- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,976
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
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.
And left the others untouched.
Will you accept the same sort of argumentation, i.e., proving one thing in the bible wrong negates thew whole thing? I'm betting no.
You are unaware that they DO post big problems in MANY humans?
My wife had hers pulled a few years ago, after a few sleepless nights of extreme pains.
No, but it shows that you don't actually care about the information at any rate. Even if the article clearly and tacitly says "This is all due to evolution", you'll still proclaim that it's evidence of design, even though the article goes completely against your viewpoint.
If my eye doctor explains everything about how my eyes function I believe him, right up to the point where he tells me it's all due to evolution.
Because if they did they would have to ask the question on who the creator is. And as it's been so neatly pointed out the creator cannot be discovered using scientific experiments.
If you admitted that all things were created, you would have to ask "by what or by whom".
If atheistic scientists didn't come up with an alternate 'explanation' they would be in a real pickle.
Science invented evolution out of thin air, then fortifies it with important sounding terms and processes that they hope will give it credibility, and when something doesn't fit the pattern it's given yet another term to explain it.
The uninitiated are lectured to study it so as not to be 'ignorant'. But even a cursory look reveals that it is a hoax, and not a very clever one at that.
It's easy:
"Speedwell's argument is no good because it is illogical." is a criticism, not an ad hominem.
"Speedwell's argument is no good because it is illogical and he is a Bible-hating commie." is a criticism followed by an insult, not an ad hominem.
"Speedwell's argument is no good because he is a Bible-hating commie." is an ad hominem
It's got nothing to do with atheism. It's about what is the best explanation for biodiversity of life on Earth. Atheism vs theism is irrelevant.
These guys have added a twist. My argument is no good because it is presented by a creationist, even though the evidence cited was written by an evolutionist. Strange.
The best evidence is the creatures themselves, not a fabricated history dating back millions of years. My doctor considers my present physiology when examining me, not that of my theoretical ancestors. That's pretty good evidence for creation.
No, it's because you don't even understand what you are citing!
I expanded my prior response. Given the collective dependence we have on biology in various fields, it behooves use to have the best possible understanding of it. There are real industries that depend on biology (pharmacology, agriculture, etc) and a lot of vested interests in that understanding.
Arguing that everything related to evolution is deliberately fabricated is just conspiratorial nonsense.
To a hammer every problem looks like a nail.
I usually depend on the source to understand it, and those I'm direct it to as well.
You probably need a new doctor. All of mine are very interested in the health history of my immediate ancestors and of my more distant ones through genetic analysis. Those ancestors, who have kindly gifted me their genes are not at all theoretical.The best evidence is the creatures themselves, not a fabricated history dating back millions of years. My doctor considers my present physiology when examining me, not that of my theoretical ancestors. That's pretty good evidence for creation.
But you can't use a source that clearly says that something evolved to use as proof of design. It's just intellectually dishonest AND outright idiotic.
...
This isn't an answer.
Look, you have real-world industries that stand to benefit from having the best understanding of biology possible. For example, do you really think those in the multi-trillion dollar agricultural industry would be willing to go along with some conspiratorial hoax? For what reason? What do those in pharmacology or forestry or agriculture get out of it?
We're dealing with for-profit companies here. Biology isn't just something that happens in university labs. There are businesses at stake here. If evolution really was a hoax and there was a better scientific underpinning for all of the world's biology available, why wouldn't they be exploring and exploiting that for competitive advantage?
Would they all be working together to create a conspiracy? Every biological-related field, every single working biologist from around the world for the last hundred+ years?
Makes no sense.
You probably need a new doctor. All of mine are very interested in the health history of my immediate ancestors and of my more distant ones through genetic analysis. Those ancestors, who have kindly gifted me their genes are not at all theoretical.
Like skeleton with a backbone, four limbs, two eyes, things like that you reject?I have no problem with traits inherited from my ancestors (humankind). It's evolution's claim that I inherited traits from creatures that don't look like me that I reject.
Like skeleton with a backbone, four limbs, two eyes, things like that you reject?
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?