely undirected process - natural selection acting on random variations or other similarly materialistic mechanisms - can account for all the form that we see in the biological world.
In Darwin's Doubt, Meyer also points out that the sudden appearance of a number of different types of animal life in the Cambrian era with no evidence of predecessors in either the Cambrian or Pre-Cambrian fossil record is inconsistent with the premise of common descent... Which was Darwin's concern.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Great video series for Old Earth Creationism

#19

Post by Audie » Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:09 am

DBowling wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:20 pm
Audie wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:51 pm
Citing pop pseudoscience from a crackpot
( Behe) just makes it more distasteful.
And your baseless statements about Behe reveal more about your knowledge and credibility than it does about Behe's professional credentials.

Have you even read Behe's books?
Or are you just repeating ignorant nonsense from Behe's detractors?
I thought you meant ToE was easily disproved.
I meant exactly what I said...
Behe and Meyer have demonstrated that the Darwinian processes of Random Mutation and Natural Selection alone are incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record (especially the Cambrian Explosion), and they also cannot explain the structure, complexity, and diversity of information that we see in the DNA of life today.

If you had actually read Meyer's book, Darwin's Doubt, you would be aware that Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossil finds since the time of Darwin only exacerbate the difficulties that Darwin was already aware of when he wrote Origin of Species.

Your baseless name calling does nothing to change those facts.
Far from baseless. Name -calling, no. His status in the
science community is crackpot. Like Velikovsky, say.

I am far from what one would call "skilled in the art" with only
a BS in biology / geology, and a long term interest.

Lets say, like a serious football fan v a professional in
the sport. Either could smoke me out as knowing nothing
if I went in talking about the rink, net, goalie, innings.


Likewise, one can see that your peculiar use of capital
lettersmaking proper nouns where none ever went before
indicates that deep formal education may not have been
your route in life. It is ok, lots of smart decent people
went other ways. I dont pretend to know football,
I know my limitations and avoid naievely displaying them
in public.


Your resort to pop / fringe,unpublished -in- respectable
journals is a clear demontration of agenda, and of course,
of one unschooled in the art. Easy for even a semieducated
amateur such as myself to smoke you out. Any legit work
that shows Darwin made mistakes is deeply redundant.


Sorry-ah, but you make it too easy. Low hanging fruit.

All that aside, as I noted and you ignored, going after
Darwin for (gasp)errors or uncertainties is
shootin' up fish in a barrel. Get after Ptolemy,
Aristotle, Galileo while you are at it, stand bold
on the tombs of the foes falling before you!

It is moldy oldy news of the universally acknowldeged
that Darwin is out of date!

Nobody but the clueless creo insults
his own intelligence talking about
"Darwinism" or how it is-double gasp-
FLAWED!!

That the mechanisms he proposed
are partly but not entirely the drivers of
evolution is so well and so long known
that to bring it up as if it were fresh,
and try to credit "Behe" with some significance
in this, all the time talking about
'Darwinism" is kind of sad, but a true and
yet another certain sign of someone not skilled
in the art. As if another were needed!
(speaking of credibility, as you without
cause questioned mine).

And as if yet more were needed on "NSIA"
(not skilled in the art) you entirely
failed to understand (as krink, I believe,
gently pointed out) that showing Darwin
got some things wrong in absolutely
no way under the sun disproves ToE.

But it is all good. You meant what you
said, about "Darwinian evolution", it is
defunct. No need to mention it, or trot out
woo artists trying to take credit like an
Iraqi kid hitting a fallen Hussein statue
with his shoe.

And I meant what I said: ToE has in no
way been disproved.

If someone manages to, the Nobel
Committee, and all educated persons
will be electrified by this stunning development.

Meantime, premature declarations
of victory esp over long fallen pioneers
of science is, as noted, churlish at best
and withal, rather ludicrous.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Great video series for Old Earth Creationism

#20

Post by Audie » Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:16 am

DBowling wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:44 am
Kurieuo wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:18 pm
Many do not know what they're talking about when it comes to Meyer and Behe. They believe the evidence strongly supports common descent, and don't disregard evolution per se, which is something many mistakenly think about them.
I'm not sure Behe and Meyer share precisely the same perspective on common descent.

