Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution Obsolete?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
44 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1719 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 July 2012 - 11:07 AM

Is Evolution Obsolete?

I remember vividly the pictures of a stark Matian landscape devoid of any evidence of plant or animal life broadcast from the surface of Mars. Evo Scientists, Creation Scientists and those that maybe neutral seem to agree that there is no life on any of the planets in this solar system.with the exceptionn of planet earth.

In view of that conclusion, life on earth is by definition is "supernatural." If we concede that evolution has caused us to arrive at this moment in time, we must also conclude that there is now intelligent life in the universe--especially obvious in this solar systerm. Moreover there are supernaturalistic beings. Can we draw any other conclusion?.

I was apprised of a perversion in my use of the term "survival of the fittest." Misuse of that term would infer that there is a battle between individuals (humans, animals or whatever) going on at the present time . Actually, Evo Scientists are really saying (according to them) survival of the fit coupled with a tendency to reproduce. Thus, all creatures that are resultant now, were produced by fit creatures. No unfit could reproduce.

Le us aasume that Evolution has resulted in our world today. That would mean that good, evil, race, religion, stupidity, ethnicites, all the fighting, bickering destuction and our seemingly inate creativity is what evolution has bequeathed us. Therefore, the aforementioned ideas are not functions of our creativity, but materialistc determnism (something like fatalism--mathemetically derived.).

Assume we now have a choice between creativity and evolving. We seem capable of evaluating either process to determine which we wish to use to achieve what we all seem to want--to feel good about ourselves and others (peace) I.e, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Assuming we consede there is widespread use of creativity by us humans (Edison, Tesla, Bell, and the rest of us). Which is more efficient to use for the furtherence of our goals-- evolution or creatvity? Is evolution obsolete?

#2 Mountainboy19682

Mountainboy19682

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Brisbane, Queensland

Posted 27 July 2012 - 11:59 PM

There is a paradox here which is similar to the paradox between Capitalism and Communism. Capitalism appears to be the less attractive. Economic life revolves arouid the competition between suppliers to supply the market and buyers to buy for the lowest price. Innefficient high cost companies go bankrupt, just as unfit species go extinct. When economic circumstances change, companies with rigid structures that can't adapt become uneconomic and dissappear, just as species which can't adapt to changing environments go extinct. In theory the communist economies with foresight and planning should have been able to ensure the survival of all with none of the ungy consequences of capitalism. But in practice in the real world it is the capitalist countries which have been able to provide the best lives for their citizens, and which have triumphed. It is the capitalist countries which have shown the most creativity and spawned Edison, Tesla, Bell and many others. Survival of the fittest works in the economic world. Why not in the biological world?

#3 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 28 July 2012 - 06:47 AM

Well, I don't dispute the "natural selection" as such. But it isn't really survival of the fittest, it's the death or lack of reproduction of the weaker. Or it's just shear "luck". And that for sure doesn't explain the "arrival of the fittest" either.
The other issue would be "adaption". That those that can't adapt do die. There is some capacity of adaption in any species I think. But that's built in. It isn't really that they adapt via mutations, rather epigenetics and covering a broad scope of traits that help them to live. It may just not those that "adapt" that die, but to the contrary those that did remain the same. Guess we won't dispute the survivability of canis lupus over his domestic off spring, would we?

#4 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1719 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 28 July 2012 - 08:26 AM

Perhaps comunism might have worked if it hadn't been for the corrutability factor that seems present in us humans.Unfortunately even capitalism ends up self distructing. At least that is what happened in Athens Greece

In one sense the masses exist to support the wealth that know how to game the system. Money always ends up at the top. It got so bad in Athens Greece that most of the citizenry were were put in debtors prisons or sold for their debts in other cities. The weallthy few realised that if the transfer of money to the top didn't slow down there would be no one left to do the menial jobs it took to support the hierarchy--no one left to farm and grow crops. Effectively their money would be worthless.

The enlisted a leader who suggested that they forgive the debt of those in prison. In short democracy was the result.

I heard a Ford Motor Credit executive admit that for every dollar invested in credit, his compay was reaping 21 dollars. At the time he spoke the average bank was only getting a seven dollar return. At the height of the housing buble some of the banks were garnering an effective interest rate of 4700% (not a typo).

