"law" of evolution?
- Started
- Last post
- 90 Responses
- Khurram0
You're getting tense teleos. Seriously, chillax-et-vous. We are all friends here
*mwah mwah*
- Khurram0
Don't worry. You are not alone. I too wish QBN would destroy some of my older posts.
- TheBlueOne0
What is the statistical probability that Intelligent Design has a paradigmatic and empirical confirmation of the explanatory claims of intimately recognizable experimentability so as to ascertain its ability to confirm design intelligibilityness and retrodictive historicality?
- Truthidization can only be derived from incidental factudedness.harlequino
- strategery.teleos
- Khurram0
*sigh*, hindsights a bitch....
- context is the bitch. I was speaking of the Darwinian evolution. And no, it could not have happened. This remains my stance.teleos
- position.teleos
- what did i say about linguistic chicanery?Khurram
- you said: [Science] does not observe species to species evolution from a common ancestor.Khurram
- That is pretty unequivocal dude, no matter how you phrase it.Khurram
- Now you're saying science DOES show evolution, but this is due to pre-programmed DNA or whatever.Khurram
- speciation you are calling it.Khurram
- ukit0
YEC, YO, YEC!
Y to the E to the C
- Rand0
what's a YEC
- Yawn
Enducing
Cuntharlequino - someone who says the earth is 10,000 years ago, as he once did. But now denies...Khurram
- Young Earth Creationistteleos
- rapid fossilisation.. RAPID FOSSILISATIONKhurram
- Yawn
- Khurram0
"emokid, the problem is that the most recent evidence shows that evolution did not and could not have happened."
"science is demonstrating that we do not share a common ancestry with [monkeys]."
"Humans may have "descended" from cuddly, furry little Emurs.. but it wasn't the Darwinian Mechanism... It was front-loaded pre-programmed saltation"
- ukit0
- teleos0
Kuz: You're here on a "general level" only because you have been banned numerous times and Lord knows how many times have had to rig up some kind of IP blocking system to get back in. But this is neither here nor there...
None of those statements I made deny "evolution" in the sense of change over time. Dude, even YEC's believe in limited speciation from generic animal "kinds". Evolution happens. What is in question is the "how"... the mechanism. And what changed into what.
But's it's cool. I can roll with people arbitrarily limiting/expanding/stretching the generic term "evolution".
- see: Baraminology
http://creationwiki.…teleos - creationwiki?? haha!spifflink
- see: Baraminology
- Khurram0
Well i'm sure he will come up with some linguistic chicanery to deny his views display "speciasation" over time... dude, as Christian you should be more familiar with humility!!! It's ok!!
...this is distracting...
- I can confidently assert a position on a topic without being arrogant can't I?teleos
- Khurram0
Yeah but i'm here on a general level, as well as having orchestrated some of the morst EPIC QBN/NT London drinks in history *pops collar*
Really though:
"Khurram: I never flat out denied "evolution"."
And in those statements you flat out deny evolution. As well as say there is no shared ancestary between humans and monkeys, while up at the top of this page you say we "may" have ancestory with monkeys.
But its cool - nothign wrong with admitting u were once wrong and are now learning! This is good! I have been wrong many time and continue to learn and grow!
- teleos0
Kuz: I standby everything you've linked there EXCEPT for:
"When did they exist? Depends on who you ask. ;) I would say they were within the last 10,000 years because I believe there was rapid fossilization due to a world-wide deluge. But the "when" is not the issue, I don't think."
I'm no longer a YEC. And I've said this in many other threads.
btw, you keep appearing in these discussions (which i didn't start) and thus contribute to the flogging of the horse. :)
- Khurram0
These are some of the things you used to say:
http://www.qbn.com/topics/387732…
I love monkeys, Fariska. They way they pee into their mouths and fling feces is endearing. No, I'm just saying that science is demonstrating that we do not share a common ancestry with them.http://www.qbn.com/topics/387732…
Mimio, how is it that we do not share a common ancestry? Well we could fill this thread with a books-worth. In a nutshell, because science demonstrates that species to species mutations could not happen.http://www.qbn.com/topics/387732…
emokid, the problem is that the most recent evidence shows that evolution did not and could not have happened.http://www.qbn.com/topics/387732…
When did they exist? Depends on who you ask. ;) I would say they were within the last 10,000 years because I believe there was rapid fossilization due to a world-wide deluge. But the "when" is not the issue, I don't think.http://www.qbn.com/topics/387732…
dobs, there's plenty of geological evidence that demonstrates a young earth and rapid fossilization. Radiometric dating is terribly unreliable. But we've already beaten that dead horse here.I just put discipler in the filter and found that. I could dig more if i was bothered THAT much.
2005 bro! FOUR YEARS you've been beating this horse.
FOUR fucking YEARS.
- teleos0
Mimio: The problems with the darwinian synthesis remain irrespective of the apparent "designed to fail" scenarios. And disteleology issues raise theological questions.
- TheBlueOne0
Please tell us about "Intelligent Falling" since the Theory of Gravity, is just, you know, a theory...
- hahahaukit
- gravity is a law.teleos
- perhaps you missed that.teleos
- Perhaps you didn't get that this was a joke.TheBlueOne
- no it isn't. obviously physics isn't your strong suit. then again, neither is critical thinking.spifflink
- Mimio0
Because it just piggybacks evolutionary biology and the idea of common descent without adding anything to it. Also it begs the question of intention in respect to the "designed to fail" scenarios that have obviously happened over the eons. In my opinion it's just another place for the creationists to run and hide.