Evolution vs Creation

[AV1611VET]

Yes, added during the McCarthy years. Now we know where AV's mind is.

Under God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If they see some of the problems caused by the drinking of alcohol then yes, can you disagree with the taking of crystal meth? have you ever taken crystal meth?

Why do you feel the need to clutch at every available straw?

I have never taken crystal meth, but I have known some people who did and when they were on it their method of argument based an amazing similarity to AV's. They could be wrong about very basic facts and when the facts were against them they would say the same as AV's "then science can take a hike".

Hmmm, is the Bible AV's crystal meth? I have noticed that many creationists worship the Bible more than they worship Jesus, thus breaking the First Commandment. I always thought that was a bit ironic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Under God?

Wrong, try again.

 

[Delphiki]

Is there a G-rated mnemonic phrase for this?

Dumb Kids Prefer Candy Over Fancy Green Salad.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, added during the McCarthy years. Now we know where AV's mind is.

You mean along with Californium, Einsteinium, Fermium, Mendelevium, and Nobelium?

Now we know where Subduction Zone's mind is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dumb Kids Prefer Candy Over Fancy Green Salad.

Thank you!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean along with Californium, Einsteinium, Fermium, Mendelevium, and Nobelium?

Now we know where Subduction Zone's mind is.

Incredibly wrong.

Come on AV, we know your type. You can openly admit it to us.

 

[AV1611VET]

Incredibly wrong.

Oh, really?

What years were they added?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, really?

What years were they added?

You took this out of context. Go back to my first post on this. Stop playing dumb.

 

[AV1611VET]

You took this out of context. Go back to my first post on this. Stop playing dumb.

You know better than to answer, don't you?

I'll go ahead and say it anyway:

Your point about the McCarthy years can take a hike.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know better than to answer, don't you?

I'll go ahead and say it anyway:

Your point about the McCarthy years can take a hike.

In other words I am right.

Thank you AV.

As we all know whenever AV is proven to be wrong to even AV's satisfaction he tells the opposition that their facts can take a hike. It is as close as even that he will admit to being wrong.

I can see him in my mind on Judgement Day when he tells God that his sins can "take a hike".

 

[mathetes123]

I don't, the majority of Christians are not anti-science, however creationists are forced by their beliefs to be anti-science,
which makes their beliefs selfish, ridiculous and anti-American.

Do you not realize that evolution is based on faith or have you or anyone ever observed evolution (macroevolution)?

 

[Ginger123]

Do you not realize that evolution is based on faith or have you or anyone ever observed evolution (macroevolution)?

You think that because you don't understand what evolution is, the only thing in this world that requires faith is religion.

I'll write that again in case you didn't read it, religion is the only thing in this world that requires us to have faith,
if you know or think you know of anything else please feel free to tell us what it is.

 

[mathetes123]

You think that because you don't understand what evolution is, the only thing in this world that requires faith is religion.

I'll write that again in case you didn't read it, religion is the only thing in this world that requires us to have faith,
if you know or think you know of anything else please feel free to tell us what it is.

Every time you ride on a plane you put your faith in the pilots ability to fly the plane and the mechanics ability to keep it in operating condition.

If you don't believe your belief in evolution is based on faith, please elaborate on the evidence that convinced you evolution was true!

 

[Ginger123]

Every time you ride on a plane you put your faith in the pilots ability to fly the plane and the mechanics ability to keep it in operating condition.

Do you? How many planes fly and have flown every day for years without a problem? you only get on a plane because you have experience and you know how safe they are also the pilot is up there with you, you use evidence not faith,
if you could see before you got on it that the plane was falling apart and the pilot was drunk THEN you would need faith.

If you don't believe your belief in evolution is based on faith, please elaborate on the evidence that convinced you evolution was true!

Amongst other things.
My doctor telling me that antibiotics were slowly losing their effectiveness because the germs were evolving and getting immune to the drugs, he could see it happening and we all know it's true, even you.

We do not use faith for ANYTHING other than religion, for EVERYTHING else we use EVIDENCE.

 

[lasthero]

Every time you ride on a plane you put your faith in the pilots ability to fly the plane and the mechanics ability to keep it in operating condition.

You're equivocating terms.

Right now, you're breathing. Every time you take a breath, you assume that you're breathing air...but that doesn't have to be the case. You could be breathing some odorless, poisonous gas. Such things do exist, and they have killed people before. Quite often, in fact.