The guy that invented the monetary system along with the concept of interest concluded it would go bust in 80 years. But, he would be dead by then. What to do?..Somehow I hope we can find a way to look out for everybody. I suppse that's where the idea of a savior came from--a benevolent dictator that would insure a place at the table for everyone.

#5 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1719 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 28 July 2012 - 08:41 AM

Well, I don't dispute the "natural selection" as such. But it isn't really survival of the fittest, it's the death or lack of reproduction of the weaker. Or it's just shear "luck". And that for sure doesn't explain the "arrival of the fittest" either.
The other issue would be "adaption". That those that can't adapt do die. There is some capacity of adaption in any species I think. But that's built in. It isn't really that they adapt via mutations, rather epigenetics and covering a broad scope of traits that help them to live. It may just not those that "adapt" that die, but to the contrary those that did remain the same. Guess we won't dispute the survivability of canis lupus over his domestic off spring, would we?


I hear you. I read an account of an evo scientist that made the statement about a young girl that was starving to death in one of the third world countries. The scientistst quipped, it would probably be more humane to put a bullet in the girls head than try to feed her! Because she was starving, the little girl was unfit to suruve. The scientist went on to say that all of us are little more than "expendable metabolic units." Ah, if I didn't have a mental life--to concieve, love, nobility and a Mother Terisa attitude. I wonder if such thoughts make me fit or unfit?

#6 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 28 July 2012 - 10:34 AM

That highlights the issue of the materialist outlook on the world (and that's the basic presupposition for the philosophy of science that privileges Darwinian Evolution). Original Life arose from chemical processes in a primordial soup, humans evolved from this, hence humans are just a collection of chemical processes. If they are just chemical processes, how can there be anything wrong with disposing of them?

The scientist may however have a point that food aid is overall futile. In fact a good case can be made for food aid causing famine.

Communism is even a bad idea without sinful human nature. The problem is that economic calculation and decision making becomes a serious problem, since there are no market actors that can use profits and prices as indication for what has to be produced. So this will produce tremendous inefficiencies in the end.

#7 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1719 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 28 July 2012 - 03:13 PM

That highlights the issue of the materialist outlook on the world (and that's the basic presupposition for the philosophy of science that privileges Darwinian Evolution). Original Life arose from chemical processes in a primordial soup, humans evolved from this, hence humans are just a collection of chemical processes. If they are just chemical processes, how can there be anything wrong with disposing of them?

The scientist may however have a point that food aid is overall futile. In fact a good case can be made for food aid causing famine.

Communism is even a bad idea without sinful human nature. The problem is that economic calculation and decision making becomes a serious problem, since there are no market actors that can use profits and prices as indication for what has to be produced. So this will produce tremendous inefficiencies in the end.


I have always been confused over evo scientists view(something you touched on in this post)-- how they seem to ignore our mental abilities in favor of giving survival preminence . And yet it is human mental capacity that was used to create the idea of evolution. Go figure.

#8 Mountainboy19682

Mountainboy19682

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Brisbane, Queensland

Posted 28 July 2012 - 04:40 PM

I hear you. I read an account of an evo scientist that made the statement about a young girl that was starving to death in one of the third world countries. The scientistst quipped, it would probably be more humane to put a bullet in the girls head than try to feed her! Because she was starving, the little girl was unfit to suruve. The scientist went on to say that all of us are little more than "expendable metabolic units." Ah, if I didn't have a mental life--to concieve, love, nobility and a Mother Terisa attitude. I wonder if such thoughts make me fit or unfit?

Hard to counter your cowardly slur on scientists because you give no reference or evidence for your accusation. However it was definitely the Christian pastor Rev Jim Jones who arranged the poisoning by cyanide of his 909 followers on November 18 1978. Among the dead were 200 children. Apparently the Rev Jones felt they were better dead than facing up to reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

#9 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 29 July 2012 - 01:01 AM

Be advised that economics requires active agents. But you are right about the underlying philosophy. Evolutionist explanations (in the broader sense) were quite popular in the 19th century.

#10 SomchaiA

SomchaiA

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bangkok, Thailand
  • Interests:Movies. music, science.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 29 July 2012 - 02:24 AM

Is Evolution Obsolete?