Michael Behe unambiguously embraces common descent.
"I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it."
~ Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996

"I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent. But the root question remains unanswered: What has caused complex systems to form?"
~ Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996

"I'd like to emphasize that the focus of my argument will not be descent with modification, with which I agree. Rather, the focus will be the mechanism of evolution. How did all this happen, by natural selection or intelligent design? My conclusion will not be that natural selection doesn't explain anything, rather the conclusion will be that natural selection doesn't explain everything."
Stephen Meyer is a bit more skeptical regarding common descent.
Evolution can mean many different things. I've written an essay called "The Meanings of Evolution". I've identified at least six different meanings. Many other people who write in the area would agree. But three key meanings. It can mean change over time. It can mean common ancestry or the idea of universal common ancestry - Darwin's tree of life, picture of the history of life. And it can also mean - it can refer to a mechanism. Specifically the idea that natural selection acting on various forms of mutations is sufficient to produce the form and function that we see around us and the appearance of design. Now when we use the term 'Neo-Darwinism', we do so because we want to be clear about what we're challenging and what we're not. The theory of intelligent design does not challenge the first two meanings of evolution - change over time or the idea of common ancestry. Though some of us are skeptical about universal common ancestry. But it does specifically challenge the idea that a purely undirected process - natural selection acting on random variations or other similarly materialistic mechanisms - can account for all the form that we see in the biological world.
In Darwin's Doubt, Meyer also points out that the sudden appearance of a number of different types of animal life in the Cambrian era with no evidence of predecessors in either the Cambrian or Pre-Cambrian fossil record is inconsistent with the premise of common descent... Which was Darwin's concern.

The so-called "sudden appearance" is equivocated by
agenda driven creationists to mean the literally and
suddenly appeared out of nowhere.

If I make a 'sudden appearance" in, oh, Norway, it does
not mean I only then came into existence.

There are fossil creatures, mammals, dinosaurs, among
others known for only a single specimen, usually fragmentary.

The level headed among us would not then say it had no
parents, sib,ings, relativesor descendants.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Old School
Posts: 9740
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 600 times
Been liked: 625 times

Re: Great video series for Old Earth Creationism

#21

Post by Kurieuo » Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:35 am

It is true re: Meyers skepticism so-far-as universal common descent is concerned, that is, a continuity between all life. Yet, he does accept a limited common descent. To quote his response in the Kansas trial:
Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent that all life is biologically related back to the beginning of life, yes or no?

A. I won't answer that question as a yes or no. I accept the idea of limited common descent. I am skeptical about universal common descent. I do not take it as a principle; it is a theory. And I think the evidence supporting the theory of universal common descent is weak.

Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors, yes or no?

A. I'm not sure. I'm skeptical of it because I think the evidence for the proposition is weak, but it would not affect my conviction that life is designed if it turns out that there was a genealogical continuity.

Q. Based upon your understanding, do you have an alternative explanation for the human species if not common descent from prehominid ancestors?

A. That is not my area of expertise. I work at the other end of the history of life, namely the origin of the first life in the Cambrian phylum.

Q. Do you have a personal opinion as to the question I have just proposed to you, which is if you do not believe that human beings have a common descent with prehominid ancestors, what is your personal alternative explanation for how human beings came into existence?

A. I am skeptical about the evidence for universal common descent and I'm skeptical about some of the evidence that has been marshaled for the idea that humans and prehominids are connected. But as I said, it wouldn't bother me (unintelligible) stronger than I presently think.
Note he also says this:
Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent that all life is biologically related back to the beginning of life?

A. Not as defined by neo-Darwinism, no.

Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors?

A. I doubt it.

Q. What is the alternative explanation?

A. Well, there are a number of alternative explanations. Right now, as this book shows, there are views looking at self-organization, which don't necessarily agree with that viewpoint. They may or they may not. But there is also the idea of design.
The views pertaining the self-organization would be process structuralism. This is where we don't just have similar structures found in species due to a shared ancestry (i.e., common descent), but rather these structures reoccur over and over because the same physical laws that govern life are at work and will evolve the same structures over and over again (hence the many acknowledged convergencies).

In any case, Meyer doesn't appear to fully repudiate evolution (like many think), but he does reject Darwinian/neo-Darwinian being able to account for all we see.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Great video series for Old Earth Creationism

#22

Post by Audie » Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:16 am

Audie wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:09 am
DBowling wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:20 pm
Audie wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:51 pm
Citing pop pseudoscience from a crackpot
( Behe) just makes it more distasteful.
And your baseless statements about Behe reveal more about your knowledge and credibility than it does about Behe's professional credentials.

Have you even read Behe's books?
Or are you just repeating ignorant nonsense from Behe's detractors?
I thought you meant ToE was easily disproved.
I meant exactly what I said...
Behe and Meyer have demonstrated that the Darwinian processes of Random Mutation and Natural Selection alone are incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record (especially the Cambrian Explosion), and they also cannot explain the structure, complexity, and diversity of information that we see in the DNA of life today.

If you had actually read Meyer's book, Darwin's Doubt, you would be aware that Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossil finds since the time of Darwin only exacerbate the difficulties that Darwin was already aware of when he wrote Origin of Species.

