Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1393 by H.sapiens]

As I said in post 1386 (him bringing up this quote isn't new)

You quote a heavily discredited book from 1991. Even if it was well respected, it's nearly 25 years old.
There are two scenarios for your last quote. Either you got the wrong Steven Stanley, and the quote has no evidencial basis whatsoever beyond anecdotal, or you got the right Steven Stanley, and demonstrate that the book is clearly misleading.

Can we put this quote to rest now kenblogton?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 1393 by H.sapiens]

As I said in post 1386 (him bringing up this quote isn't new)

You quote a heavily discredited book from 1991. Even if it was well respected, it's nearly 25 years old.
There are two scenarios for your last quote. Either you got the wrong Steven Stanley, and the quote has no evidencial basis whatsoever beyond anecdotal, or you got the right Steven Stanley, and demonstrate that the book is clearly misleading.

Can we put this quote to rest now kenblogton?

Ken should remember his fellow travelers' advice: Persisting in using discredited arguments simply rebounds—it’s the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is “the truth� (John 14:6)! Since there is so much good evidence for creation, there is no need to use any of the ‘doubtful’ arguments.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1393 by H.sapiens]

1. As I said in post 1386 (him bringing up this quote isn't new)

You quote a heavily discredited book from 1991. Even if it was well respected, it's nearly 25 years old.
There are two scenarios for your last quote. Either you got the wrong Steven Stanley, and the quote has no evidencial basis whatsoever beyond anecdotal, or you got the right Steven Stanley, and demonstrate that the book is clearly misleading.

Can we put this quote to rest now kenblogton?

2. Ken should remember his fellow travelers' advice: Persisting in using discredited arguments simply rebounds—it’s the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is “the truth� (John 14:6)! Since there is so much good evidence for creation, there is no need to use any of the ‘doubtful’ arguments.

Reply to 1. The age of the book is not the important fact, it's its truthfulness. That remains! Five million years of fossil data and not one example of continuous evolution.

Reply to 2. How are the arguments discredited?

kemblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1396 by kenblogton]

Steven Stanley is a respected evolutionary biologist. This is part of his evidence for punctuated equilibrium, a suspected form of evolution that would allow for long periods of no change.

[H.sapiens]

Reply to 2. How are the arguments discredited?

kemblogton

Through your dishonest quote mining and misrepresentations.

[Omega Nation]

[Replying to keithprosser3]

Because there is such as a thing called conscience, it highly discredits the
theory of evolution. Evolution says that we evolved from monkeys or
some other monkey like creature. In order for this to happen there would have to be
only the will to survive, nothing else. Because we know what is moral. We have a conscience of our own. Which of course is created by God.

~Omega

[Jashwell]

[Replying to keithprosser3]

Because there is such as a thing called conscience, it highly discredits the
theory of evolution. Evolution says that we evolved from monkeys or
some other monkey like creature. In order for this to happen there would have to be
only the will to survive, nothing else.

False.

Because we know what is moral. We have a conscience of our own. Which of course is created by God.

~Omega

Why should we think conscience is created by God?
Not to mention the evolutionary advantages of conscience.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to keithprosser3]

Because there is such as a thing called conscience, it highly discredits the
theory of evolution. Evolution says that we evolved from monkeys or
some other monkey like creature. In order for this to happen there would have to be
only the will to survive, nothing else. Because we know what is moral. We have a conscience of our own. Which of course is created by God.

~Omega

You are wrong, clearly and completely wrong. Do some reading on altruism, take a biology course, stop making a fool of yourself. CB411

[Goat]

[Replying to keithprosser3]

Because there is such as a thing called conscience, it highly discredits the
theory of evolution. Evolution says that we evolved from monkeys or
some other monkey like creature. In order for this to happen there would have to be
only the will to survive, nothing else. Because we know what is moral. We have a conscience of our own. Which of course is created by God.

~Omega

this is the logical fallacy known as 'argument from personal belief.

Please support the following statements.

Please support the statement 'In order for this to happen there would have to be only the will to survive',

and please support the claim 'this is created by God'.

[Omega Nation]

[Replying to post 1401 by H.sapiens]

You have not given any proof that I'm incorrect all you said was "Nope Your wrong all
wrong" Please give a more appropriate argument.

~Omega