Is there any evidence for evolution?

[lesliedellow]

Science was exclusively deductive until the scientific revolution and none of the contributors too what is now called sciences thought it was mutually exclusive with Christian conviction chief.

The ancient Greeks may have believed that science could be deductive, but then they thought the four elements were earth, wind, fire and water. Science only took off when it started to use abductive reasoning, framing hypotheses on the basis of observations, and then testing those hypotheses.

You have just demonstrated how very little you understand science.

 

[mark kennedy]

It isnt. Many scientists are religious.

Many professing Christians are unbelievers.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yeah, here's the funny thing: you keep saying this a lot... but you have never, ever, EVER shown that it's real. You just repeat this claims ad nauseam and when called out on it, you go on the defensive. Without ever showing that what you say is right.

You haven't called me out on squat you just spam a lot of scathing personal remarks for a melodramatic effect. Not one of you has the intellectual vigor to read let alone expound anything remotely scientific.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You haven't called me out on squat you just spam a lot of scathing personal remarks for a melodramatic effect. Not one of you has the intellectual vigor to read let alone expound anything remotely scientific.

And you've just done EXACTLY what I predicted you would: instead of actually responding to the message with an actual example of evolution being neither a scientific theory or a hypothesis, you go on the defensive and claim that everyone is beneath you.

So again: do you have any evidence for your claim that the theory of evolution is neither a scientific theory or a hypothesis?

 

[lesliedellow]

Many professing Christians are unbelievers.

As somebody on another forum once said, "When you finished with the Lord's judgement seat, he would quite like it back."

 

[lesliedellow]

Not one of you has the intellectual vigor to read let alone expound anything remotely scientific.

And he thinks he has! Oh my, that coming from somebody who doesn't even know what the scientific method is.

 

[mark kennedy]

The ancient Greeks may have believed that science could be deductive, but then they thought the four elements were earth, wind, fire and water. Science only took off when it started to use abductive reasoning, framing hypotheses on the basis of observations, and then testing those hypotheses.

You have just demonstrated how very little you understand science.

The ancient Greeks invented the philosophies you know as science and math. Science did not change it was inverted the way the way the American revolution inverted political power. What changed we're the mental and physical tools like telescopes and microscopes. There were two books on the first philosophy now known as science. Decarte wrote one that introduced algebra and Newtons that introduced science to calculas included an intelligent design argument.

 

[VirOptimus]

Many professing Christians are unbelievers.

Let me guess, the ones that accept common descent?

 

[VirOptimus]

You haven't called me out on squat you just spam a lot of scathing personal remarks for a melodramatic effect. Not one of you has the intellectual vigor to read let alone expound anything remotely scientific.

Well then mr intellectual vigor. Start writing.

You do know that if you manage to disprove common descent you will be set for life. Fame, wealth and a place in history is assured.

 

[lesliedellow]

The ancient Greeks invented the philosophies you know as science and math.

The ancient Greeks scientific ideas had to be comprehensively ditched before modern science could get underway. They made some contributions to mathematics, but they did not invent it, and mathematics has come a very long way since the days of Euclid.

Descarte wrote one that introduced algebra and Newtons that introduced science to calculas included an intelligent design argument.

Descarte's contribution was to introduce Cartesian Geometry. Leibnitz and Newton developed two different approaches to calculus at about the same time. The approach of Leibnitz was closer than that of Newton to the approach used by present day mathematicians.

Newton was undoubtedly a very religious man, but his theology was highly unorthodox, and there is nothing in his scientific theories which has anything to do with intelligent design.

 

[AV1611VET]

And you are of the mammal kind.

Am I a person?

 

[lesliedellow]

Am I a person?

Sure, and you are also a mammal.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure, and you are also a mammal.

Are angels persons?

 

[lesliedellow]

Are angels persons?

The Bible represents them as being so.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible represents them as being so.

Are they mammals too, in your opinion?

 

[lesliedellow]

Are they mammals too, in your opinion?

They would not appear to fit the definition, since they are not, amongst other things, warm blooded vertebrate.

 

[mark kennedy]

And he thinks he has! Oh my, that coming from somebody who doesn't even know what the scientific method is.

I know exactly what it is and it's an epistemology

You have had this explained to you several times.

Begging the question isn't an answer, there are still tons of actual evidence being ignored and buried in this avalanche of diversionary comments.

Metaphysics is not allowed in science. As soon as you introduce metaphysics you loose the scientific debate.

That's because metaphysics is deductive and it's a diversion from the actual inductive methodology. Darwinism is the culprit here.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Still waiting on @mark kennedy to show us the evidence he has that the theory of evolution is neither a scientific theory or a hypothesis.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Are they mammals too, in your opinion?

An interesting question. There is no doubt they appeared at times in our form; but we could have doubts as to whether that was their natural form or an assumed form for the purpose of meeting with us.

I lean towards the latter view.

 

[mark kennedy]

Still waiting on @mark kennedy to show us the evidence he has that the theory of evolution is neither a scientific theory or a hypothesis.

That's called asking the question in circles, typical fallacious rhetoric, try again.