Evidence for God from Science

archaeologist wrote:{clip} ...

probably the reason you attack Zoe so often.

she engages me and she makes too many assumptions and misrepresents what i say. along with failing to address simple questions without trying to turn them into what she wants them to say so she can answer the way she wants. she has proven to me that her abilities are shady at best.

Archaeologist, please avoid ad hominem attacks on others who post to this forum. Saying that another user's abilities "are shady at best" is such an attack on that user, and can not be tolerated in terms of Board Policy and Discussion Guidelines. Address the content, not hit back at the person. If this kind of response continues, it will eventuate in moderators banning you from posting here.

Refer here and note in particular the 4th point under the heading "Constructive Discussions".

Judah
Moderator

judah-- that would be nice if you actually dealt evenly with your rebuke. here is an example that you seemed to have missed and shows that you may be playing favorites:

Despite what you claim you have little understanding

quoted from zoegirl from page 4 or 5.

don't single me out when you have no idea if i was making an attack or making a comment of assessment due to the evidence presented in the multitude of posts. the two are not the same.

there are more such examples but seeing she agrees with deemand others on this board i can see why she is given a lot of latitude.

archaeologist wrote:judah-- that would be nice if you actually dealt evenly with your rebuke. here is an example that you seemed to have missed and shows that you may be playing favorites:

Despite what you claim you have little understanding

quoted from zoegirl from page 4 or 5.

don't single me out when you have no idea if i was making an attack or making a comment of assessment due to the evidence presented in the multitude of posts. the two are not the same.

there are more such examples but seeing she agrees with deemand others on this board i can see why she is given a lot of latitude.

Archaeologist, I will respond on this matter by PM.
I would prefer that the discussion continue on topic without further attacks on any others who post here.
There are Discussion Guidelines that need to be kept in mind and they do indeed apply to all who post here.

Yes, and as I stated many, many times

This statement was made after his refusal to discuss. He put himself out there as this marvelous debater of evolution and he is so convinced that microevolution is wrong. I provided simple points for him to dispute. I also gladly and willingly pointed out that I was willing to be proved wrong in the matter of his lack of not understanding if only he would actually show that he could dispute my points.

Now I am going to sit back and let others try to debate with him.

Bizzt has essentially agreed with microevolution...

Bizzt has essentially agreed with microevolution

and this trumps the Bible how?

This statement was made after his refusal to discuss

no it wasn't.

And you wonder why evolutionists don't talk to you.

Despite what you claim you have little understanding

*** Intermission ***

It is the case that we form opinions of each other from what is read of what they write, but I would hope that all of us can keep in mind that what is seen here is only a very small part of a much bigger picture. We cannot know each other properly or thoroughly, and therefore it is wise to make allowances for others and that one's perception may be in error. In that regard, I am not making any kind of judgement about any user posting here, but picking up on responses that take away from otherwise good debate.

I sincerely hope that all who participate on this thread will now make a special effort to get it back on topic, avoid personal comments that cause mischief, and further the content of the dialogue in a constructive and positive way. We are Christian brothers and sisters who should be showing that such a relationship involves Christian charity for each other.

Now, enough said.

Back to your places, ladies and gentlemen...
Let's all of us get back On Topic.

~ Judah
Moderator

Thanks for the cold water

Like I said, gladly continue discussing.

I commend you for your restraint Judah.
It is an interesting debate, when you skim off the dross.

What are your thoughts on microevolution Forum Monk?

Microevolution is more or less proven as fact.

(Assuming we are speaking of the same definition)

Arch may not agree, but I will gladly be corrected if I am wrong.

Ok, this is pure curiosity on my part...is there an interesting reason behind the name that you can give? Not meaning to pry...if you would rather not explain, that;s fine...just curious

Nothing mysterious or mystical or religious. I was sitting at the keyboard one winter morning, wearing a hoody pulled over my head, contemplating a name to use on a forum. My daughter entered the room and said, "Daddy, what are you doing? You look like a monk." Username: "forum monk", I typed.

cool

Arch may not agree, but I will gladly be corrected if I am wrong

no i do not agree and would want you to consider how evolution could be responsible for anything that God has done? we know that the theory of evolution is a human construct, it is not a spiritual one; we know that there are changes in animals in a small scale BUT are those changes due to evolution at work or the result of 'the fall' when corruption was allowed to enter into what God had done?

then, how would you be able to prove that is evolution at work? we know that those same animals do not change but continue to act as they were originally created. we also know they do not always beget the same change each generation?

then you have the problem of evolution getting a foot in the door which would lead to such arguments as: ' well if you agree that micro-evolution is at work, why can't all of life be done by evolution.'

there is no room for compromise. either evolution exists or it doesn't. it is not a complimentery action with creation. i refuse to use the word 'mutation' as that also is too braod of a term, i prefer 'defect' because if one examines closely the genes activity, it is obvious that it is not working like it should, which doesn't imply a mutation but a trait which can cause abnormalities.

i.e.: two sets of humans, one is normal and passes on that normality to its offspring; the other has hereditary disease which is also passed on. does that mean that one set of humans is better evolved and the other is lower on the food chain?

not at all. it means that something is wrong which needs to be fixed.

in my mind evolution cannot exist and should not be credited with creative powers when it is a false theory and it distorts what is really happening.

scientists that sit around and say--here is micro-evoolution at work so we should just observe--- are kidding themselves. they need to see it for what it is and fine cures or solutions. not promote a theory that is anti-God.

Ok Arch, I had no problem understanding your point of view and I can immediately agree with much of what you say. But let me ask you a question before we discuss this further...

Can the defect sometimes result in a benefit to the organism ?