[Akoue]

Is the idea that Fred is now supposed to summarize the last 150 years of work in biology? Evolutionary biology has shown--or, in deference to those who reject its findings, claims to have shown--that modern humans and apes descend from a common ancestor (not from a monkey). Reject this if you like. While you're at it, why not revert to the geocentric model of the solar system? Evolution isn't a threat to anything, and neither is post-Ptolemaic astronomy.

[Nestorian]

No choice required between these two. I have a background in science, and I hold to belief in the Biblical account because it matches the evidence found in science and is in concert with scripture.

True there is no choice is needed, because the two ideas are one and the same. Or so I believe. But yes very good idea, I like it.

[Tj3]

Is the idea that Fred is now supposed to summarize the last 150 years of work in biology? Evolutionary biology has shown--or, in deference to those who reject its findings, claims to have shown--that modern humans and apes descend from a common ancestor (not from a monkey). Reject this if you like.

I do reject it, because that is only an assumption made by some people. Remember, I have a scientific background.

And no, I am not asking him to summarize 150 years of research - my question was simple and straightforward. If he claims that science has proven man evolved from a monkey (that was Fred's claim), then he must have proof upon which he made that statement.

Of course you are welcome to bring forward the proof of your claim also.

While you're at it, why not revert to the geocentric model of the solar system? Evolution isn't a threat to anything, and neither is post-Ptolemaic astronomy.

Of course you know that this argument is also a logic fallacy.

[450donn]

So 450donn, HAve you ever thought the words "His own image" are referring to what GOD saw us to be?? That is a very real possiblity. I see that fitting much more realistically than GOD looking like us. Answer me that my brother, because i'd like to hear what you think.

I see it as how God looked at himself and decided how we should look. I am no expert either in science or the Bible, so I have to accept one as true and one as , well who knows. Because science is what people today believe to be the truth. But doesn't science still hold to the 'big bang theory" Of course that is not what the Bible teaches. Same as this evolution garbage. People with lots of letters behind their names believe themselves smarter that the creator of the Universe and believe that they can answer in some scientific terms how everything happened. Until that is they discover something new that throws their theories all out the window. Or they have to adjust their original theory to fit the new discovery.
Now if you were to ask me if the human race has changed in the last several thousand years? I would have to answer yes! But that we came from monkeys? Come on now, that is Darwinism pure and simple. If Fred or any other of his catholic brothers can believe that stuff and can twist the bible to accommodate Darwin's far fetched theories then I have to believe that the catholic church has strayed farther away from God than I originally thought.

[Akoue]

Remember, I have a scientific background.

As do those who work on evolutionary biology. But your expertise does not lie there but in engineering, so you don't qualify as an expert.

Of course you are welcome to bring forward the proof of your claim also.

Which would require summarizing the findings of evolutionary biology.

Of course you know that this argument is also a logic fallacy.

Okay, one more time, there can only be a fallacy where there is an argument. What you quoted from my post wasn't an argument, it was a statement. Here's an example of a fallacy:
1. If A then B.
2. Not A.
3. Therefore not B.

That's an argument. It's a fallacy (denying the antecedent).

The following Scriptures claim that the earth doesn't move: Ps.93.1, 96.10, 104.5, I Chronicles 16.30. (But see, esp. Ps.104.5). Am I to believe, then, that you reject the heliocentric model of the solar system? Does the earth not rotate on its axis?

And the term is "logical fallacy". "Logic" is a noun; "logical" is an adjective used to modify the noun "fallacy"--it tells us what kind of fallacy it is, namely a logical one.

[Tj3]

As do those who work on evolutionary biology. But your expertise does not lie there but in engineering, so you don't qualify as an expert.

I do not claim to be an experts, but I have taken University level biology courses. In any case, if you and Fred claim to be able to assess that it has been proven that man evolved from monkeys or other animals, then surely you must have some evidence upon which you made that statement, and presumably it does not take expertise in evolutionary biology to make that claim, so spout forth!

Which would require summarizing the findings of evolutionary biology.

Not at all - the question is very specific. Clearly you made your assessment based upon something - or are you saying that you have thoroughly studied all evolutionary biology for the past 150 years to come to your conclusion?

Okay, one more time, there can only be a fallacy where there is an argument. What you quoted from my post wasn't an argument, it was a statement.

You may not have a background in logic, but you did indeed suggest a relationship between these two claims which you suggested validated your approach, but not mine.

Now I see that you are also trying to distract from the question with more unrelated claims. How about we deal with those separately once you have answered the question asked, and validated your prior claim.

[Akoue]

I do not claim to be an experts, but I have taken University level biology courses. In any case, if you and Fred claim to be able to assess that it has been proven that man evolved from monkeys or other animals, then surely you must have some evidence upon which you made that statement, and presumably it does not take expertise in evolutionary biology to make that claim, so spout forth!



Not at all - the question is very specific. Clearly you made your assessment based upon something - or are you saying that you have thoroughly studied all evolutionary biology for the past 150 years to come to your conclusion?



You may not have a background in logic, but you did indeed suggest a relationship between these two claims which you suggested validated your approach, but not mine.

Now I see that you are also trying to distract from the question with more unrelated claims. How about we deal with those separately once you have answered the question asked, and validated your prior claim.

Suggesting a relationship and giving an argument are two different animals. As I've already indicated, I can see no reasonable way to satisfy your demand for proof short of summarizing decades of work in evolutionary biology. So here I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You are okay with Ptolemaic astronomy, then? If the Bible is to be our standard of the adequacy of scientific explanations, then we are to reject everything from Copernicus onward (which means rejecting Kepler's laws of planetary motion, which means rejecting Newton, which means rejecting... you get the idea.)

[Tj3]

Suggesting a relationship and giving an argument are two different animals.

I am not going to spend my time here trying to explain the rules of logic to you.

As I've already indicated, I can see no reasonable way to satisfy your demand for proof short of summarizing decades of work in evolutionary biology.

That is not true, as anyone familiar with evolutionary biology (or probably science in general) could tell you.

So here I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Then you have no basis for your statement. That is just a cop out because there is no validation for such a claim. Let's see if Fred can dig up anything which validates his claim that man evolved from monkeys.

[Akoue]

I am not going to spend my time here trying to explaining the rules of logic to you.

LMAO! Yeah, 'cause you'd have to learn them first.

That is not true, as anyone familiar with evolutionary biology could tell you.

If you say so.

Then you have no basis for your statement.

And that follows from what, now?

I guess it's bye, bye Copernicus? So there aren't really satellites in orbit, that's just a hoax (like the Moon landing).

[Tj3]

LMAO! Yeah, 'cause you'd have to learn them first.

Ah, yes, the usual approach - when you cannot deal with the issue, attack the person. I see that this thread is likely to take the usual course and then get shut down.

If you say so.

I do, because I know what I am talking about on the topic.

And that follows from what, now?

Your claim that man evolved from something else remains unvalidated and thus there is no reason to consider that to be a val,id claim or statement, and most certainly not, as you presented it, a statement of fact.

If you wish to discuss a topic, you cannot just blindly claim something as fact and then demand that it be accepted as such. You need to validate your claim.

I guess it's bye, bye Copernicus? So there aren't really satellites in orbit, that's just a hoax (like the Moon landing).

See there's that old logic fallacy again. You really should grab a book on logic - it is a fascinating topic.

Unless of course you are one of those conspiracy theorists who really believe this - which I guess is possible. If you be,lieve that man evolved from some other undefined animal with evidence, then I guess that it is possible that you believe that man landing on the moon is a hoax also.