have evolutionists provided sufficient evidence for adoption of evolution as opposed to creationism?
i suspect NO amount of evidence is sufficient for your standard of proof. am i right?
Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong
- Thread starter jficquette
- Start date
have evolutionists provided sufficient evidence for adoption of evolution as opposed to creationism?
i suspect NO amount of evidence is sufficient for your standard of proof. am i right?
The debate is framed improperly, that is most certain.
This "you are either with us or you are with the fundamentalist Christians" is of course replete with the fallacy of a false dilemma. So to is the "well science is the best thing going, so a reasonable person would to go with scientific opinion" and I say, at the expense of logic and common sense?
It makes the most sense in my opinion to start with what we actually know, and then if we want to make speculative guesses, and even invest emotionally in the guesses, that's fine.
To become dogmatic about it is another issue.
Science is not atheistic by nature, nor is it theistic. It is just a method of applying some standards to gathering information.
Has the information gathered proved there is no God, and that the universe and life is purely mechanical and self determined by randomness?
Perhaps. So, what are the odds of that? Why not a programmed mechanical universe? What are the odds of that?
The response will be: "Unless you show me the programmer, it cannot be programmed."
Such silly thinking.
Start with what we know, and leave it at that, with all the uncertainty that comes from not knowing the essential ingredients.
Or be dogmatic and use science to grind an ax against a particular religion.
Let's just take the example of the King James Bible as it is understood today.
Has science refuted the Bible?
Only if the Bible is intended to be taken literally.
Do some people take it literally? Yes. Do all people take it literally? No.
So who is right about this?
It nearly always seems to me that the angry failed atheists are continually tilting at the windmills of the type of religion they once belonged to.
Well, what about Deism? Has science refuted Deism? Hinduism has a myriad of offshoots, believing in both formless God and personal God. Believing that the universe is unlimited and without cause...as well as the creation of God. It is all there, every possible belief system from atheism to agnosticism, to theism. All are there in some form in Hinduism.
How has science refuted the totality of beliefs?
How is it that science which is not a belief system per say, become the foundation of the belief system of evolutionists?
Quite strange...
p.s. The guy walking down the road at 2 MPH might have been given a ride for a while, and then started walking, he may have been running, and now walking, etc. Incomplete date yields what? Incomplete science...
This "you are either with us or you are with the fundamentalist Christians" is of course replete with the fallacy of a false dilemma. So to is the "well science is the best thing going, so a reasonable person would to go with scientific opinion" and I say, at the expense of logic and common sense?
It makes the most sense in my opinion to start with what we actually know, and then if we want to make speculative guesses, and even invest emotionally in the guesses, that's fine.
To become dogmatic about it is another issue.
Science is not atheistic by nature, nor is it theistic. It is just a method of applying some standards to gathering information.
Has the information gathered proved there is no God, and that the universe and life is purely mechanical and self determined by randomness?
Perhaps. So, what are the odds of that? Why not a programmed mechanical universe? What are the odds of that?
The response will be: "Unless you show me the programmer, it cannot be programmed."
Such silly thinking.
Start with what we know, and leave it at that, with all the uncertainty that comes from not knowing the essential ingredients.
Or be dogmatic and use science to grind an ax against a particular religion.
Let's just take the example of the King James Bible as it is understood today.
Has science refuted the Bible?
Only if the Bible is intended to be taken literally.
Do some people take it literally? Yes. Do all people take it literally? No.
So who is right about this?
It nearly always seems to me that the angry failed atheists are continually tilting at the windmills of the type of religion they once belonged to.
Well, what about Deism? Has science refuted Deism? Hinduism has a myriad of offshoots, believing in both formless God and personal God. Believing that the universe is unlimited and without cause...as well as the creation of God. It is all there, every possible belief system from atheism to agnosticism, to theism. All are there in some form in Hinduism.
How has science refuted the totality of beliefs?
How is it that science which is not a belief system per say, become the foundation of the belief system of evolutionists?
Quite strange...
p.s. The guy walking down the road at 2 MPH might have been given a ride for a while, and then started walking, he may have been running, and now walking, etc. Incomplete date yields what? Incomplete science...
Fallacy of a false dilemma. There is no need to adopt either evolutionism or creationism.
Quote from killthesunshine:
have evolutionists provided sufficient evidence for adoption of evolution as opposed to creationism?
i suspect NO amount of evidence is sufficient for your standard of proof. am i right?
when one is at odds with the other, which do the facts support? answer in earnest (if you can)
The facts support that there are other choices.
The choice of everything from random is unproved, and genuinely goes against the overall flow of the universe and the degree to which laws and forces of nature are in control...
