If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There are many many things we will never know. Past and future.

Cop out answer if I ever heard one.

 

[eleos1954]

There are no “credible” creation scientists.

ok ... who are the creation scientists you consider not credible?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

right.



not by human but by any intelligent. when we see a spinning motor we know that someone design it. we cant know who made it but we know for sure that someone did . right?

You have left out the option of evolution. You cannot disprove evolution by leaving the option for evolution out of the consideration of possibilities. That is the error of assuming the conclusion in order to prove the conclusion.

 

[HitchSlap]

edit

 

[HitchSlap]

There are many many things we will never know. Past and future.

Cool. Maybe we should limit our discussion to things we know.

As someone once said, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

 

[HitchSlap]

ok ... who are the creation scientists you consider not credible?

Every one of them.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

"Design" is an unfalsifiable proposition and can never be proven. The presence of design can sometimes be inferred from appropriate evidence, but it can never be ruled out and never "proven." Those shells on the beach allow for a strong inference of design for reasons already given, but natural forces cannot be absolutely ruled out.

That's true. Thanks for pointing that out.

No doubt, but once a scientific theory is falsified it stays falsified. The acquisition of new knowledge, the falsification of subsequent theories won't bring it back. It's already too late for the world to have been created in 4004 BC or entirely covered with water in 2600 BC. Those propositions can never be revived by new discoveries.

I agree. A theory is discarded because it cannot explain some phenomenon. Even after we acquire new knowledge, the phenomenon remains the same and so does the explanation.
Also, is it me or does everyone else's autocorrect glitch out when they visit this site?

 

[xianghua]

You have left out the option of evolution. You cannot disprove evolution by leaving the option for evolution out of the consideration of possibilities. That is the error of assuming the conclusion in order to prove the conclusion.

you can say the same for a car motor. so you will conclude the same if you will see a car motor?

 

[Aman777]

Every one of them.

Including God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? God disagrees with you since He is a Creationist. Should we believe you or God?

 

[eleos1954]

Every one of them.

Well ... so much for your credibility LOL

 

[HitchSlap]

Including God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Yes, and also including Thor, Zeus, Poseidon and Darth Vader.

God disagrees with you since He is a Creationist.

I've never met this god guy, but tell him he's wrong too, next time you see him.

Should we believe you or God?

Me.

(Unless I start making claims that don't comport with reality)

 

[HitchSlap]

Well ... so much for your credibility LOL

Couldn't find one, could ya'.

LOL

 

[xianghua]

I didn't say it was a problem.
Obviously our eyes function well enough to not be a problem.

thanks. so the blind spot is not an issue. and the claim about bad design is a bad claim.

Is it not true that a blind eye which provides a sharp HD image WITHOUT a blind spot, is objectively better then an eye which provides a sharp HD image WITH a blind spot?

since you already admit that the blind spot doesnt make any problem this claim is incorrect.

That may actually not be correct. Studies indicate that celaphods can perceive colors.
In any case, the colorblindness, assuming it is the case, is not a result of not having a blind spot, but rather a result of not having cones and only the equivalent of rods.

you cant realy know if there is no connection between having a blind spot and colorblindness.

Hilarious ignoring of me pointing out that you, to argue against evolution of the eye, are pointing to an article with as title "Evolution gave the eye...."

they can also claim that a car evolved by a natural process. so what?

 

[Aman777]

Yes, and also including Thor, Zeus, Poseidon and Darth Vader.


I've never met this god guy, but tell him he's wrong too, next time you see him.

Me.

(Unless I start making claims that don't comport with reality)

ALL of your claims are provably false since like Trump, you think you know more than God. Both of you are in for a shock. Do you want a parade for you, too?

 

[xianghua]

A flagellum isn't a motor, it just looks like it.

why its not a motor? please explain...

basically even scientists consider it to be a motor:

The bacterial flagellar motor: structure and function of a complex molecular machine. - PubMed - NCBI

The bacterial flagella motor. - PubMed - NCBI

A Rotary Motor Drives Bacterial Motion - Biochemistry - NCBI Bookshelf

so why we should not?

 

[HitchSlap]

so why we should not?

For the same reasons we don't consider a banana to be a thumb-tack.

 

[HitchSlap]

ALL of your claims are provably false since like Trump, you think you know more than God. Both of you are in for a shock. Do you want a parade for you, too?

How dare you insult the Dear Leader.

Treason!

 

[Speedwell]

I God disagrees with you since He is a Creationist. Should we believe you or God?

God is a right-wing fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant? I think in that case I would believe Hitchslap.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well ... so much for your credibility LOL

That doesn't make sense.

 

[Heissonear]

they can also claim that a car evolved by a natural process. so what?

As you well know, life on Earth is much more complex than a car. And natural processes cannot make a car. It is impossible.

Many do not see such blind spot in thinking life on Earth evolved by natural processes. How it is impossible.

It is fossils in the rock record sequenced immature to more complex life forms they lean up. By faith in such they stand. They know not that God would make scientific evidence lead one to error without Him. It is the rock record and science they have turned to and Exalt. They want others to do the same.

From speculation that the rock record shows evolution of life over time they stand. Yet the rock record only shows Kinds. The rock record - with billions of fossils found - shows zero transition fossils - as you pointed out earlier.

They have placed faith in something that they have no evidence to support. The way natural history would have happened before God over time is ignored by modern man. The Way He would have things deposited, particularly life forms He Created, over eons of time they set aside.

God shows in the rock record His Ways of Creating, which is Creating immature life forms first, and a sequence of Creating more complex life forms over time. There would be zero transition fossils in the rock record in His Way of Creating Earth. Many stumble at this very point - the Creator and His Ways of Creating.

They also miss the essential point that He chose to make the Earth have an Apparent Mature Age, when He Created the world less than 10,000 years ago. Many stumble at how the Earth looked like after Creation Week. Even how Genesis list Earth's Creation process.