I believe the term you were thinking of was punctuated equilibrium
Ah, thank you! That's exactly the term I was trying to think of
Thanks for the break down of one of those articles.
I actually have both of them up there - the second article is called Evolution: Faith or Fact. I just didn't separate it very well. With both articles, I just had to stop reading. Even the title of that last one is just so preposterous. And I figure if you can show an argument is based off a false premise, you don't really need to worry about the rest of the argument. The only things arguments with false premises can prove are trivial truths.
Which I doubt will actually ever be the case. I'm well aware of the concept but tried to boil it down to a scale on which it actually matters to our case (the wording is a little different in my native language anyway).
Well we can show an example of this with a balloon. As long as the balloon doesn't receive more air going into it then it's losing it will eventually deflate.
What is your native language?
I kindly request an explanation as to how this is considered to disprove evolution.
It doesn't, but I am interested in seeing what is going to be said on this as well.
It just seems to be another pseudo-scientific delusion used to impress laymen.
Yep.
*Grumbles* Yea for generalizations, stereotypes, and old views? I think so.
redace would seem to indicate the "talking to a brick wall" part to be true to at least some extant. Also you've never see anyone religion quote their holy text when faced with objective evidence?
Also you've never see anyone religion quote their holy text when faced with objective evidence?
Sure I have but I've also seen atheist blatantly refuse to see anything supernatural even when the evidence is right in front of them. It works both ways. Also I would say you should respect ace to an extent as he is standing for what he believes in; something one rarely sees nowadays.
If i am wrong it would be really easy to prove it.
Me, and others, already did. Checkmate.
"Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements.6 Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.7 "
Example of blatant wrongness. The article refuses to recognize that while the Universe is losing energy overall, the Earth isn't - we're still gaining energy from the Sun, which is transferred up the food chain and fuels evolution. Life on Earth isn't decaying, because we're still being fueled by our Sun. Amino acids and such formed because the Earth was gaining energy from the Sun, and as such they formed into life and the life continues, to this day, to be fueled by that energy. Life on Earth is not a closed system, and is gaining energy, and is therefore getting more complex.
That creationist site completely leaves out that the 2nd law of thermodynamics hinges on the instance being a closed system - if the released energy of something else is being taken and used by an open system, the open system will be fueled until the star dies out.
Sure I have but I've also seen atheist blatantly refuse to see anything supernatural even when the evidence is right in front of them.
What evidence?
Also I would say you should respect ace to an extent as he is standing for what he believes in; something one rarely sees nowadays.
As much as I will respect the guy walking the street with a cardboard sign that reads "repent the end is near", or the protesters with signs that read "God Hates Gays".
Ha; point made. The blaring evidence of changes in peoples lives, horrible experiences used for good, medical miracles. The evidence is there and its only your fault if you refuse to see it for what it is. Remember coincidences are just God's way of remaining anonymous.
I'm continuing to love the outlandish generalizations. I could say the same of of prick atheists who write books such as "The God Delusion" although they have no reason to tell me I am wrong other than their own misplaced sense of superiority but hey I don't.
The evidence is there and its only your fault if you refuse to see it for what it is.
This is a hardline stance, and I think it's a good one to take. It's completely conceivable that atheists simply lack this "divine sense" so they aren't able to pick out these particular kinds of evidence. Just like a blind person can't use visual experience as evidence because he doesn't have access to it, the atheist can't recognize standard examples of God's grace because they lack a particular kind of sense. I think it was John Calvin who took this route? I can't remember. But I think it's a pretty solid claim.
I do believe it to be one of tje five points of Calvanism so correct =) however I don't consider myself a Calvanist as I don't subscribe completely to the theology.
As C.S. Lewis said God is either the most important thing in the world if he exists or the least important if he does not.
You must either fully embrace what you believe, although with tolerance, or else it really doesn't mean anything.
The blaring evidence of changes in peoples lives, horrible experiences used for good, medical miracles. The evidence is there and its only your fault if you refuse to see it for what it is. Remember coincidences are just God's way of remaining anonymous.
How do you make that connection between the two? If you say faith you've made no point here.
Well we can show an example of this with a balloon. As long as the balloon doesn't receive more air going into it then it's losing it will eventually deflate.
As I stated I am aware of the concept and agree that the phrasing you provided is more accurate. However, this scenario of a system other than the whole universe being totally isolated from any outer source of energy is purely fictional, at least to my knowledge.
What is your native language?
In Soviet Russia, English learns you! No, actually I was born, raised and currently am studying in Germany. It's quite intriguing to me that creationism seems to be such a big issue in the US as I never noticed it being discussed as extensively over here. I could be wrong in this assumption though, as I'm only judging from this community.
It's quite intriguing to me that creationism seems to be such a big issue in the US as I never noticed it being discussed as extensively over here. I could be wrong in this assumption though, as I'm only judging from this community.
I think you have a pretty accurate view of the matter. I don't think I have run into to many creationists from other countries besides America.