The choice of everything from random is unproved, and genuinely goes against the overall flow of the universe and the degree to which laws and forces of nature are in control...
Quote from killthesunshine:
when one is at odds with the other, which do the facts support? answer in earnest (if you can)
kts, the quote below is from my first post on this thread.Quote from killthesunshine:
have evolutionists provided sufficient evidence for adoption of evolution as opposed to creationism?
i suspect NO amount of evidence is sufficient for your standard of proof. am i right?
Can you or anybody else honestly answer the question and prove it. (produce sufficient evidence that will eliminate any other explanation)
An example of proof would be a fossil with a partly formed wing(s) or leg(s). If you can you will have all the world's attention.
===============
Exactly and some specifics follow, B V.
Gospels of Matthew, Mark & Luke mentions earthquakes [Luke notes ''great earthquakes''] increasing like sorrows[birth pains] .Library concordance or google can give specific chapter & verses.
So[older earth gets] /closer we get to Jesus Christ coming again;
the more earthquakes increase in frequency & intensity.
Google;
earthquakes of 7.0/greater , past 100 years= definite up trend ,of e-quakes of 7.o/greater in past 100 years [10 count];
definite uptrend of quakes of 7.o in 2010.
[3 count].The gov websites not really helpful on this matter;
maybe they are too busy with climate[cool] change.
And while 13 isnt a huge number, 7.o richter scale is huge;
plus the numbers this year in Haiti deaths alone are huge.
Some people dont seem[ or want to] admit the Bible is right or realize ;
365 days ,200 days or 50 days can be an important trend changer. IBD [Investors Business Daily]says 200 days & 50 days is important . I agree.
You are only at odds with one because you think there are only two options...
The facts don't actually support either random or planned, the facts only speak of what is observable.
If you limit to the observable only, evolutionary theory of species evolving into more advanced species would not stand a chance.
There is no observation of this happening on a macro level, there is no complete record of fossil history showing transition, there really isn't enough evidence to bring any reasonable person to say it is unguided unplanned random evolution, and not guided, planned and ordered by design evolution of species.
This something from nothing thinking is unsupportable, logically...
I understand why atheists embrace something from nothing, since they are not able to accept something from everything, i.e. God...
The facts don't actually support either random or planned, the facts only speak of what is observable.
If you limit to the observable only, evolutionary theory of species evolving into more advanced species would not stand a chance.
There is no observation of this happening on a macro level, there is no complete record of fossil history showing transition, there really isn't enough evidence to bring any reasonable person to say it is unguided unplanned random evolution, and not guided, planned and ordered by design evolution of species.
This something from nothing thinking is unsupportable, logically...
I understand why atheists embrace something from nothing, since they are not able to accept something from everything, i.e. God...
Quote from killthesunshine:
when one is at odds with the other, which do the facts support? answer in earnest (if you can)
Non of that makes any difference to the underlying point . You start from the fact that evolution is first and foremost, a fact. That is in all honesty, one place where you are not being honest.
Now, you can try to argue controversy as your first post starts out doing, make as many bad comparisons between evolution and math as you want,, or pontificate how evolution cannot do this , or how math cannot do that, but nevertheless both evolution and math are proven.
Therories about how evolution explains stuff and how math explain stuff continue, are constantly improved, and quite obviously, enormously important discoveries are made because of both.
I ask again, why are you trying to bang the table against evolution?
but nevertheless both evolution and math are proven.
Uhhhh, false.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Evolution is not proven factually speaking, as the underlying guess that evolution is the consequence of random unguided forces is not proven, it is assumed by those who subscribe to the butchered up version of evolutionary theory that is preached by atheists.
The theory of natural selection is a concept, and an idea of men...not an observable fact known by the evidence alone, and it certainly not a fact in evidence that natural selection is not actually and ultimately guided and planned.
You are as bad as a fundamentalist theist when it comes to your faith in evolution. You are just like the born again Christian who states "The Bible is fact."
Try working your magic water droplets on this one Webster...
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...q=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=bcdf8cbbf06dc4f
Uhhhh, false.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Evolution is not proven factually speaking, as the underlying guess that evolution is the consequence of random unguided forces is not proven, it is assumed by those who subscribe to the butchered up version of evolutionary theory that is preached by atheists.
The theory of natural selection is a concept, and an idea of men...not an observable fact known by the evidence alone, and it certainly not a fact in evidence that natural selection is not actually and ultimately guided and planned.
You are as bad as a fundamentalist theist when it comes to your faith in evolution. You are just like the born again Christian who states "The Bible is fact."
Try working your magic water droplets on this one Webster...
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...q=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=bcdf8cbbf06dc4f