If evolution is true...

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Your claim, you do the poll.

Billions have accepted evolution. Do you really think they all understand it?

So you reject facts because of your mere beliefs.

Just perusing anatomy studies is strong evidence of creation.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Billions have accepted evolution. Do you really think they all understand it?
No, probably not. They accept it like they accept other scientific theories--provisionally, as long as it produces practical results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldWiseGuy
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Why by necessity? There are many true things that not everyone believes.

If evolution were proven true one would have no other choice but to believe it. Same with creation. As it is the evidence seems to point to both, leaving us a choice.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Your response still doesn't get me any further to answering my question. But I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything else. :swoon:

Don't worry about it, OldWiseGuy.

It's very clear no matter how relevant the answer, if it's not what the OP wants to hear, it will not be considered and answer at all.

The original question:


Has anyone else noticed that when someone starts a question/argument with "if evolution is true..." that what follows invariably has nothing to do with how evolution actually works?

Why is that?

The absolutely relative answer:

I know, right? When that happens I constantly try to get the evolutionist to prove it works by showing us how it works, problem is, it never works, it always falls apart, so I guess they just stopped trying.

Would you like to do that now, minus the usual excuses? Start with the first form of life if you would please, and bring us up to date. If you can't do that, I'd be willing to look at whatever the presentation.

Goody, I just know it'll happen this time!

Then the denial because it's not the answer the OP had hoped for:

Unless you have something relevant to say re: the OP, go find another thread to troll Kenny.

So any claims you haven't answered the question unfortunately have to be taken with a grain of salt, making the original post a bit confusing. It should have been worded, following "Why is that?" "But don't waste your time answering if you even think your response might be something I'd rather not hear, as such a reply will be considered irrelevant by me and automatically by others on my side, regardless the actual relevance."

I suppose we "shouldn't have expected anything else":swoon:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I think he's saying that it only relies on that. When a criminologist comes up with a theory it's based on the hard evidence, and then seek out to prove it. I'm no expert, but just saying, "Okay this guy fits the profile, and these things appear to show that X is guilty." isn't enough to convict, those thigns can then be used to gather evidence like searching the guys apartment for blood stained clothes or such, but just inferences from the data shouldn't be enough to convict.

If I may, the only conclusion/solution these professionals arrive at is that they need more funding for their department.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
If evolution were proven true one would have no other choice but to believe it. Same with creation. As it is the evidence seems to point to both, leaving us a choice.
Scientific theories are never "proven true." They are only confirmed provisionally pending new evidence.
No evidence points towards creation. The only reason to believe it is if your faith in the literal inerrancy of Genesis is so strong that you can deny the evidence.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Scientific theories are never "proven true." They are only confirmed provisionally pending new evidence.
No evidence points towards creation. The only reason to believe it is if your faith in the literal inerrancy of Genesis is so strong that you can deny the evidence.

Genesis is a good starting point. Confirmation comes from studying the evidence.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Scientific theories are never "proven true." They are only confirmed provisionally pending new evidence.

IOW, it is not true it's been scientifically proven the Twin Towers came crashing down, it's only confirmed provisionally pending new evidence.

Beyond ridiculous cop out excuse for not being able to prove evolution. Any scientist who agrees with that...well, lets just say, are these the actual people that theorize evolution exists? :eek:

:rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
8,118
4,528
✟269,140.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Genesis is a good starting point. Confirmation comes from studying the evidence.

I wouldn't say it's the same level of evidence, but at best it's evidence creation happened, but not how it happened. I look to what the world shows of gods creation, rather them sticking to my own flawed interpetation of the bible. I know I could be wrong about the bible, so I stick with what the science shows.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
IOW, it is not true it's been scientifically proven the Twin Towers came crashing down, because we might find new evidence in the future that never happened.

Beyond ridiculous cop out excuse for not being able to prove evolution. Any scientist who agrees with that...well, lets just say, are these the actual people that theorize evolution exists? :eek:

:rolleyes:
That the twin towers came crashing down is an event, not a conclusion. They came crashing down. That's a fact. It's evidence. How they came to crash down s a conclusion. "Who dunnit" is a conclusion which might change with new evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That the twin towers came crashing down is an event, not a conclusion.

Please, stop it.

It's an event just as things evolving would be an event. And no one said an event is a conclusion, where did you get that from?

It's an event that was observed, confirmed, and concluded it happened.

I knew the attempt to thwart that would be entertaining , but I had no idea, lol
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
That the twin towers came crashing down is an event, not a conclusion. They came crashing down. That's a fact. It's evidence. How they came to crash down s a conclusion. "Who dunnit" is a conclusion which might change with new evidence.

It's quite revealing the disconnect in how he thinks science works that Kenny'sID's example reveals, isn't it?
 
Upvote 0