Steve: Please back your claim on whales with documentation

[steve7150]

What exactly are you arguing in behalf of then if not creationism, young earth or otherwise.











Creationism is one topic but Young earth creationism is a different topic.

[jonperry]

Steve, I find it odd that you refuse to defend or even clearly define your own position.

[steve]

Steve, I find it odd that you refuse to defend or even clearly define your own position.

Then you don't know me very well. I do not insist upon knowing everything. Some matters are still pending, awaiting complete knowledge of all the evidence. I clearly state (frequently) that I am very much at peace with not knowing everything, and that ignorance or indecision about matters of no practical consequence does not bother me.

I will only defend things about which I am fully convinced. I will not debate matters for which I have inadequate evidence, even if I incline toward them. It's a matter of simple honesty. Not everything is a hill to die on, fortunately. There are many matters—whether scientific, philosophical or theological—upon which I would not confidently make pronouncements, due to inadequate information for certainty. One conviction I certainly am prepared to defend is that God is the intelligence behind the design. However, this is itself a theological, not a scientific debate. Science is in no position to debate the God question.

It sort of seems like you purposely avoid making any statements because it's much easier to take potshots at a theory ...

I am open to credible suggestions. Being undecided about the precise means of creation does not render a thinking person incapable of critiquing and excluding inadequate "solutions" presented by others. In a court of law, it may be possible to prove one defendant innocent without having any certainty about who the true guilty party may be. The case for evolution can be evaluated on the merits or demerits of its own arguments, without insisting upon a specific alternative.

[jonperry]

If you can't actually defend an alternative then why not take a neutral stance on Science or a positive stance like the Biologos Foundation is doing? http://biologos.org/

[jonperry]

I do not insist upon knowing everything. Some matters are still pending, awaiting complete knowledge of all the evidence. I clearly state (frequently) that I am very much at peace with not knowing everything, and that ignorance or indecision about matters of no practical consequence does not bother me.

Then why did you get on stage and falsely assert your "knowledge" on whale fossils?

By the way, a few posts earlier I gave you a list of practical uses for evolution which you seem to have chosen to ignore. By teaching people that evolution is bad, you stop people from learning real and practical information. You're hurting your own people.

There must be a more productive way to use your podium.

[mattrose]

Jon,

Your debate with Steve was about whether or not science has demonstrated macro-evolution to be true. You believe that it has. Steve believes that it hasn't. Your quote below, then, makes little to no sense unless I'm missing something

By teaching people that evolution is bad, you stop people from learning real and practical information. You're hurting your own people.

Did Steve say that 'evolution is bad' or did he argue that macro-evolution has not been demonstrated? If the former, he is only stopping people from learning real and practical information if he is wrong. If the latter, then your quote is out of line.

As for a personal observation... your initial posts here were very cordial. But it now seems you are in somewhat of an attack mode. Either you don't think the debate went very well on your end and you are upset about that OR it bugs you that not everyone agrees with you after hearing your cold hard facts. I would recommend that you recognize that these matters are not as black and white as you may desire. There are many factors and evidences to consider. Plus, we are fallen people whose interpretation of evidence is not unblemished.

You are, of course, free to feel strongly about the case for macro-evolution. But you should be humble enough to allow other smart people, some even smarter than you, to disagree with the way you are interpreting the evidence (and what even counts as evidence). If you are right, you should rest-assured that the evidence will only become stronger and stronger. Be patient... and actually glad that there are still many people reluctant to cave even in the face of a majority (we actually benefit from having people like that around).

As it stands, the vitriol of most of the evolutionists that I encounter online makes me think their position is actually far more precarious than they are letting on.

[steve7150]

Jon, What did Shakespear say? "Thou doth protest to much."

[Ian]

"you and me baby ain`t nothin` but mammals so let`s do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel".

Macro-evolution by blind chance has helped to subtly influence the sexual (among other) mores of Western society in particular. Oh well, never mind. You can always have an abortion.

[mkprr]

lol Ian makes a good point. Although apparently the band "Bloodhound Gang" didn't have gibbons, siamangs, titi, indris, or tarsiers monkeys in mind when they wrote their lyrics. http://anthro.palomar.edu/behavior/behave_2.htm

[TrumanSmith]

"you and me baby ain`t nothin` but mammals so let`s do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel".

Macro-evolution by blind chance has helped to subtly influence the sexual (among other) mores of Western society in particular. Oh well, never mind. You can always have an abortion.

Ian- you are confusing moral philosophy with science. Evolution is science, explaining how different biological species arose. One can use evolution as a moral basis or not. But just because we are created by evolution doesn't mean we have to support violence as a means for advancement. We now have more advanced brains, and can look at other moral principles, such as consequentialism, reciprocity, and individual rights, because these lead to a better functioning society, more flourishing. No belief in magic nor God is required. In fact, just the opposite, moral philosophies show us how evil some of the moral laws of the Bible are- such as the O.T. law of stoning (killing, the death penalty) a woman who is suspected of not being a virgin on her wedding night. That is a sick, primitive, morality.