10 Misconceptions About Evolution

[sfs]

I disagree.

If science wants to claim something happened in the past, while at the same time admitting that it can't be demonstrated in a lab or reproduced or whatever, then I contend they are walking by faith -- not by sight.

Yes, that is your claim. It's wrong. Science works by evidence. Events in the past leave evidence in the present, meaning that science can evaluate claims about the past. Your real complaint isn't that science works by sight -- that's how it observes the data from the past -- but that it works by looking at the natural world rather than by looking at one not especially good translation of a particular Hebrew text.

 

[sfs]

How many times have creationists forced evolutionists back to their drawing boards?

Never, that I know of. It's hard to convey to people here just how utterly indifferent the vast majority of working scientists are to creationist arguments.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, that is your claim. It's wrong. Science works by evidence. Events in the past leave evidence in the present, meaning that science can evaluate claims about the past.

In other words, the past is the key to the present -- right?

The uniformitarianism vs catastrophism argument? or "natural processes" vs "miracles"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In other words, the past is the key to the present -- right?

The uniformitarianism vs catastrophism argument? or "natural processes" vs "miracles"?

Or rather: tangible evidence versus claims.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Sigh, no one liked my Origin of Alexandria joke.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or rather: tangible evidence versus claims.

If you're going to go that route, word it like you understand:

"Tangible evidence vs intangible evidence."

But I know why you chose the word you did.

You're no different than anyone else.

 

[BCP1928]

If you're going to go that route, word it like you understand:

"Tangible evidence vs intangible evidence."

But I know why you choose the word you did.

You're no different than anyone else.

All you have is claims.

 

[AV1611VET]

All you have is claims.

As opposed to a philosophy built on more missing links than the military has MIAs?

 

[NxNW]

As opposed to a philosophy built on more missing links than the military has MIAs?

Another misconception.

 

[BCP1928]

As opposed to a philosophy built on more missing links than the military has MIAs?

Evolution is not a :"philosophy" and it is not built on missing links--or even those found, for that matter.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you're going to go that route, word it like you understand:

"Tangible evidence vs intangible evidence."

But I know why you chose the word you did.

You're no different than anyone else.

But you don't have evidence though, you especially. All you have are claims.

 

[AV1611VET]

Another misconception.

Really?

Then how many links are there between Neanderthal and y-Adam?

(I'm looking for a number.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is not a :"philosophy" and it is not built on missing links--or even those found, for that matter.

You're right.

It's a "theory," and it "blue lines"* over those "missing links."

* Notice the blue lines in this picture?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're right.

It's a "theory," and it "blue lines"* over those "missing links."

* Notice the blue lines in this picture?

View attachment 367881

Watch you don't choke on that bone you're chewing on.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you don't have evidence though, you especially. All you have are claims.

I think it really bothers the academic world that God can perform miracles that don't leave evidence behind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Watch you don't choke on that bone you're chewing on.

At least it's not a missing link.

(I really don't care for that term, as it implies there may have been links in the past, but are MIA.

They are "missing" because they were never there in the first place.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think it really bothers the academic world that God can perform miracles that don't leave evidence behind.

You can think that sure, but it's definitely not the case.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

At least it's not a missing link.

(I really don't care for that term, as it implies there may have been links in the past, but are MIA.

They are "missing" because they were never there in the first place.)

And here's kind of a nice mask off moment from you: you don't even actually care.

Why are you even arguing?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why are you even arguing?

Because I'm being told by the academic world that what I believe is based on misconceptions.

And even if they ARE misconceptions -- big deal.

It's a man-made theory that isn't Biblical.

So I don't need to conceive it correctly.

It may be correct on litmus paper, but it isn't correct on God's paper.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because I'm being told by the academic world that what I believe is based on misconceptions.

And even if they ARE misconceptions -- big deal.

It's a man-made theory that isn't Biblical.

So I don't need to conceive it correctly.

It may be correct on litmus paper, but it isn't correct on God's paper.

You mean it's not correct to YOUR singular, insular and myopic interpretation of the Bible.