The evidence for Evolution.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then it looks like you're SOL, doesn't it?

* short on luck

No, it's you.

 

[Loudmouth]

All I have to "prove" is scientific myopia.

Then prove that those things happened.

Not believing in made up stores does not make you myopic. It makes you sane.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then prove that those things happened.

That would take a time machine, not special glasses.

So either way, you're SOL.

Or, to put it another way: myopic.

 

[Loudmouth]

That would take a time machine, not special glasses.

So either way, you're SOL.

Or, to put it another way: myopic.

That isn't what myopic means.

 

[AV1611VET]

That isn't what myopic means.

I know.

That was actually my point.

What you wanted requires one to go back in time.

What I want you guys to do is produce something that can do something tomorrow.

 

[dad]

If you claim you came from dust, you have no knowledge of science whatsoever and are not in any position to debate science.

I do not claim we came from dust under present nature with no God. Gong.

 

[dad]

How do you know they received? It's not like people die and then tell you if they are in Heaven. All you can do is take the word of the same people who are trying to sell you the product - and that gives them a HUGE incentive to say you'll get it even if you never will.

I know because I received.

 

[dad]

As Descartes said so long ago, we can never be certain of knowing anything beyond that we are thinking entities.

Yet the big bang and evolution of man from little worm or whatever is taught as fact. If they do not know and still teach that what does that make them...by your own standards?

But if the world we seem to observe behaves in sufficiently consistent ways that we can model and predict its other behaviours, and we find those predictions are correct and that various other discoveries are also consistent with our models, then we are justified in provisionally accepting those models as correct, within limits.

Circular nonsense. In other words, we look at the nature today and have tried to force all things to be consistent with that!

The universe we observe does appear to behave as if the laws of nature, and the passage of time, are fairly consistent and predictable to the limits of our ability to detect and model them.

All things always must appear here. How else could they appear HERE??

 

[dad]

There is only one problem, no one can find any of this evidence, if Jesus did exist why is it only recorded in the Bible, his life and the things he did must have been so unimpressive they passed every other writer by and was not recorded anywhere else, I'm just saying.

I find it every day actually, so do millions of others. To Not find is to not seek.

 

[dad]

I love it, how creationists can "accuse" biology of being "but a religion"... as if religion is a bad thing.

I agree religion is a bad thing, but you gotta love the irony.

Biology exists now...not at creation.

 

[Kylie]

Because science and observation said so, or because you think Joshua said so?

Because I don't see how they could have come to the conclusion that the Earth orbited the sun rather than the other way around.

Of course, I did say "I think" so I am not claiming to know it for a fact. If anyone can show me evidence that people back then were aware that the earth went around the sun instead of vice versa, I'd be happy to change my views.

 

[Kylie]

I do not claim we came from dust under present nature with no God. Gong.

Yes yes yes, we know all about your different state past idea. You have yet to give any good reason why we should accept it.

But I never stated what state it was, did I? So please don't misrepresent my position, okay?

 

[Kylie]

I know because I received.

Did you die?

You realise I was talking about receiving eternal life in Heaven, yes? How are you able to communicate if you are dead? And if you are not dead, you have not received. All you have is, at best, an assurance that you will receive when you do die.

 

[AV1611VET]

If anyone can show me evidence that people back then were aware that the earth went around the sun instead of vice versa, I'd be happy to change my views.

Guilty of geocentrism until proven otherwise ... right?

Didn't God & Adam walk and talk in the Garden?

I wonder what they talked about?

You don't suppose God mentioned to Adam how the solar system operated, do you?

Naaah ... why steal Copernicus' thunder?

 

[Kylie]

Guilty of geocentrism until proven otherwise ... right?

Didn't God & Adam walk and talk in the Garden?

I wonder what they talked about?

You don't suppose God mentioned to Adam how the solar system operated, do you?

Naaah ... why steal Copernicus' thunder?

I see you don't mind making stuff up here...

 

[AV1611VET]

I see you don't mind making stuff up here...

Not at all.

Not when it comes to you guys' Jews-were-ignorant spiels.

 

[dad]

Yes yes yes, we know all about your different state past idea. You have yet to give any good reason why we should accept it.

But I never stated what state it was, did I? So please don't misrepresent my position, okay?

You actually talked about the dust thing.

Here is your post..

"If you claim you came from dust, you have no knowledge of science whatsoever and are not in any position to debate science."

God formed man from the dust of the earth long before there was any science. Those who think otherwise do not know what they are talking about.

 

[dad]

Did you die?

You realise I was talking about receiving eternal life in Heaven, yes? How are you able to communicate if you are dead? And if you are not dead, you have not received. All you have is, at best, an assurance that you will receive when you do die.

I have eternal life NOW. Those that believe will never die. The moving on from the old physical body is like clipping a fingernail, and it falls to the ground. We are not that fingernail...or this body. Both served a purpose and were a part of us for awhile.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yet the big bang and evolution of man from little worm or whatever is taught as fact. If they do not know and still teach that what does that make them...by your own standards?

I try to adopt the standards of science, which has no absolute certainties or proofs outside the analytic (mathematics and logic). For me, a fact is something that corresponds to a state of affairs that exists or has existed in the real world beyond reasonable doubt. To establish something beyond reasonable doubt requires a high standard of evidence.

Circular nonsense. In other words, we look at the nature today and have tried to force all things to be consistent with that!

No, it's not circular at all - we model aspects of the observable world, verify the model by making novel predictions and confirming them, then use the model to predict what we should expect to find if it applies in circumstances to which it has not previously been applied (e.g. the past). The more predictions our model makes that are satisfied in the real world, the more justification we have for confidence that it is a good model of those circumstances.

What's the problem?

All things always must appear here. How else could they appear HERE??

I don't see how that relates to the point it's responding to, what do you mean?

 

[Kylie]

Not at all.

Not when it comes to you guys' Jews-were-ignorant spiels.

So you're not really KJV-only then, are you?

You're KJV-and-whatever-I-make-up only.