tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post5740705911099880956..comments2024-03-16T21:32:23.088-04:00Comments on A Sure Word: Ten Lies Evolutionists Tell: Part 2RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-74443831569436582742016-09-20T09:37:04.358-04:002016-09-20T09:37:04.358-04:00Not wanting to accept evolution because it threate...Not wanting to accept evolution because it threatens your beliefs does not make evolution a lie. I stand by my statement.<br /><br />Have a good day.XaurreauXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17727814495969901094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-33329624492383496732016-09-20T00:40:07.870-04:002016-09-20T00:40:07.870-04:00My point was not that you are a liar; it is that i...My point was not that you are a liar; it is that it is rude and careless to call people "liars" because you disagree with their assertions, or don't understand their arguments (and I really don't understand how you can think that there's more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Josephus, when you're citing Josephus as support for the existence of Jesus, but that, as you say, is another topic).<br /><br />You hear the same examples all the time because they're relatively spectacular and memorable. On the one hand, who's checking every individual of every species constantly to make sure that novel traits aren't showing up? Do you want to assert that new traits aren't appearing in capybaras or pangolins merely because no one's reported any lately? On the other hand, "some frequency" doesn't have to be all that often when we're considering a timescale of millions of years.Steven J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-84083563004383755452016-09-19T18:48:14.528-04:002016-09-19T18:48:14.528-04:00XaurreauX,
That's curious. If I deny evoluti...XaurreauX,<br /><br />That's curious. If I deny evolution because I'm afraid of the truth, why do evolutionists have to tell lies about their theory? Do they lie so that maybe people will believe it? Are you saying these aren't lies? How about you comment again and actually address some of my points. Until you do, I'll consider this a non-response.<br /><br />Thank you for visiting, though. God bless!!<br /><br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-67283788990035994192016-09-19T18:44:23.291-04:002016-09-19T18:44:23.291-04:00Papa Giorgio,
You're welcome. Thank you, too...Papa Giorgio,<br /><br />You're welcome. Thank you, too, for visiting and for your comments. Be sure to check back for the rest of this series.<br /><br />God bless!!<br /><br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-75202830897817289652016-09-19T18:27:37.774-04:002016-09-19T18:27:37.774-04:00Steven J,
As usual, thanks for your comments.
Y...Steven J,<br /><br />As usual, thanks for your comments. <br /><br />You said, “A week and a half ago, you stated that " We have more evidence for the historical fact of Jesus than any other person of antiquity." Now, looking over the various sorts of evidence you cite for this, I do not see how the evidence for Jesus can be greater than that for, e.g. Socrates or Confucius , never mind Julius Caesar (who after all left us not only eyewitnesses but portrait busts and coins). Shall I call this statement a "lie" merely because it seems to be obviously false? I don't think that's reasonable or polite, do you?”<br /><br />I do stand by my comment but that's a little off subject for this post. If you check that post, I'll respond to your argument there. For now, let's just say that saying, “Well, you lie too” isn't a very effective rebuttal.<br /><br />You said, “Okay, "traits." And "animals," I suppose, so nylon-eating bacteria (due to gene duplication and mutation of the duplicate gene) doesn't count, nor would the evolution of multicellularity in Chlorella vulgaris, a single-celled algae, in the lab. How about the emergence of cecal valves in the gut of Italian wall lizards stranded for a few decades on the island Pod Mrcaru?”<br /><br />I think I've addressed all these points at one time or another and I don't have time to rehash them all right now; I have a lot of other comments to get to. Anyway, for evolution to be possible, new traits should appear with at least some frequency. Why is it that I hear the same few examples all the time? But regardless of that, my point above remains the same: time is not the magic ingredient that turns natural selection into evolution. Again, evolution requires that animals acquire traits. Examples of animals losing traits – such as the peppered moth – will never lead to evolution no matter how long it happens. It's a lie.<br /><br />You said, “Aristotle did not know that gravity exists. Even Galileo did not know that. Obviously both knew, as did the various authors of the Bible, that things fall when you drop them.”<br /><br />Perhaps they took for granted that things fall. Maybe they never bothered to ask themselves why. My point is still that gravity is a thing and we have a theory that describes how it behaves. To say, “gravity is just a theory” is misleading. Even if our current understanding of how gravity behaves isn't correct, that's not the same thing as proving that evolution doesn't exist. <br /><br />God bless!<br /><br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-24882128495259122892016-09-18T21:39:14.510-04:002016-09-18T21:39:14.510-04:00The sole basis for denying evolution is the denier...The sole basis for denying evolution is the denier's terror that it is true. <br /><br />Evolution is for grownups.XaurreauXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17727814495969901094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-41629226331153552672016-09-17T17:21:31.527-04:002016-09-17T17:21:31.527-04:00Thank you. I hadn't thought of the distinction...Thank you. I hadn't thought of the distinction so simply. An arrow in my quiver doest thou add.Papa Giorgiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14046222162630611579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-70835732270044100252016-09-17T01:44:37.594-04:002016-09-17T01:44:37.594-04:00A week and a half ago, you stated that " We h...A week and a half ago, you stated that <b>" We have more evidence for the historical fact of Jesus than any other person of antiquity."</b> Now, looking over the various sorts of evidence you cite for this, I do not see how the evidence for Jesus can be greater than that for, e.g. Socrates or Confucius , never mind Julius Caesar (who after all left us not only eyewitnesses but portrait busts and coins). Shall I call this statement a "lie" merely because it seems to be obviously false? I don't think that's reasonable or polite, do you?<br /><br />Okay, "traits." And "animals," I suppose, so nylon-eating bacteria (due to gene duplication and mutation of the duplicate gene) doesn't count, nor would the evolution of multicellularity in <i>Chlorella vulgaris</i>, a single-celled algae, in the lab. How about the emergence of cecal valves in the gut of Italian wall lizards stranded for a few decades on the island Pod Mrcaru? Such valves are found in the guts of some lizard species, but not, prior to their colonization of Pod Mrcaru, <i>Podaris sicula</i>. Is that a "new trait?" But no doubt you will complain that in this case the exact genetic mutations responsible are unknown. But the point is that what you ask has been observed and reported.<br /><br />Aristotle did not know that gravity exists. Even Galileo did not know that. Obviously both knew, as did the various authors of the Bible, that things fall when you drop them -- but they did not know that a single rule explains why a dropped millstone falls (sometimes onto someone's head), and why the moon orbits the Earth. Gravity, as a single explanation for celestial mechanics and ballistics on Earth, is as much a theoretical construct as evolution (and, as with evolution and gravity, there is the thing itself -- branching descent with modification, or the mutual attraction of masses -- and the explanation for the thing -- natural selection of random mutations, or curved space, or whatever).Steven J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.com