I remember vividly the pictures of a stark Matian landscape devoid of any evidence of plant or animal life broadcast from the surface of Mars. Evo Scientists, Creation Scientists and those that maybe neutral seem to agree that there is no life on any of the planets in this solar system.with the exceptionn of planet earth.

In view of that conclusion, life on earth is by definition is "supernatural." If we concede that evolution has caused us to arrive at this moment in time, we must also conclude that there is now intelligent life in the universe--especially obvious in this solar systerm. Moreover there are supernaturalistic beings. Can we draw any other conclusion?.

I was apprised of a perversion in my use of the term "survival of the fittest." Misuse of that term would infer that there is a battle between individuals (humans, animals or whatever) going on at the present time . Actually, Evo Scientists are really saying (according to them) survival of the fit coupled with a tendency to reproduce. Thus, all creatures that are resultant now, were produced by fit creatures. No unfit could reproduce.

Le us aasume that Evolution has resulted in our world today. That would mean that good, evil, race, religion, stupidity, ethnicites, all the fighting, bickering destuction and our seemingly inate creativity is what evolution has bequeathed us. Therefore, the aforementioned ideas are not functions of our creativity, but materialistc determnism (something like fatalism--mathemetically derived.).

Assume we now have a choice between creativity and evolving. We seem capable of evaluating either process to determine which we wish to use to achieve what we all seem to want--to feel good about ourselves and others (peace) I.e, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Assuming we consede there is widespread use of creativity by us humans (Edison, Tesla, Bell, and the rest of us). Which is more efficient to use for the furtherence of our goals-- evolution or creatvity? Is evolution obsolete?


I have read of quite few scientists that think life either does exist on Mars, or has in the past. I am convinced that life has been there.

#11 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1719 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 29 July 2012 - 10:21 AM

Hard to counter your cowardly slur on scientists because you give no reference or evidence for your accusation. However it was definitely the Christian pastor Rev Jim Jones who arranged the poisoning by cyanide of his 909 followers on November 18 1978. Among the dead were 200 children. Apparently the Rev Jones felt they were better dead than facing up to reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones


I used a definite article, I did not say that all evo scientist believe the same. Your autonomy allows you to personalize this as an attack. If you check your own thinking you will see your bias. Two wrongs don't make a right. Then there was Hitler, Marx,and Stalin who all believed they were helping evolution out.That's an historical fact just as what you said about Jim Jones is. I am curious, what do you think is cowardly about what I said. I have always thought a coward was someone that was afraid to say what he thinks?

#12 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 30 July 2012 - 03:28 AM

Mountainboy, he just mentioned this as an example for the attitude of certain scientists. I do not think it has got anything to do with science. But rather with the arrogance of many academics. Who deem themselves to be "above the rest of us". This could also be the case for other groups. But in case of many natural scientists it is the ideology of Evolution that lends itself as means of justifying the superiority complex.
Ideas have consequences. I personally do not think one should dismiss Evolution, because one doesn't like the consequences of those ideas. But I think the Darwinian Evolution is based of lots of flawed reasoning, which has been supported by fraud in many cases.

Luther's rants against the Jews were written after he learned to read Hebrew I think; and by that he could read lots of the Jewish literature of that time, which is full of hate-filled polemics against Christians and Gentiles. That part is usually skipped, when people try to bash Martin Luther with those quotes. But I guess you understand that, since in your own words you said:
"But I do object to lies and false quotations being concocted and repeated with no supporting evidence whatsoever."

#13 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1719 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 30 July 2012 - 09:15 AM

But you are not saying what you think. You are claiming that someone else said something. Its cowardly because you are not prepared to say who actually made this statement. I looked up "expendable metabolic units." on google. Only one hit came up - from you - back in 2010. It was Joseph Goebbels idea that if you repeat a lie enough times then people will believe you. Is that your idea too? If you didn't intend this a slur on Scientists - why didn't you just say "a person said this..." None of Hitler, Marx or Stalin were biologists. None of them made contributions to Evolutionary theory - or any scientific writings at all. Mein Kampf and Das Kapital are not recognised as scientific works. In fact Hitler was brought up as a Catholic, and frequently expressed belief in the supernatural. He appropriated Christian religious symbols such as the Spear of Destiny and the Holy Grail for his own purposes. He adopted the swastika from Hinduism His follower, Heinrich Himmler, also from a devout Catholic family, proclaimed himself offended by the idea that he might been descended from the apes. Stalin attended a seminary and planned to become a priest. His bloodthirsty cruel nature might just as well stem from his church education as from Marxism. Hitler had precedents. Martin Luther in his book On the Jews and Their Lies, wrote "Jews are a base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[ He continued "they are full of the devils feces ... which they wallow in like swine,", Section XI of the treatise advises Christians to carry out seven remedial actions. These are

