proving evolution as just a "theory"

[_-iconoclast-_]

Then there is no evidence. 'Faith', by its very nature, exists regardless of evidence. Read your bible, it plainly says so.

If that's all you have underpinning your particular creation story, then it holds no more truth than the 40 or 50 others that mankind has invented throughout history...

Cheers for reply.

Then this is a question of faith. Lets look at the validity of faith.

Have you not experienced faith being rewarded in your life in some form?

For instance. Trust and hope in someone - love?

What form of evidence would make you believe there is a God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cheers for reply.

Then this is a question of faith. Lets look at the validity of faith.

Have you not experienced faith being rewarded in your life in some form?

For instance. Trust and hope in someone - love?

What form of evidence would make you believe there is a God?

You still do not seem to understand what faith is. Faith is not trust. When you love someone they have almost always earned that trust. When people love someone without valid reasons, and that happens quite often for the emotionally immature, they are surprised and hurt when their "love" betrays them.

And an all knowing all powerful God would know what evidence was necessary to convince someone of his existence. Why has he not done so for the atheists?

 

[pitabread]

What a load of bunk.
Everything declares the creation. It is self evident and marvellous except to the blind and fools.

 

[TheBear]

That all evolutionary biologists are atheists is just another example of creationists' head in the sand, "say it enough times and that will make it true," nonsense.

You bring up a valid point.

A recurring theme with some people around here is - if you accept evolution, you're an atheist. Also, if you're not a Christian, you're an atheist. Of course, this flies in the face of reality, and shows their confusion on the topic.

 

[Hieronymus]

You bring up a valid point.

A recurring theme with some people around here is - if you accept evolution, you're an atheist. Also, if you're not a Christian, you're an atheist. Of course, this flies in the face of reality, and shows their confusion on the topic.

Then you must have an answer to this question:
Why would a theist (a supernaturalist) subscribe to naturalistic (atheistic) ideas?

 

[Hieronymus]

Then there is no evidence. 'Faith', by its very nature, exists regardless of evidence. Read your bible, it plainly says so.

Speak for yourself.
I don't believe anything without strong evidence.
How about you?

 

[Kenny'sID]

So Kenny'sID, why do you think common descent makes accurate predictions and special creation doesn't?

Why do you think no one here has addressed the OP? Is
evolution fact or theory?

If I answered that, would it answer that question point blank or is it just a distraction that sounds wise to the unaware but in the end means little or nothing to subject?

 

[Jimmy D]

Then you must have an answer to this question:
Why would a theist (a supernaturalist) subscribe to naturalistic (atheistic) ideas?

Because no one actually thinks that modern biology is atheistic, apart from creationists who resort to these childish straw men.

 

[pitabread]

Then you must have an answer to this question:
Why would a theist (a supernaturalist) subscribe to naturalistic (atheistic) ideas?

Theists subscribe to natural ideas all the time. Or do you still believe that lightning is the result of an angry god chucking bolts of electricity from the heavens?

Also, keep in mind that 'natural' and 'atheistic' (in terms of metaphysical atheism) aren't quite the same thing.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Show me how you can provide "proof positive" for any theory in science...!

I already gave a very simple explanation for that with the "burned hand", and someone actually had the nerve to say it was wrong as a desperate attempt to do away with the fact things can be proven easily and beyond any doubt.

I really would like you all to take a close look at that whole scenario BTW. Go back and read the comment, and see for yourself how Sarah (And this isn't about Psycho Sarah, it could have been anyone. Things like that are just what y'all do) and how they tried to provide reasoning things cannot be proven, implying we don't have to try to prove evolution...we should just go with it as fact.

That's what I mean when I claim "tricky", and it is just that. Then, at least realize for certain what nonsense is being relied on here to make your point, but even with that, that you still haven't been able to stand up and call Evolution fact.

This is how "science" acts but as I've always said, it isn't science, it's people and how they act. They sway things with trickery from start to finish, salt it with some truth and there you have it. Some of you have been cheated into believing this nonsense. This is just one small example, keep a close eye on em' you can see it if you want to see it.

Not being provable is not the truth so, no, you cannot rely on that excuse for your shortcomings in this.

 

[Kenny'sID]

In science, there is nothing "more than" a theory...

Then your science ain't Jack, or some of you are doing something wrong because science, our deduction of the natural...proves plenty.

OK children, let's all go over to this red hot stove for our first lesson in Science and Proof 101.... a lesson you will never forget.

Nothing more than theory?....oh brother.

 

[Hieronymus]

Theists subscribe to natural ideas all the time.

I said naturalistic.
Let me give you the definition again:
Naturalism = the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

Or do you still believe that lightning is the result of an angry god chucking bolts of electricity from the heavens?

Great cheap shot based on a misquote.
Apparently you don't appreciate the difference between the natural sciences which are applicable to our natural reality, and pursuing answers about the origins and facilitation of our natural reality.

Also, keep in mind that 'natural' and 'atheistic' (in terms of metaphysical atheism) aren't quite the same thing.

Why don't you read it again and try to answer the question.
You now have the definition of naturalism.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sorry, but one person in history did.

I don't consider credulity to be a virtue. But, for the sake of an argument, maybe an illiterate Jewish construction worker was in fact killed by Romans two thousand years ago, and did in fact walk out of a tomb... so what?

 

[HitchSlap]

the chromosomal fusion is evidence for a common descent?

Yep.

 

[pitabread]

Great cheap shot based on a misquote.
Apparently you don't appreciate the difference between the natural sciences which are applicable to our natural reality, and pursuing answers about the origins and facilitation of our natural reality.Why don't you read it again and try to answer the question.

It wasn't so much intended as a 'cheap shot' as a simple fact that theists subscribe to natural ideas, including biological evolution.

Or to put it another way, evolution is not the same thing as atheism (per your definition). Unless you are lumping all other sciences in with atheism, which would seem a bit silly.

 

[Hieronymus]

It wasn't so much intended as a 'cheap shot' as a simple fact that theists subscribe to natural ideas, including biological evolution.

They may not realise, just like you apparently, that it's naturalism, see the definition.
They just think it's science, without that presupposition behind it.

 

[pitabread]

They may not realise, just like you apparently, that it's naturalism, see the definition.
They just think it's science, without that presupposition behind it.

You appear to be conflating methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism (or metaphysical atheism). They aren't the same thing.

Evolution no more requires one to become an atheist than plate tectonics.

 

[xianghua]

You appear to be conflating methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism (or metaphysical atheism). They aren't the same thing.

Evolution no more requires one to become an atheist than plate tectonics.

are you agree that evolution is basically a natural process?

 

[pitabread]

are you agree that evolution is basically a natural process?

Insofar as the observable mechanisms as to how it works, yes it is. Point?

 

[HitchSlap]

are you agree that evolution is basically a natural process?

Driven by sexual and natural selection, yes.