Your baseless name calling does nothing to change those facts.
Far from baseless. Name -calling, no. His status in the
science community is crackpot. Like Velikovsky, say.

I am far from what one would call "skilled in the art" with only
a BS in biology / geology, and a long term interest.

Lets say, like a serious football fan v a professional in
the sport. Either could smoke me out as knowing nothing
if I went in talking about the rink, net, goalie, innings.


Likewise, one can see that your peculiar use of capital
lettersmaking proper nouns where none ever went before
indicates that deep formal education may not have been
your route in life. It is ok, lots of smart decent people
went other ways. I dont pretend to know football,
I know my limitations and avoid naievely displaying them
in public.


Your resort to pop / fringe,unpublished -in- respectable
journals is a clear demontration of agenda, and of course,
of one unschooled in the art. Easy for even a semieducated
amateur such as myself to smoke you out. Any legit work
that shows Darwin made mistakes is deeply redundant.


Sorry-ah, but you make it too easy. Low hanging fruit.

All that aside, as I noted and you ignored, going after
Darwin for (gasp)errors or uncertainties is
shootin' up fish in a barrel. Get after Ptolemy,
Aristotle, Galileo while you are at it, stand bold
on the tombs of the foes falling before you!

It is moldy oldy news of the universally acknowldeged
that Darwin is out of date!

Nobody but the clueless creo insults
his own intelligence talking about
"Darwinism" or how it is-double gasp-
FLAWED!!

That the mechanisms he proposed
are partly but not entirely the drivers of
evolution is so well and so long known
that to bring it up as if it were fresh,
and try to credit "Behe" with some significance
in this, all the time talking about
'Darwinism" is kind of sad, but a true and
yet another certain sign of someone not skilled
in the art. As if another were needed!
(speaking of credibility, as you without
cause questioned mine).

And as if yet more were needed on "NSIA"
(not skilled in the art) you entirely
failed to understand (as krink, I believe,
gently pointed out) that showing Darwin
got some things wrong in absolutely
no way under the sun disproves ToE.

But it is all good. You meant what you
said, about "Darwinian evolution", it is
defunct. No need to mention it, or trot out
woo artists trying to take credit like an
Iraqi kid hitting a fallen Hussein statue
with his shoe.

And I meant what I said: ToE has in no
way been disproved.

If someone manages to, the Nobel
Committee, and all educated persons
will be electrified by this stunning development.

Meantime, premature declarations
of victory over the grim spectre of
Evolution, based on demonstration of
mistakes on the part of the great pioneers
of science is, as noted, churlish at best
and withal, rather ludicrous.

User avatar
Stu
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 888
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:32 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 23 times

Re: Great video series for Old Earth Creationism

#23

Post by Stu » Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:22 am

Audie, brilliant dodge and saying a whole lot of nothing.

And a big lol at crackpot - ANYONE who challenges the ToE is a crackpot in the eyes of Darwinists so essentially it means nothing coming from the likes of the "scientists" you no doubt are speaking of.
Only when the blood runs and the shackles restrain, will the sheep then awake. When all is lost.

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1123
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 103 times

Re: Great video series for Old Earth Creationism

#24

Post by DBowling » Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:29 am

Audie wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:09 am
DBowling wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:20 pm
Audie wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:51 pm
Citing pop pseudoscience from a crackpot
( Behe) just makes it more distasteful.
And your baseless statements about Behe reveal more about your knowledge and credibility than it does about Behe's professional credentials.

Have you even read Behe's books?
Or are you just repeating ignorant nonsense from Behe's detractors?
I thought you meant ToE was easily disproved.
I meant exactly what I said...
Behe and Meyer have demonstrated that the Darwinian processes of Random Mutation and Natural Selection alone are incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record (especially the Cambrian Explosion), and they also cannot explain the structure, complexity, and diversity of information that we see in the DNA of life today.

If you had actually read Meyer's book, Darwin's Doubt, you would be aware that Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossil finds since the time of Darwin only exacerbate the difficulties that Darwin was already aware of when he wrote Origin of Species.

Your baseless name calling does nothing to change those facts.
Far from baseless. Name -calling, no. His status in the
science community is crackpot. Like Velikovsky, say.
It is true that some of his detractors refer to Behe as a 'crackpot'.
But ignorant statements from Behe detractors does not make false assertions somehow true.
If you wish to perpetuate untrue ignorant statements about a qualified scientist, then that of course is your choice.
He graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry. He received his PhD in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978 to 1982, he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982 to 1985, he was assistant professor of chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife, Celeste. In 1985, he moved to Lehigh University and is currently a Professor of Biochemistry.
And the comparison to Velikovsky is nothing more than unwarranted slander.
And I meant what I said: ToE has in no
way been disproved.
It would help if you would at least pretend to read what I am claiming.

