Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
If there is no evidence for creation...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tomk80" data-source="post: 48003463" data-attributes="member: 33800"><p>That would be the honest course, now wouldn't it? If you expect people to believe you exist, as God does according to many Christians, the honest thing to do is provide evidence that you do exist.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Yup. </p><p> </p><p></p><p>Doesn't mean that reason has to be valid. </p><p> </p><p></p><p>It does? I've seen quite a lot, I'd say in many history books he makes no appearance.</p><p></p><p>No, that's not evidence. Evidence would be a contemporary written source, which is missing. Doesn't mean Jesus has not existed, but it definitely is not such a set case as many Christians want us to believe.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>What about them?</p><p> </p><p></p><p>IC is, to put it lightly, nonsense. Behe has proposed it in a number of forms which either cannot be tested, or have been falsified already. His larger claim is that none of the parts of IC systems can work independently. Yet many independent uses of different IC systems (according to him) have indeed got a use. On the other end, he claims that to refute IC, we need to give a mutation by mutation pathway. This is clearly undoable, for many obvious reasons. Science advances through reasonably achievable evidence, not through untestability. Behe's proposal cannot be tested and hence, is not evidence.</p><p> </p><p>That something has more evidence supporting it does not mean it also has more evidence refuting it. The theory of evolution is amongst one of those theories that has lots of supporting evidence and virtually no refuting evidence.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>What do you mean when you say creationism. Do you mean young earth creationism with a global flood? If so, much of the evidence supporting evolution (ie, lots) is also directly a refution of creationism (ie, lots of refuting evidence). </p><p> </p><p></p><p>Without wanting to insult you, like you should start studying what you are talking about.</p><p></p><p>Okay, you're all ignorant.</p><p></p><p>Uh, no it isn't. Ignorance is pretty rampant throughout human culture. And our knowledge in general is still not complete, if it will ever be. So the chances of us being wrong, and creationists being wrong in particular, approach 1. Given that abiogenesis would have occurred through chemical reactions, and chemical reactions occur whenever the correct conditions are present, I'd estimate that chance at even higher.</p><p> </p><p>I'd say you got it backwards. The chance of all creationists being wrong is probably 1, the chance of all Christians being wrong probably close to 1. I'd say the chance of life arising spontaneously through natural processes is as high as the chance of Creationists being wrong.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tomk80, post: 48003463, member: 33800"] That would be the honest course, now wouldn't it? If you expect people to believe you exist, as God does according to many Christians, the honest thing to do is provide evidence that you do exist. Yup. Doesn't mean that reason has to be valid. It does? I've seen quite a lot, I'd say in many history books he makes no appearance. No, that's not evidence. Evidence would be a contemporary written source, which is missing. Doesn't mean Jesus has not existed, but it definitely is not such a set case as many Christians want us to believe. What about them? IC is, to put it lightly, nonsense. Behe has proposed it in a number of forms which either cannot be tested, or have been falsified already. His larger claim is that none of the parts of IC systems can work independently. Yet many independent uses of different IC systems (according to him) have indeed got a use. On the other end, he claims that to refute IC, we need to give a mutation by mutation pathway. This is clearly undoable, for many obvious reasons. Science advances through reasonably achievable evidence, not through untestability. Behe's proposal cannot be tested and hence, is not evidence. That something has more evidence supporting it does not mean it also has more evidence refuting it. The theory of evolution is amongst one of those theories that has lots of supporting evidence and virtually no refuting evidence. What do you mean when you say creationism. Do you mean young earth creationism with a global flood? If so, much of the evidence supporting evolution (ie, lots) is also directly a refution of creationism (ie, lots of refuting evidence). Without wanting to insult you, like you should start studying what you are talking about. Okay, you're all ignorant. Uh, no it isn't. Ignorance is pretty rampant throughout human culture. And our knowledge in general is still not complete, if it will ever be. So the chances of us being wrong, and creationists being wrong in particular, approach 1. Given that abiogenesis would have occurred through chemical reactions, and chemical reactions occur whenever the correct conditions are present, I'd estimate that chance at even higher. I'd say you got it backwards. The chance of all creationists being wrong is probably 1, the chance of all Christians being wrong probably close to 1. I'd say the chance of life arising spontaneously through natural processes is as high as the chance of Creationists being wrong. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
If there is no evidence for creation...
Top
Bottom