Evolution is Not Atheistic

justlookinla said:

There are many views of evolution. As I've said repeatedly, I support any evolutionary view supported by the scientific method.

Click to expand...

And specifically why does he not follow the scientific method. Please explain which part of the scientific method Darwin did not perform.

Ask a question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analize your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results.

lesliedellow said:

You reject Evolution because you want to believe that Genesis 1-11 is history.

Click to expand...

No, I reject Darwinist evolution because it's not supported by the scientific method.

RickG said:

And specifically why does he not follow the scientific method. Please explain which part of the scientific method Darwin did not perform.

Ask a question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analize your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results.

Click to expand...

"Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment". Please, reference the experiment in which a life form, through only naturalistic mechanisms, produced a different life form. All we have are experiments in which bacteria produced bacteria, moths produced moths, ect. We do not have a single experiment, based on the scientific method, in which an observation is made which supports the view that a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless mechanism produced humanity from an alleged single life form of long ago, for example.

That's just addressing one of the several views of evolution.....Darwinism.

RickG said:

Are you aware the virtually all of the science presented by the creation science community contains absolutely no original research. Rather it is contains misrepresentations of actual science. Some even goes as far as to quote things scientists have said out of context and presenting them as if that person was saying something different.

Click to expand...

What I am aware of is that one atheist says one thing and another atheist says the opposite.Which says to me that you take what an atheist says with a pinch of salt.

justlookinla said:

No, I reject Darwinist evolution because it's not supported by the scientific method.

Click to expand...

Well said brother, well said. Unfortunately for a lot of atheists they won't discover that until they are before the judgment seat of Christ and they discover that the God they say doesn't exist is alive and well.

And evolution is not science for most atheist because the moment you claim God does not exist your discussion is philosophical, not science.

ecco said:

I wouldn't ask you to go back to other forums to verify you comments. However, perhaps you can find a quote in this forum of an atheist saying atheists are never wrong.

Click to expand...

I never said anything about what atheists said in this forum. Red herring.

justlookinla said:

No, I reject Darwinist evolution because it's not supported by the scientific method.

Click to expand...

I don't know how many times you have said it but I am getting the impression that some atheists are a bit dumb.

As I was saying said:

I don't know how many times you have said it but I am getting the impression that some atheists are a bit dumb.

Click to expand...

They don't wish to face the issue. Of course that's not going to make it go away.

justlookinla said:

"Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment". Please, reference the experiment in which a life form, through only naturalistic mechanisms, produced a different life form. All we have are experiments in which bacteria produced bacteria, moths produced moths, ect. We do not have a single experiment, based on the scientific method, in which an observation is made which supports the view that a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless mechanism produced humanity from an alleged single life form of long ago, for example.

That's just addressing one of the several views of evolution.....Darwinism.

Click to expand...

Darwin's earliest known tree of life that he constructed was in 1937. Today, researchers using genetic techniques have traced the various kinds of organism that Darwin fit into his "tree of life".

Darwin predicted that evolution occurs through natural selection. Today's biologists still support that.

Humans developed from an ape-like ancestor. Today's biologists still support that.

Darwin surmised that humans originated in Africa. Today's biologists still support that.

Darwin recognized that there were gaps in the fossil record, but surmised that many gaps would be filled. Many have been.

Darwin's prediction after seeing a specific orchid in Madagascar said that there must be an insect with a foot-long tongue to suck the nectar. Entomologists of the day were skeptical. Several decades after his death a giant hawk moth (Xanthopan morganii) with a foot-long tongue was discovered lapping the nectar.

RickG said:

Darwin's earliest known tree of life that he constructed was in 1937. Today, researchers using genetic techniques have traced the various kinds of organism that Darwin fit into his "tree of life".

Darwin predicted that evolution occurs through natural selection. Today's biologists still support that.

Humans developed from an ape-like ancestor. Today's biologists still support that.

Darwin surmised that humans originated in Africa. Today's biologists still support that.

Darwin recognized that there were gaps in the fossil record, but surmised that many gaps would be filled. Many have been.

Darwin's prediction after seeing a specific orchid in Madagascar said that there must be an insect with a foot-long tongue to suck the nectar. Entomologists of the day were skeptical. Several decades after his death a giant hawk moth (Xanthopan morganii) with a foot-long tongue was discovered lapping the nectar.

