Did We Have "Reptilian" Ancestors?

Science

(Greg) #41

The majority of this nation identifies themselves as “Christian” That does not make them Christian, does it? I am more interested to learn that a German scientist with no faith background finds profound interest and concurence with ID materials after actually reading them than i am impressed over how many methodological naturalists claim Christian faith. See Behe’s video if interested to learn more about this scientist https://revolutionarybehe.com


(Mikkel R.) #42

Yes it does. All one has to do to become a Christian is to think of oneself as a Christian. You are not an authority on who is “the right kind of Christian”, no living person is.

I like how we will frequently hear from Christians that theirs is the biggest religion in the world, with something like >3 billion believers. Then when you probe deeper, they will say most of them aren’t Christians. Catholics? Not Christians! So that’s at least a billion less Christians right there. If Catholics aren’t Christians, then Islam is bigger than Christianity.

Mormons? Not Christians! Jehova’s witnesses? Not Christians! And so on. Then there’s all the people you think also don’t qualify as Christians because they don’t share your interpretations of Christian scripture, or fail to live up to some standards (somehow if one is a sinner and doesn’t live according to the book in a way you think they should, one can’t be a Christian?). Going by such standards, Christianity is a fringe crackpot belief held at most by a few million people worldwide. Barely better subscribed than some UFO cults, Scientology, or other forms of new-age nonsense.


(John Harshman) #43

I didn’t ask why you’re a creationist. I asked what makes you think that scientists are getting on board with ID.


#44

I’ve also recently read about an Evangelical (some influential guy) converting to Eastern Orthodoxy. You know what it said? ‘That and that guy (can’t remember his name) abandons Christianity’. So it seems we’re not Christians either.


(Neil Rickert) #45

@Greg identifies as Christian. That does not make him Christian, does it?


#46

We have more important things than Greg to worry about right now. Me! :laughing:

Am I or am I not a Christian?

That question is for Greg by the way.


(Neil Rickert) #47

It doesn’t actually matter to me. You are a person, and apparently a reasonably sensible one. I don’t care about the labels that people attach. And I don’t care about the labels that @Greg attaches to people, including himself.


(Greg) #48

Are you an atheist telling me what a Christian is or is not? I can tell you that your comment here is fully misunderstanding the Christian faith not 70 percent, not 90, but 100%. Have you ever read any of the Bible to have understanding what the Christian faith is about? A significant portion of the contents Christians call the New Testament were written to lovingly put people back in line with gospel focused truth who SAID and BELIEVED they were Christians, (and perhaps could have been) but in some cases were not where the correction led them to true Christian faith and to a true personal relationship with the Living God. This is why good pastors today choose to hold belief systems like scientology up to the light of these Scriptures to declare them as frauds. And I believe that once a person finds this salvation, they will never go back and lose it because the love in God is so profound and moving in their lives, they would consider it foolish in an eternal degree to leave Him. And their desire to be overly active of the political right for ones best life now will always take a back seat to looking forward to the best life to come where there is an infinitely better treasure:
God Himself.


#49

Aww, schucks, you’re making me blush. :blush:


(Retired Professor & Minister.) #50

In other words, you are freely admitting that you are cherry-picking the very few who happen to agree with your position while entirely ignoring everybody else. Is my characterization inaccurate or unfair?

What I find particularly amazing in this case is that you prefer the opinion of just one “no faith background” scientist to that of many Christ-following scientists of Biblical faith! This reminds me of how Ken Ham likes to cite Richard Dawkins as the final and decisive authority when telling his evangelical Christ-following brethren that the Bible denies the Theory of Evolution. (As with politics, religion polemics can create strange bedfellows!)

By the way, as others have observed without actually mentioning the specific logical fallacy, you are illustrating the Not a True Scotsman Fallacy.


(Greg) #51

You are 100% absolutely correct sir!


(Retired Professor & Minister.) #52

Greg, are you a theist telling me what a Christian is or is not?

By the way, precisely because the word Christian has multiple definitions and it tends to produce a lot of equivocation fallacies, I tend to describe myself as a Christ-follower. Obviously, that term is also subject to ambiguity—but at least it is not so overused and exploited.


(Mikkel R.) #53

I was clearly telling you that you are not an authority on who is a Christian or not. Am I wrong? Do you think of yourself as an authority on who is the right kind of christian?

I’m not telling you whether YOU are a christian. This was obvious already to begin with. Please read the words and try to comprehend them. Read my words seeking to understand first, then criticize later if you find it disagreeable. But don’t start out in the “I need to find something objectionable” mindset, it’s not conducive to furthering mutual understanding. Does that sound unreasonable?


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #54

More psychobabble from @Greg Yes, reading the Bible is a leading cause for more people to become atheists, apatheists, agnostics, and nones. The best things in life are yet to come, right here.


(Timothy Horton) #55

What are the physical processes you accept and mechanisms which produce microevolution?

What prevents micro level changes from accumulating over time into macro level change?


(Bill Cole) #56

While there is certainly positive evidence for common descent Evolution is not a scientific theory as long as we define scientific theory as a clear hypothesis that has been repeatably tested. You can cite a hypothesis and you can cite testing but since I have been following this discussion the connection between the two has never been bridged.


(Timothy Horton) #57

Greg’s answer

“What prevents micro level changes from accumulating over time into macro level change?
Micro is as behe states: sometimes yet rare instances of mutation leading to benefits. Normally mutation leads to detrimental state and deevolution and more likely extinction. Micro is also adaptation where the species pre ordained design contains,traits which are preferable for the environment. The sense in the above, if given large amounts of time is not grounds for supporting the macro version”

You didn’t answer the question.

What prevents micro level changes from accumulating over time into macro level change?

Greg don’t PM me to hide your lack of knowledge. The discussion is here on this thread.


(Timothy Horton) #58

Evolution has been tested almost daily for the last 150 years and has passed every test. Try reading the scientific literature instead of ID-Creationist propaganda.


(John Harshman) #59

It’s unclear what you’re trying to say there. Are you saying that the testing mentioned here is not of the hypotheses mentioned here, but of some other hypothesis? Could you provide an example of this?


(Bill Cole) #60

This is an empty statement and clearly fits into the category of an ideological claim.

If you want to move to science and out of the ideology business you need a clear hypothesis and a method of validation for evolution to have any real scientific meaning.

You might start with a statement of what evolution means and can it be stated in the form of a hypothesis? I would be interested if any two people here would agree on a clear statement of a tentative hypothesis.

Darwin made a hypothesis around common descent as a claim and natural selection as a mechanism.

Since then the goal posts have moved in many directions. Natural genetic engineering, intelligent design, neutral theory, etc. all of which have their issues. Maybe the answer is there is currently no viable hypothesis only wishful speculation.

The claim the people don’t understand the theory is a problem for the clarity of the theory as ambiguity is a natural cause of confusion. Its time to clean up the mess.

Joshua is trying to narrow the hypothesis to human origins. Perhaps this is the better way.