You wouldn't say you have faith that you're breathing air. You have experience with it. All the air you've breathed so far hasn't been poisonous, there's no reason to think the next one will be. It could be, sure. But it's silly to assume it is without some sort of evidence to that. Just like it's silly to assume the next meal you eat is poisoned, or that your car is going to explode the next time you turn the ignition. These are all things that could happen, but you don't take it on faith that they won't. At the very least, it's not the same sort of faith you're talking about.

 

[Delphiki]

Every time you ride on a plane you put your faith in the pilots ability to fly the plane and the mechanics ability to keep it in operating condition.

The pilot's ability to succeed in safely bringing you to your destination can be reasonably demonstrated by the existing success rate of their existing safety record, the safety record of other pilots following the same procedures, the safety quality of the aircraft, and numerous other forms of evidence that gives fairly good insight on the likelihood of having a safe trip. These are forms of evidence.

On the other hand, nobody has ever demonstrated it to be possible that a life-harboring planet can be created in 6 days, or that such mythological creatures as deities even exist to do so in the first place. Snakes and donkeys don't talk, people can't walk on water, you need more than just water to make wine, and despite what Matthew 17:20 says, nobody has yet moved a mountain on the power of faith alone.

If you don't believe your belief in evolution is based on faith, please elaborate on the evidence that convinced you evolution was true!

Refer back to the first page of posts in this thread. All the evidence.. that is A-L-L the evidence found suggests that species arise through a process of variation and natural selection.

Whether we were there to witness it to a degree, first hand, that would satisfy you or not, doesn't change the fact that it happens. If being there to witness it were the only requirement for it to be true, then your creation stories not only also fail for the same reasons you think evolution does, but so do all the forensic investigations ever performed through history.

I suppose we should let almost all murderers and rapists in prison go free because you weren't there to see them commit the crime, right?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Every time you ride on a plane you put your faith in the pilots ability to fly the plane and the mechanics ability to keep it in operating condition.

If you don't believe your belief in evolution is based on faith, please elaborate on the evidence that convinced you evolution was true!

No.

I fly because I believe in science, and what it tells me about aerodynamics, combustion, and a myriad of other things.

I trust pilots because of their training. I wouldn't fly if a pilot didn't have proof of proper training.

 

[mathetes123]

The pilot's ability to succeed in safely bringing you to your destination can be reasonably demonstrated by the existing success rate of their existing safety record, the safety record of other pilots following the same procedures, the safety quality of the aircraft, and numerous other forms of evidence that gives fairly good insight on the likelihood of having a safe trip. These are forms of evidence.

On the other hand, nobody has ever demonstrated it to be possible that a life-harboring planet can be created in 6 days, or that such mythological creatures as deities even exist to do so in the first place. Snakes and donkeys don't talk, people can't walk on water, you need more than just water to make wine, and despite what Matthew 17:20 says, nobody has yet moved a mountain on the power of faith alone.




Refer back to the first page of posts in this thread. All the evidence.. that is A-L-L the evidence found suggests that species arise through a process of variation and natural selection.

Whether we were there to witness it to a degree, first hand, that would satisfy you or not, doesn't change the fact that it happens. If being there to witness it were the only requirement for it to be true, then your creation stories not only also fail for the same reasons you think evolution does, but so do all the forensic investigations ever performed through history.

I suppose we should let almost all murderers and rapists in prison go free because you weren't there to see them commit the crime, right?

Have you ever seen something come from nothing?

Have you ever seen life spontaneously develop from non life?

Have you ever seen information ever produced from a non-intelligent source?

 

[lasthero]

Have you ever seen something come from nothing?

Have you ever seen life spontaneously develop from non life?

Have you ever seen information ever produced from a non-intelligent source?

You do not need to directly witness an event to make a judgment about what happened. For instance, juries decided guilt or innocence, despite the fact that, by law, they can't have witnessed the crime firsthand or even been directly involved with the events. The whole point of forensics is to make judgment on events that weren't directly witnessed.

You can use evidence. Science does this all the time.

No one has ever been to the center of the Earth or even more than a few miles below the surface, but we know it's composition down to the core. No one has ever seen Pluto make a full orbit, but we can calculate where it was 1,000 years ago and where it will be in a 1,000 years. No one has directly observed an atom splitting, but we can make that happen and use it for weaponry.