  • for Jewish synagogues and schools to be burned to the ground, and the remnants buried out of sight;
  • for houses owned by Jews to be likewise razed, and the owners made to live in agricultural outbuildings;
  • for their religious writings to be taken away;
  • for rabbis to be forbidden to preach, and to be executed if they do;
  • for safe conduct on the roads to be abolished for Jews;
  • for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed and "put aside for safekeeping"; and
  • for the Jewish population to be put to work as agricultural slave labor.
The crimes of history have been perpetrated by religious as well as non religious people. I think it is pointless to bandy accusations about to try and prove the morality of different groups.. But I do object to lies and false quotations being concocted and repeated with no supporting evidence whatsoever.



First let me say that no matter how thorough a Google search may be it does not access everything that is said. I have every bit of confidence that what I quoted was said by a woman evo scientist. Enough said about that.

I guess I really need to explain my oroginal OP a little more thoroughly as an understanding of your evolutionary point of view (atheistic evolution).
1. An atheist (core meaning) is someon that somehow knows who can exist and who can't. God therefore can't exist.

2. Evolution caused all the diversity of life on earth.

3. Since starement 2 is a fact, evo is deemed responsible for the mixture of good and evil on earth.

4. Moreover, given point three, it (evo) is responsible for what Stalin, Hitler, Marx, you, me and the rest of its charges have done. That would include all the wars, murders etc--totally everything that has happened on planet earth either--good or bad since evo started.

5. Furthermore, evo is responsible for evolving all religions, worldviews, philosophical concepts etc as well as my God dillusion--including your atheism as well.

6. Evo's Natural Selection, as a valid and proven selection force, acted on all the creatures that existed in the past allowing their decendents to exist today.

Since all of the above statements are true and in keeping with evolution,the events that happened to Jim Jones, the adults that followed him including their children are properly explained via Evo's Natural Selection Process. Jim Jones, his adult followers and their children were obviously "unfit' and therefore were not "selected" for.

Apparently "selection pressures" were so great on them that it caused them to kill themslves. The gene pool is now dereft of their unfit genitic material. It periished with the unfit miscreants that harbored it.

#14 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1719 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:56 AM

What happened to Mountainboy's post? It seems to have vanished after I quoted it--perhaps there is a glitch in the forum program? It also took all the formatting out of his post as well as mine--several times.

#15 Mountainboy19682

Mountainboy19682

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Brisbane, Queensland

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:38 PM

Mountainboy, he just mentioned this as an example for the attitude of certain scientists.

I simply dispute that its the attitude of any scientist. Many people famous or mundane, religious or irreligious, pro or anti evolution have said stupid things. As you point out with Martin Luther, selective quoting can be misleading. However at least its possible to debate what was actually meant. Making up a quotation and then falsely ascribing it to a whole group of people is a lot worse - its slanderous and its cowardly.

I do not think it has got anything to do with science. But rather with the arrogance of many academics. Who deem themselves to be "above the rest of us".

Now you are attacking academics - without any evidence.

This could also be the case for other groups. But in case of many natural scientists it is the ideology of Evolution that lends itself as means of justifying the superiority complex.

My experience with scientists is that there are many who are quite humble. (And of course many who are religious. Kenneth Miller, the biologist who totally destroyed Michael Behe's argument in the Dover trial is a devout Catholic). A world view that thinks the Universe is 14 billion years old, and that we occupy a tiny planet, circling an ordinary sun, which is one of billions in an ordinary galaxy sounds to me more humble than one that thinks humans were specially created in the image of the Creator of the entire Universe.

Ideas have consequences. I personally do not think one should dismiss Evolution, because one doesn't like the consequences of those ideas.

