I believe that David is arguing in good faith; it is quite apparent that he is simply arguing from ignorance. The quotes above, and many others, make David's lack of understanding of the principals he is arguing against painfully obvious. In other words, he is arguing against concepts that exist only in his own mind; he has never taken the time and effort to truly understand exactly what the theory of evolution actually says, so it is easy for him to disregard all of the replies which address specific points he has made.
I'm not arguing against anything really. I asked two questions, or made two points from a video which
five pages of responses later I have yet to see having been answered or addressed.
During the course of those
five pages (some of my responses appearing 10 pages later) I may have disagreed with the conclusions that have been drawn, none of which answered or addressed the OP, but I wouldn't consider that an argument. I know nothing of science so I don't really argue it. Now the Bible I will argue, but that isn't what this thread is about.
I have snuck a peek at page 15 of this thread and I see that it is claimed that they have been answered, but if I don't go through all of these some clowns will whine that I never answered
their questions, even though none of them so far have anything to do with the OP.
I should have called this thread "The Emperor Has No Clothes." Look at the religious science people!
The quote above about apes is particularly telling. That one quote highlights Davids lack of depth in his understanding of evolution. For this reason I must agree with the posters here who have said that we are all wasting our time; the debate continually reverts back to [edited by David Henson] concepts which David holds dear and when responders attempt to pull Davids comprehension forward he switches gears to avoid actually learning anything.
In a basic sense the term "species" is "a sort; kind; variety." In biologic terms it is any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually having one or more distinctive characteristics, so there could be many species or varieties within a single division of the Biblical "kinds."
The Biblical "kind" suggests that an ape only produces apes and a man only produces men, not that an ape produced men. Evolution says that apes are men. You see the conundrum?
David, I believe this in an exercise in futility, but can you tell me why we believe that your statement about apes above illustrates your lack of understanding of evolutionary theory? You don't have to agree with our interpretation, mind you, you simply have to explain why we laugh at your statement.
You see that? You would agree that science constantly updates itself and so can change completely. Science can't ever be wrong though, in your opinion, because it is science. It reminds me of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the group called the Standfasters. During WW I the JWs (then called something else) would participate in wars as non-combatant, but a group of them protested and were excommunicated (disfellowshipped). By WW II the JWs changed their position to that of the neutrality insisted upon by the group of "apostates" called the Standfasters.
Jehovah God supposedly was always in charge of dictating what was the authoritative will of God and since the Standfasters had rejected what was supposedly dictated to the global congregation they were apostate. But they, the Standfasters, even though they had been right all along, were apostate. Even when the position changed they were still considered apostate.
In other words until I agree with your interpretation of science I am wrong and laughable. And there you have it. I have explained why you collectively laugh at my statements.
I'll bet you can't do it. If you can, we may actually have a concrete starting point for discussion. But you won't, because you don't understand that which you are arguing against.
All I want you to do is tell me what exploded in the Big Bang, how do you know that, could you be wrong, do you explain that you could be wrong in your propagandist curriculum and why has the space of the Big Bang gone from 2 trillion miles down to nothing in under 50 years.
I don't want to argue about it I just want an answer.
