- Dec 24, 2018
- 15,128
- 6,906
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
You want atheists to talk about god(s) they dont believe in? Thats crazy.
They do don't they?
*I know right.
Upvote
0
You want atheists to talk about god(s) they dont believe in? Thats crazy.
Genesis says 'according to their kinds.' The most relevant Merriam-Webster Definition of ‘according to’ here appears to be 'in conformity with or depending on.' Doesn't that constitute a barrier?
They do don't they?
*I know right.
No. The traditional Jewish interpretation is that it expresses the general orderliness of nature; figs don't grow on orange trees, cows do not give birth to sheep, that kind of thing. It also can be seen as expressing an important principle of evolution, the principle of reproductive similarity. That is, there is a limit to the differences between parent and offspring.Genesis says 'according to their kinds.' The most relevant Merriam-Webster Definition of ‘according to’ here appears to be 'in conformity with or depending on.' Doesn't that constitute a barrier?
Well, I just said 'in my opinion' because I didn’t want you to mistake me and my highly intellectual input for that of a renowned biologist.Your opinion is of no value in science. Its all about data and evidence.
All of the data and evidence support the ToE.
Well, I just said 'in my opinion' because I didn’t want you to mistake me and my highly intellectual input for that of a renowned biologist.
This despite there is no definitive long-term biological evidence to make it so.
No, it's just a left-handed attempt to perpetrate the big lie of creationism, that the theory of evolution denies the existence of God.
Scientists, academia, and a multitude of supporters accept macroevolution whole-heartedly. This despite there is no definitive long-term biological evidence to make it so. They defend and hold on to their belief and faith like the creationist does with Genesis. It sort of gives them a distinct natural world religion to cling to, in my opinion.
That’s all fine, but it doesn’t make macroevolution true. Why’s it so hard to accept there is an inability to show a definitive gradual transformation from the first soft-bodied metazoans to every living thing today (over hundreds of million years)? It’s impossible, and only speculation.What is "long-term" evidence? Evidence doesn't have either an expiration date when it goes bad or a graduation date when it gets better.
What there is is sufficient evidence, from multiple lines of inquiry, to establish the matter so conclusively that evolutionary theory is the best explanation of the evidence. The theory has withstood 150 years of probing and questioning, only to emerge stronger as we have learned more about the natural world.
I challenge you then to take your argument to a scientific forum, and present it to evolutionary scientists. Then copy and paste the convo or provide us a link. Easy enough to do. I promise that if you do so, and provide a link, I will follow the conversation. If you want to challenge an established scientific theory, do so with the scientists instead of preaching to the unaccredited choir here.Todd, like so many others, doesn’t seem to distinguish between micro and macro level evolution in the article. That makes evolutionists happy because they don’t like that separation (even deny it), and like to lead the unsuspecting with the inclusive phrase of ‘evolution.’ Of course, there’s “gobs and gobs,” as he says, of evidence, but in the observable microevolution sense only (in the form of adaptation). Macroevolution (gradual transformation from one kind to something altogether different) is another story (weak, speculative support only), and it imo requires faith.
That’s all fine, but it doesn’t make macroevolution true. Why’s it so hard to accept there is an inability to show a definitive gradual transformation from the first soft-bodied metazoans to every living thing today (over hundreds of million years)? It’s impossible, and only speculation.
Why’s it so hard to accept there is an inability to show a definitive gradual transformation from the first soft-bodied metazoans to every living thing today (over hundreds of million years)? It’s impossible, and only speculation.
Speculation as opposed to what? It's more than mere speculation in any case. There are enough pieces of the chain of development in evidence to make it at least a reasonable inference, and a plausible, tested mechanism capable of producing the entire sequence. Plus, there is no other other credible explanation for the evidence on hand, despite the fact that we don't have it all. As a provisional explanation (which is all scientific theories ever are, really) that's about as good as it gets in science.That’s all fine, but it doesn’t make macroevolution true. Why’s it so hard to accept there is an inability to show a definitive gradual transformation from the first soft-bodied metazoans to every living thing today (over hundreds of million years)? It’s impossible, and only speculation.
I thought I was in one.I challenge you then to take your argument to a scientific forum, and present it to evolutionary scientists.
There's some pretty knowlegeable evolutionists here... but, don't tell them I said that.If you want to challenge an established scientific theory, do so with the scientists instead of preaching to the unaccredited choir here.
No, its not speculation.
The science is very well supported and understood.
I guess what we should be discussing... is whether macroevolution qualifies as a religion, or not? As in the context of: despite lack of definitive evidence, there is an established system of faith in it, and a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.What we ought to be discussing in this thread is the psychology behind the creationist mindset in this regard.
Before you run away, why not tell us HOW mindless Nature inserted something it does not have, into the brains of animals, who magically change into Humans (descendants of Adam)? with the mind of God? Identify the process.
I guess what we should be discussing... is whether macroevolution qualifies as a religion, or not? As in the context of: despite lack of definitive evidence, there is an established system of faith in it, and a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
I’m not interested in talking to you.