Click to expand...

You didn't even address the first sentence in my response. Once again, "Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment".

Where's the experiment which produced the observation of how all life was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago?

As I was saying said:

What I am aware of is that one atheist says one thing and another atheist says the opposite.Which says to me that you take what an atheist says with a pinch of salt.

Click to expand...

I would have to see the specific examples to evaluate the claim, but nevertheless, all that shows is individualism. There atheists here that have no scientific experience and some that are well educated in it. The same is true with Christians. Although I do support most science that atheists have posted in these forums, I have no problem correcting them when I know they are wrong and have done so in the past. And, I have also been corrected myself, which I do not mind admitting when my errors can be show without doubt. How about you?

justlookinla said:

You didn't even address the first sentence in my response. Once again, "Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment".

Where's the experiment which produced the observation of how all life was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago?

Click to expand...

His field observations and predictions are experiments.

RickG said:

His field observations and predictions are experiments.

Click to expand...

He observed how all life was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago? Can you give a reference where he observed how one life form produced a totally different life from? I'm really not interested in his guesses and suppositions...that's not the scientific method, but actual observation of the 'how' of one life form producing a different life form. Now, usually the response is an evasive....'what do you mean by a different life form'. By a different life form, I mean the mechanism whereby some life form, such as a flatworm, produced a different life form such as a human.

Darwin's field observations were observations of life forms producing basically the same life form. We both know that's not what's being asked for.

RickG said:

I would have to see the specific examples to evaluate the claim, but nevertheless, all that shows is individualism. There atheists here that have no scientific experience and some that are well educated in it. The same is true with Christians. Although I do support most science that atheists have posted in these forums, I have no problem correcting them when I know they are wrong and have done so in the past. And, I have also been corrected myself, which I do not mind admitting when my errors can be show without doubt. How about you?

Click to expand...

What about me? What science posted by atheists? Most of what they post is philosophical because most of thier claims revolve around God does not exist. That is not science.

justlookinla said:

He observed how all life was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago? Can you give a reference where he observed how one life form produced a totally different life from? I'm really not interested in his guesses and suppositions...that's not the scientific method, but actual observation of the 'how' of one life form producing a different life form. Now, usually the response is an evasive....'what do you mean by a different life form'. By a different life form, I mean the mechanism whereby some life form, such as a flatworm, produced a different life form such as a human.

Darwin's field observations were observations of life forms producing basically the same life form. We both know that's not what's being asked for.

Click to expand...

Once again you have hit the nail on the head. Darwin's suppositions and guesses about finches beaks reminds me of a lecture I attended where the lecturer showed the stupidity of evolution quoting an evolutionist that found a tooth in a dig that he was doing. From this tooth he claimed he was able to construct the person it came from, what his wife looked like, the makeup of his children and the village they lived in.

Then there is the Piltdown man whose head was found in East Sussex in the UK and was supposed to be the vital clue to the missing link between animals and humans. 50 years later they decided to come clean and admit it was a hoax.

The death of evolution is well and truly on the way. As the number of atheists is in decline, the belief in evolution will decline accordingly. At the end of the day only those who can't admit that God exists will believe in it because evolution is not science, it is philosophy.

ecco said:

You reject evolution because it goes against your belief in Genesis.

Click to expand...

You accept macroevolution because it supports your rejection of God.

As I was saying said:

I don't know how many times you have said it but I am getting the impression that some atheists are a bit dumb.

Click to expand...

I get the distinct impression......................................................................................

As I was saying said:

Well said brother, well said. Unfortunately for a lot of atheists they won't discover that until they are before the judgment seat of Christ and they discover that the God they say doesn't exist is alive and well.

And evolution is not science for most atheist because the moment you claim God does not exist your discussion is philosophical, not science.

Click to expand...

Are you guys brothers?

That might explain a few things.

bhsmte said:

Are you guys brothers?

That might explain a few things.

Click to expand...

Does it? Why?

bhsmte said:

I get the distinct impression......................................................................................

Click to expand...

Do you? Good on you. Save you from getting senile.