Evolution without the evidence

[npetreley]

Forget the question of just fossil evidence. Assuming there was NO evidence for evolution (and there isn't), would that shake your faith in evolution? Wouldn't you evolutionists believe it anyway? Oh yeah....you do believe it anyway...

(Emily Litella voice) Never mind.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Assuming there was NO evidence for evolution (and there isn't), would that shake your faith in evolution?

Well, since there isn't (and we have it on good authority), we need not assume that there is NO evidence for evolution. We already know there is none, because someone who is much smarter than any of us told us so. He is keeping secret why all of the "so-called" "evidence" compiled by scientists for the last 100 years really supports sudden creation, but if he told all of his secrets then he wouldn't be able to patent them and make gazillions of dollars, would he.

So he can be excused from actually demonstrating this, since we know he is smarter than all of the scientists who have been doing this work for the last 100 years and that he can be trusted to tell us the truth about the lack of evidence for evolution, the 16% of the geologic column, trilobite footprints, human eggs being produced late in life, geochronology 'problems' with Ambulocetus, etc., etc..

Anyway, since we have had it revealed to us that there is no evidence for evolution, the obvious thing to do is to now worship Nick Petreley. He is the only guy I know nearly smart enough to create all of us.

Give me your commandments, oh Nick.

 

[David Gould]

Originally posted by npetreley
Forget the question of just fossil evidence. Assuming there was NO evidence for evolution (and there isn't), would that shake your faith in evolution? Wouldn't you evolutionists believe it anyway? Oh yeah....you do believe it anyway...

(Emily Litella voice) Never mind.

If there was no evidence for evolution, it would not even have been thought of as an idea...

The whole point is that people looked around, saw things and tried to work out a way that explained them. Evolution explained them better than any other idea.

The evidence therefore came before the theory.

Get it?

Oh, yeah... I must be a lying Evilutionist Villain...

 

[Joe V.]

Gosh, Nick, I don't know why you think your arguments and claims of no evidence are so much more persuasive.

- Joe

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley
Forget the question of just fossil evidence. Assuming there was NO evidence for evolution (and there isn't), would that shake your faith in evolution? Wouldn't you evolutionists believe it anyway? Oh yeah....you do believe it anyway...

Suprising as it might seem to you, Nick, evolution is not a position of faith. It is science. Therefore, like gravity, the concept probably wouldn't exist if there wasn't evidence for it. (Although, some philsophers and fiction writers might occationally dream it up.) Furthermore, if there were evidence contradictioning it, then it would not survive as a valid scientific concept, just as special creation didn't over 100 years ago.

So, no, Nick we wouldn't believe it without evidence or in spite of it. Maybe you have wrapped your faith around the question of origins so much that you can't comprehend how people manage to not do the same.

I'm wondering if you're planning on taking this thread somewhere.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley
Forget the question of just fossil evidence. Assuming there was NO evidence for evolution (and there isn't), would that shake your faith in evolution? Wouldn't you evolutionists believe it anyway? Oh yeah....you do believe it anyway...

(Emily Litella voice) Never mind.

I don't have any faith in evolution. If there's no evidence for it, then it's a bad theory, and should be rightly rejected. You make it sound like we'd all dogmatically believe in it, evidence or no evidence. That is an admitted Creationist trait, not an evolutionist one.

 

[Morat]

  Why would I believe in it without evidence, anymore than I believe in philgiston or ether theory?

 

[blader]

Awfully quiet now. Not quite the answers you wanted, petreley?

 

[Mid]

ah, blader, but you must admit that you are contradicting yourself. You say that if there is no evidence then something is a bad theory. Look at religion, no evidence, is it a bad theory? according to what you are saying, yes, it is REGARDLESS of the religion.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Mid,

I don't think that the statement is contradictory at all...

I'm a Christian, but I'll also be the first to admit that there is little to no testable and legaly admissable evidence for my Belief in it. If it were a scientific theory it would be shot down in a heartbeat for it's lack of supporting evidence. But in religions,no evidence is needed at all, so like all other religions Christianity is safe.

Unlike some like to think, there is a vast difference between science and religion.

 

[Cantuar]

Forget the question of just fossil evidence. Assuming there was NO evidence for evolution (and there isn't), would that shake your faith in evolution? Wouldn't you evolutionists believe it anyway? Oh yeah....you do believe it anyway...

Sounds like a question from someone unclear on the whole concept of science. If there were no evidence for anything to do with evolution, we'd have never even heard of it, never mind have faith in it; instead, we'd be being challenged about whatever scientific theory DID explain the evidence and upset the prevailing fundamentalist religious belief in the process.

 

[shibboleth]

It's just my opinion, but:
I believe that science is also a religion.
Scientific authorities can be just as dogmatic as church leaders.

A Minister of my youth used to say
"Just show me a fish getting up out of the water and walking along the beach, and I might believe in evolution."

Reverend Moore, I think of you every time I see one of Florida's walking catfish.

Evolution within a species?
Lots of evidence in fossil records.

New species developing from old?
Never seen any concrete evidence.

That's just my belief, and what is religion except our beliefs?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Evolution within a species?
Lots of evidence in fossil records.

And in living organisms too.

New species developing from old?
Never seen any concrete evidence.

Its there: in the fossil record and in the lab and field.

Not to mention that it follows inescapably from the theory of evolution - a theory which has been confirmed over and over... Not to mention the strong evidence of universal common descent which would require new species developing from old species.

That's just my belief, and what is religion except our beliefs?

I bet you have some beliefs that are not correctly described as being religious ones.. For instance - do you have a car? You probably believe that you do (or else you believe that you don't). Either way - you probably have a belief, and one that would be silly to call "religion".

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Mid
ah, blader, but you must admit that you are contradicting yourself. You say that if there is no evidence then something is a bad theory. Look at religion, no evidence, is it a bad theory? according to what you are saying, yes, it is REGARDLESS of the religion.

I was talking about science. Religion is not science, and hence requires no evidence. Evolution is not a religion, and therefore requires evidence. What's so contradictory?