to the atheists on the board

I still do not understand why most people put themselves in what they assume to be two mutually exclusive camps. The thoughts and arguements are either totally creationist / God or totally science / evolution.

Has anyone entertained the idea that religion and science may actually compliment one another in specific ways?
 
Your bias is so clear.
What BIG PROBLEMS? The article simply states that
Darwin was not aware of things, and couldnt be, as genetic drift,etc.
Modern science has been filling in the holes of evolution theory
and it has become more solid over time, as expected.
Did you notice that the consensus is that its FACT and only
the MECHANISM is being debated??

Your assertion that I wont discuss these so called problems, is FALSE.
Where and when have I done this?? Where have any of atheists claimed
the evolution was a perfect theory that required zero mods?

Purely a strawman Shoe.

Now notice that again you failed to post ANY ID evidence and
instead switched the subject back to an attack on the atheists
and evolution.


This is apparently the ONLY tactic the theists have because
they know they have NOTHING but blind belief (faith) to
support their weak ID hypothesis.

TO SUMMARIZE the two theories:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolution - tons of evidence - scientific fact and theory
ID - ZERO evidence, still in fairy tale domain


peace

axeman



Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I'm not going for the jugular here - I'm just saying there's problems with Neo-Darwinism - big problems. Even your home boys are willing to discuss the issue:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

Why you won't is beyond me...
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

Fine.... lets call it ALL designed. Just semantics.
Evolution is then a theory of "natural design".

But this doesnt change anything.
Again the question remains...

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE for ID????
More...

There are many examples of evidence (but not proof of course).

1. The first unicellular life springs into existence with irreducitble complexity.
2. The first unicellular life springs into existence in impossible environmental conditions.
3. The first unicellular life springs into existence with impossible statistical odds.
4. The Cambrian Explosion life springs 70 animal phyla into existence in less than 10 million years.
5. etc., etc.

I say this is evidence - again not proof - because it is exactly what you would expect if there was a Creator. involved in the early stages of life.

Whether you want to admit or not, my model is simply better than your model for explaining the Origin of Life and early fossil record.

I don't go for the jugular on this, but it's clearly a creationists' fantasy...
 
Shoe.... how do I put this lightly??

You havent a clue what constitutes evidence.

Your examples #1 through #4 are all non-sequitors.
They in no way point to an intelligent creator as as explaination
any more than "my big poop yesterday created the universe" does.


peace

axeman


Quote from ShoeshineBoy:


There are many examples of evidence (but not proof of course).

1. The first unicellular life springs into existence with irreducitble complexity.
2. The first unicellular life springs into existence in impossible environmental conditions.
3. The first unicellular life springs into existence with impossible statistical odds.
4. The Cambrian Explosion life springs 70 animal phyla into existence in less than 10 million years.
5. etc., etc.

I say this is evidence - again not proof - because it is exactly what you would expect if there was a Creator. involved in the early stages of life.

Whether you want to admit or not, my model is simply better than your model for explaining the Origin of Life and early fossil record.

I don't go for the jugular on this, but it's clearly a creationists' fantasy...
More...
 
Quote from axeman:



Now notice that again you failed to post ANY ID evidence and
instead switched the subject back to an attack on the atheists
and evolution.
More...

What do you want me to do? Send you a videotape?
 
Quote from axeman:

Shoe.... how do I put this lightly??

You havent a clue what constitutes evidence.

Your examples #1 through #4 are all non-sequitors.
They in no way point to an intelligent creator as as explaination
any more than "my big poop yesterday created the universe" does.
More...

That's very convenient for you, isn't it?

We only have two scientific avenues to evaluate intelligent design versus macroevolution:

1. Genetics
2. The fossil record
3. Lab experimentation

#1 is in its infancy, but I bring up several problems with genetics and evolution and you don't respond.

#2 and #3 you throw out as inadmissible for some reason.

Again, I'm sorry I don't have a videotape of planet earth 3.8 billion years ago...
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

Tell us what would constitute the "shred" of evidence you are talking about.
More...

There's not one. That's what I'm talking about. Can't prove a negative, now can I?
 
No... just some evidence held to the same standard our
scientists are held to.

Notice what the biological evolutionists have.

They could produce DNA prints to show the genetic mutations
which occur in microorganisms.

They can dig up fossils and observe the changes through time.

They have mapped the human genome.

They can show you 3D maps of the genetic universe and
show you what percentage of dna we share with mushrooms.

They could show you all kinds of evidence for YEARS STRAIGHT
until you yelled NO MAS! NO MAS, which "fits" into their
current MODEL of evolutionary theory.


Now what is YOUR model for ID and what observable data
have you collected which FITS this model better than any other???


peace

axeman



Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

What do you want me to do? Send you a videotape?
More...
 
Quote from Sardo_Numspa:

There's not one. That's what I'm talking about. Can't prove a negative, now can I?
More...

:D :D
I guess that's why we invaded Iraq.. sadam couldn't prove the negative...or scumya and cabal couldn't prove the positive?:D :D :D gears turning yet?...:D :D
 
What are you talking about?

This post doesnt even make sense.

#1 - have no clue what you are referring to
#2 and #3 - you are claiming this is evidence for ID?
Exactly what fossil record is evidence for ID? And how so??
Exactly what lab experiment is evidence for ID? And how so?

peace

axeman



Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

That's very convenient for you, isn't it?

We only have two scientific avenues to evaluate intelligent design versus macroevolution:

1. Genetics
2. The fossil record
3. Lab experimentation

#1 is in its infancy, but I bring up several problems with genetics and evolution and you don't respond.

#2 and #3 you throw out as inadmissible for some reason.

Again, I'm sorry I don't have a videotape of planet earth 3.8 billion years ago...
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top