Among the many things that evolution does not explain is the origin of life itself. Evolution requires a self replicating organism as a starting point. Evolution does not preclude God. Many evolutionists are religious and see their scientific endeavours as a way to glorify God by trying to understand how he works. Even Darwin did not preclude this view of God, but he did rebel against the idea of a benificent God working to create each species because he felt the life style of some iof the creatures he studied to be too cruel. His famous example in the letter to Asa Grey was the parisitic wasp larva feeding on the living body of a caterpillar.

But I think the Darwinian Evolution is based of lots of flawed reasoning, which has been supported by fraud in many cases.

Flawed reasoning and fraud unfortunately are things that many humans engage in. I believe science eventually uncovers most fraud - from Piltdown man to Burt's fraudulent use of IQ tests. Give some examplesand we can debate them. I can also give you plenty of examples of fraud among the religious - as in Jimmy Swaggart

Luther's rants against the Jews were written after he learned to read Hebrew I think; and by that he could read lots of the Jewish literature of that time, which is full of hate-filled polemics against Christians and Gentiles. That part is usually skipped, when people try to bash Martin Luther with those quotes.

The Jews certainly had a lot of good reasons to hate Christians after the treatment they received in Spain and other countries, but I don't know of much real anti Christian literature. Many of the examples used by anti semites were forgeries - such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Could you give examples?

But I guess you understand that, since in your own words you said:

"But I do object to lies and false quotations being concocted and repeated with no supporting evidence whatsoever."

I hold to this. If you want to claim that another group has a certain viewpoint or opinion, then you should cite some evidence and not just make up unattributed quotations.

#16 Mountainboy19682

Mountainboy19682

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Brisbane, Queensland

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:53 PM

First let me say that no matter how thorough a Google search may be it does not access everything that is said. I have every bit of confidence that what I quoted was said by a woman evo scientist. Enough said about that.

I think you just made it up to slander scientists. If you can back up your claim with a an actual verifiable attribution, I will very abjectly and humbly apologise.

I guess I really need to explain my oroginal OP a little more thoroughly as an understanding of your evolutionary point of view (atheistic evolution).
1. An atheist (core meaning) is someon that somehow knows who can exist and who can't. God therefore can't exist.

2. Evolution caused all the diversity of life on earth.

3. Since starement 2 is a fact, evo is deemed responsible for the mixture of good and evil on earth.

4. Moreover, given point three, it (evo) is responsible for what Stalin, Hitler, Marx, you, me and the rest of its charges have done. That would include all the wars, murders etc--totally everything that has happened on planet earth either--good or bad since evo started.

5. Furthermore, evo is responsible for evolving all religions, worldviews, philosophical concepts etc as well as my God dillusion--including your atheism as well.

6. Evo's Natural Selection, as a valid and proven selection force, acted on all the creatures that existed in the past allowing their decendents to exist today.

Since all of the above statements are true and in keeping with evolution,the events that happened to Jim Jones, the adults that followed him including their children are properly explained via Evo's Natural Selection Process. Jim Jones, his adult followers and their children were obviously "unfit' and therefore were not "selected" for.

Apparently "selection pressures" were so great on them that it caused them to kill themslves. The gene pool is now dereft of their unfit genitic material. It periished with the unfit miscreants that harbored it.

There you go again trying to put words into the mouths of others. I don't see any of your statements as logical consequences of atheism or a belief in evolution.

#17 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1719 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:24 PM

Then you really don't believe in evolution. Now I understsnd your point of view. Jesus would have said it this way. "We played wedding and you didn't like that, We played funeral and you didn't like that." Oh well I tried.

#18 Elephant

Elephant

    Super Moderator

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Branson, MO

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:52 PM

What happened to Mountainboy's post? It seems to have vanished after I quoted it--perhaps there is a glitch in the forum program? It also took all the formatting out of his post as well as mine--several times.


No forum problems, I removed it. I think he is angry evo-babbler atheist who was here to waste our time, and now he’s been tossed back to Talk-Origins where he belongs.

#19 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 30 July 2012 - 03:25 PM

I do not want to derail this thread and actually come back to the point raised by the OT. All the other issues can be discussed in threads where they are on topic. And after your last post in reply to me, I guess there are a couple of things to take issue with.

#20 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1719 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 31 July 2012 - 10:52 AM


No forum problems, I removed it. I think he is angry evo-babbler atheist who was here to waste our time, and now he’s been tossed back to Talk-Origins where he belongs.


I guess he didn't like the implications of the evolutionary worldview?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users