Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, he can't. He's been caught lying (and yes, there is no way around this, it was definitely a lie) about Tiktaalik, his academic credentials are indicative of academic dead wood and thoroughly unimpressive, and his arguments are trivially bogus, as the person who posted that lovely Living Dinosaur video earlier showed.
Are you serious? Show me the evidence (and please, not the discredited Miller-Urey stuff). I want to see someone taking some chemicals and creating something that can actually said to be alive. If you can also show how such life could then reproduce itself, I might believe your claims. If you can't, then as far as I'm concerned, it remains a fairy tale.
Or perhaps, he wanted to be free of the constraints of imposed man-made ideas because he felt they made no sense to his practical observations.
It's funny you should say that because all we keep hearing is that scientists who reject evolution cannot do real science. Thanks for confirming that oft-quoted fallacy.
I didn't see much "evidence" being presented by Bill Nye in the debate with Ken Ham. Also, it's not just about the evidence but how you interpret the evidence. If you start out with ruling out God, it's no wonder that you will come to different conclusions than someone who sees the divine hand in created things. Once a majority view has been established, not many would want to admit that they have different ideas, as careers can be put at risk or at the very least, doubters would be ridiculed by the majority.
Every argument deserves a "level playing field." Otherwise, how can you possibly have an unbiased result?
No, creation makes a lot more sense.
Why use this argument when you could have used the simpler and equally irrelevant argument about the earth being flat?
How can it be without a supernatural force, in keeping with the attributes of the God of the Bible, upholding the very laws of nature? Why, without God, you don't even know if the chemicals in your brain are giving you the true picture of reality.
How nature retains its consistency is not relevant to the fact that it is, by all available observation, consistent. But congratulations on completely dodging the question.
God doesn't help you on that one either. Even if you assume God is real, all you've done is add a second layer - now you have to trust your senses, and you have to trust God.
That is completely incorrect. What you fail to acknowledge is that there is no objective evidence for creationism, and more than a century of evidence gathered that supports evolution. You are treating both as if they are theories of equal merit, but creationism isn't even on the level of a hypothesis (as it is not testable or capable of being disproven; both are negative traits). Should I consider the possibility that the creator of the universe is a giant Russian tortoise with rabbit ears and tiger claws equal to the probability of your ideal of a deity doing it? If you say no, then you are biased, because both of those possibilities are on equal footing, and have the same amount of evidence supporting them. The bible does not count as objective evidence, all religious texts purport to be true.
In your opinion. Also, "making sense to you" is not a prerequisite for something to be right. In my opinion, the various, weird flaws in nature make no sense from a creationist perspective. For example, why do humans have vestigial, useless remnants of a third eyelid at the corner of our eyes? From an evolutionary perspective, it makes perfect sense; the need for a third eyelid was lost, a mutation occurred that reduced the structure, and it spread throughout the population of one of our ancestral species, but the mutation didn't remove it entirely. But, from a creationist perspective, vestigial structures of any kind should not exist. What "perfect" design has structures that do nothing but take up resources? Nature makes mistakes, but many creationists practically brag about how "perfect" their creator is. You can't even pawn these structures off as some punishment for the fall, because they don't really hurt us either.
It was the first idea to come to mind, and some creationists are flat earthers, so I don't need to risk distraction in the conversation for the sake of a comparison.
Math doesn't work well when you start trying to calculate the probability of life existing, just because of all the unknown variables and the sheer size of our universe.
What you are literally asking for would be evidence in support of creationism more than evolution. Also, evolution and abiogenesis are separate from each other, and the legitimacy of one has nothing to do with that of the other.
Creation websites don't make money by advertising the competition. Additionally, Google search be your friend, you could look this stuff up and see for yourself rather than ask us to try to track down the specific sources we were referring to.
Just wanted to clarify, the Big Bang theory doesn't state that the universe came from nothing. It came from a singularity expanding out. Weirdly, within the universe, even "nothing" has properties too, isn't that strange?
Nope, the really bold statement has been made, so it's up to that person to show the rest of us where it came from. Also, I thought mathematics was one of the sciences - I'm pretty sure it is regarded as such here in the UK.