Here's what I claimed...
Instead of resorting to name calling, feel free to rebut (with data hopefully) anything in my claim that you disagree with.
Behe and Meyer have demonstrated that the Darwinian processes of Random Mutation and Natural Selection alone are incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record (especially the Cambrian Explosion), and they also cannot explain the structure, complexity, and diversity of information that we see in the DNA of life today.

If you had actually read Meyer's book, Darwin's Doubt, you would be aware that Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossil finds since the time of Darwin only exacerbate the difficulties that Darwin was already aware of when he wrote Origin of Species.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Great video series for Old Earth Creationism

#25

Post by Audie » Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:55 am

Well, yes I do have to fault myself for
being critical, rather than appreciating the
quaint and rather Victorian charm of
someone thinking that it is news that
someone had managed to discredit something
from 19th century science.

That, btw, Behe or some other has done
good work in one area does not
remotely imply that what they say
later, or in fringy woo woo like "ID" or yec
is valid or respectable.

If you have some point of note here, what is it?

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1123
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 103 times

Re: Great video series for Old Earth Creationism

#26

Post by DBowling » Sat Aug 11, 2018 10:06 am

Audie wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:55 am

If you have some point of note here, what is it?
Maybe third time will be the charm...

Here's my point...
Behe and Meyer have demonstrated that the Darwinian processes of Random Mutation and Natural Selection alone are incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record (especially the Cambrian Explosion), and they also cannot explain the structure, complexity, and diversity of information that we see in the DNA of life today.

If you had actually read Meyer's book, Darwin's Doubt, you would be aware that Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossil finds since the time of Darwin only exacerbate the difficulties that Darwin was already aware of when he wrote Origin of Species.
Are you able to rebut with data, the claims made by Behe and Meyer?
Or will you continue to resort to false statements about Behe and quaint rhetorical nonsense?

If what I claim is 'old news' and you actually agree with it, then just say so, and we're all good.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Great video series for Old Earth Creationism

#27

Post by Audie » Sat Aug 11, 2018 10:38 am

To the extent that behe has come back
to savage a long dead horse, he is not
of much interest. Is there a point in
highlighting such an accomplishment?

I dont see it. Do you?

To the extent that he is an "ID" advocate,
he is being a crackpot.

I introducd th word quaint. Gt your own.

Prolm wit kyoard.

I nd a nw talt on that as a kyoard that
has mor lttrs working.

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1123
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 103 times

Re: Great video series for Old Earth Creationism

#28

Post by DBowling » Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:51 am

Audie wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 10:38 am
To the extent that behe has come back
to savage a long dead horse, he is not
of much interest. Is there a point in
highlighting such an accomplishment?

I dont see it. Do you?
Pretty clear to me...
But since you have three times refused to rebut any of the facts of my claim, I'll assume that means you are unable to rebut any of the facts of my claim.
To the extent that he is an "ID" advocate,
he is being a crackpot.
There we go...
You just couldn't help yourself, could you?

Now we see your definition of 'crackpot'.
False assertions... circular reasoning...
Have you ever considered the Gap Theory? :P
I introducd th word quaint.
If the shoe fits...

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 20146
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 180 times
Been liked: 989 times

Re: Great video series for Old Earth Creationism

#29

Post by RickD » Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:52 am

Audie,

I don't get it. When you were here before, you complained about trying to have a rational discussion about evolution. Now that DBowling wants to have a discussion about specific things regarding evolution, you just attack Behe and Meyer, without actually responding to the points that DBowling brought up.

Here's your chance to have a discussion with someone who is actually knowledgeable about something you are interested in discussing.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Great video series for Old Earth Creationism

#30

Post by Audie » Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:36 pm

RickD wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:52 am
Audie,

I don't get it. When you were here before, you complained about trying to have a rational discussion about evolution. Now that DBowling wants to have a discussion about specific things regarding evolution, you just attack Behe and Meyer, without actually responding to the points that DBowling brought up.

Here's your chance to have a discussion with someone who is actually knowledgeable about something you are interested in discussing.
I asked if disproving ToE is easy to do...where is the Nobel.

DB said, "I dont have to..Behe and Meyers have already
done the heavy lifting."

Then it was over and over that Behe has shown some
aspect of 19th centuty was wrong.

If there was sense or point in to any of the responses, I still
dont get it.

I've no intetest in trying to refute or discuss news of the long- and-well known, that certain ideas Darwin had are not valid.

Post Reply