Steve: Please back your claim on whales with documentation

[TrumanSmith]

I don't own the set myself. Much of my information was gathered over a decade ago, when I had access to library materials difficult for me to obtain today. However, the information you gave above makes me wonder if I misread the source back when it was in front of me. As I mentioned, this is not an area of expertise with me.

Steve Gregg- you should have the intellectual honesty of admitting a mistake if you make one. You make it sound like you may or may not have a mistake, and don't really care. Do you really care what you claim or not? Are you admitting you misread it or not? Why don't you clarify it, for the sake of clarity and honesty? If you don't care if what you say is true or not, why should anyone bother to listen to you? You make it sound like you are trying to throw things out to support your position/cause without even caring if it is even true or not. Please, bring some closure on this technical issue.

[TrumanSmith]

I'll have to get back to you. However, young earth creationism is not the subject I am defending.

What exactly are you arguing in behalf of then if not creationism, young earth or otherwise. It sort of seems like you purposely avoid making any statements because it's much easier to take potshots at a theory (BTW, you could do the same with theories on physics or chemistry to similar effect) then to provide a more viable and fact based alternative.

This nailed Steve. He can't present an alternative theory to evolution because he knows it would be laughed-out of any kind of intellectual discussion, so all he can do is take potshots. Once you consider the alternatives, it makes evolutionary theory stand-out even starker as a great theory.

[backwoodsman]

Steve Gregg- you should have the intellectual honesty of admitting a mistake if you make one.

He admitted it very clearly, both in this thread and on the radio. You, on the other hand, have been caught in a long list of factual and logical errors, and have yet to admit to a single one of them. Not bothering to get your facts straight before making such careless accusations makes you look like you have a bad case of 'sour grapes', and have to resort to hitting below the belt because you can't continue the discussion on rational grounds. That strategy is unlikely to impress any thinking person, and is not appreciated by most of us here, I think.

[TrumanSmith]

Steve Gregg- you should have the intellectual honesty of admitting a mistake if you make one.

He admitted it very clearly, both in this thread and on the radio.

Where did he clearly admit it in this thread? Can you cut/paste the text? Are you referring to this line of his:

Steve Gregg wrote: "However, the information you gave above makes me wonder if I misread the source back when it was in front of me."

That's what you call a "clear admission of error" ???

[steve7150]

Once you consider the alternatives, it makes evolutionary theory stand-out even starker as a great theory.










This is the heart of the theory. An atheist has no other option as in "once you consider the alternatives" therefore evolution is their religion! That's why they want converts to their religion because they have no alternative and they want validation by numbers.

In the end there will be only one vote that matters. Yes atheists, God did indeed do it!

[TrumanSmith]

An atheist has no other option as in "once you consider the alternatives" therefore evolution is their religion! That's why they want converts to their religion because they have no alternative and they want validation by numbers.

That's very misguided thinking. Science works on the hypothesis with the best supporting (parsimonious) data. This is why evolutionary theory is taught in EVERY State University... it has solid evidence for it. Even some Christian Universities teach it, like Baylor University. Locally, Geroge Fox University is a big Christian university and they teach evolution:

From:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/09/25/g ... effigy.htm

Excerpt:

“Hey Matt, is evolution taught at Fox?”

To the dismay of many parents, yes it is. Our biology professors do not only teach it, they believe it. Evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive.

[john6809]

TrumanSmith wrote,

From:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/09/25/g ... effigy.htm

Excerpt:



“Hey Matt, is evolution taught at Fox?”

To the dismay of many parents, yes it is. Our biology professors do not only teach it, they believe it. Evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive.

There it is again - you continuously quote Christian evolutionists, this one saying that Christianity and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Yet your theory is that "Modern Science and Philosophy Destroys Christian Theology". Do you see 'Christianity PLUS evolution' as some sort of halfway house from which, hopefully, those who have moved to this view, will eventually become completely free?

[steve7150]

steve7150 wrote: An atheist has no other option as in "once you consider the alternatives" therefore evolution is their religion! That's why they want converts to their religion because they have no alternative and they want validation by numbers.



That's very misguided thinking. Science works on the hypothesis with the best supporting (parsimonious) data. This is why evolutionary theory is taught in EVERY State University... it has solid evidence for it. Even some Christian Universities teach it, like Baylor University. Locally, Geroge Fox University is a big Christian university and they teach evolution:




I'm still waiting to hear why my thinking is misguided? Every State University is repeating what the leading scientists conjecture , very few are independent thinkers. So there is no arguing that scientists believe in evolution but part of the reason is that they have no alternative because they don't allow any supernatural thoughts to contaminate their theories.
Are you up to date with your tithes to the Church of Evolution and Science?

[TrumanSmith]

There it is again - you continuously quote Christian evolutionists, this one saying that Christianity and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Yet your theory is that "Modern Science and Philosophy Destroys Christian Theology". Do you see 'Christianity PLUS evolution' as some sort of halfway house from which, hopefully, those who have moved to this view, will eventually become completely free?

First I have to get you up-to-speed on evolution, which even academic Christians accept. Then, THEN, we can talk about consequences on theology. One step at a time, bro.

[TrumanSmith]

Every State University is repeating what the leading scientists conjecture , very few are independent thinkers.

Riiiggghhtt, most university research scientists are not independent thinkers... you must not know anything about their academic culture to say such nonsense. Did you go to University and ever take a science class?