Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Evolution is already proven.
And it has taken humans 16 000 to come up with your dog.
in science, outside of mathematics, you cannot proof a theory. other then that, there is nothing quite as boring as preforming a experiment that serves only to add more evidence to the mountain that we already have. if you can disproof evolution, that is stuf that would be wildly exciting and something you can build your career out of.
the only people that want more evidence are not going to believe the evidence anyway because they base their disbelieve on religious grounds and have no interest in changing their mind. So there really isn't much of a reason.
the only people that want more evidence [of God] are not going to believe the evidence anyway because they base their disbelieve on religious grounds and have no interest in changing their mind. So there really isn't much of a reason.
I don't think you understand what mutations are in regards to evolutionary theory. They are not necessarily large-scale alterations that give something like out of Total Recall. A mutation may merely be a slightly shorter snout on your dog (or longer) that is selected for. It depends on the breed.
Regardless, your dog was "created" in about 100 years through selection, the underlying process of evolution. That it was directed by man rather than nature is pretty much irrelevant to the process itself.
Evolution is one of the best supported theories in science.
The fruit fly experiments adding data that there are real constraints in how far mutations can go in biological systems.
When I searched for the best books on evolution I found about 100, the majority by 5 authors. Searching for Zombie movies I found 500 by about 500 authors. So the "People become Zombies theory" is better supported.
Source? Fruit flies have already been speciated dozens of times. If you think we're trying to change them from one thing into another, pre-determined thing, you severely misunderstand what they're actually doing, and how evolution works.
You know, if evolution was the mechanism God used to create man, atheists would be out of arguments really fast.
If that could be shown conclusively, then yup. They'd still have been right about evolution, though (except for the few atheists who reject it).
Conversely, it it could be shown conclusively tht evolution is a wholly natural mechanism, Creationists/IDists/YECers would be out of arguments really fast, too.
Unfortunately, God using evolution to create man has not been conclusively shown, so we have a plethora of arguments.
The problem is, your standard of "conclusive" is set at a level science doesn't even itself claim. So that's the first problem.
Secondly, there are other arguments for God than what the Creationists/IDists/YECers and atheists tend to discuss on web sites.
But you don't know my standard of conclusive.I accept evolution, gravity, the age of the Earth, all sorts of other science because I accept that they have been conclusively demonstated. So clearly my standard is not beyond science.
Oh, I know, that's why I said Creationists/IDists/YECers rather than theists or Christians. I wasn't talking about arguments for/against god, but rather their arguments against evolution.
But, if science won't tell us, and you're interested in the question, then you'd have to arrive at God through another line of reasoning. Otherwise we and everyone else debating this or that scientific implication could be just spinning their wheels.
But I believe that science can and does tell us about the existence of god, namely that he doesn't exist.
And for me, it's pretty conclusive, depending on just how one defines god. Strict Biblical literalism - conclusive non-existence. Vague, general deism - not conclusive either way, so I stick with the null.
Arriving at God must come from another line of reasoning, and to get the specific God of Christianity, that entire line of reasoning is pretty much the Bible and accepting its veracity. I also think science can address that veracity.
I'd be happy to discuss the scientific nature of my lack of belief in god's existence. Most of it boils down to things that we would expect to see if God existed, but don't.
And what exactly would we expect to see if God existed, but don't? World peace? The end to all human suffering? A single unified religion? Better science? No Atheists?I'd be happy to discuss the scientific nature of my lack of belief in god's existence. Most of it boils down to things that we would expect to see if God existed, but don't.
And what exactly would we expect to see if God existed, but don't? World peace? The end to all human suffering? A single unified religion? Better science? No Atheists?
Where? You claimed my argument boiled down to "We're here, so X must be true. It's a tautology. You're answering the question "how did we get here with an infinite past" by saying "we're here".", but as I stated in the next post, that is not my argument at all. My point is that the problem of 'how did we get to now?' doesn't make sense, because a) 'now' is wherever it is we happen to be, and b) we don't 'get here', because that implies an origin point, which doesn't exist in this hypothetical, eternal universe.I did refute it. You used fallacious logic (namely a tautology).
The 'present' is a volume in 4D spacetime, nothing more.The conditioned present can only arise when it's conditions are complete.
Why not?If the conditions are infinite, they can never be complete.
Okay then, prove it.
Isn't that the standard line? Most scientists and even published atheists admit that science doesn't prove any such thing. It's what atheists tell themselves to feel more secure in the conclusion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?