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

[pitabread]

Why the stall? If you cannot prove it, just say so. I mean you're the one complaining about the lack of honesty, so be honest.

"Prove" what? Again, I gave you material, you refuse to look. I can't do anything about that.

I'm more than willing to cite material including direct scientific literature I am familiar. And I'd be happy to discuss such material as well. But then onus is on the other party to first consume said material in order to discuss it. If the other party refuses to do so, then there is no discussion to be had.

You know what they say about leading a horse to water...

 

[Kenny'sID]

"Prove" what? Again, I gave you material, you refuse to look. I can't do anything about that. You know what they say about leading a horse to water...

That evolution is a fact. I was sure I made that clear.

Again it's a waste of time and I told you why. I can keep showing you my reasoning, but as you say...can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink.

Anyway, I'll keep an eye open in case you change your mind or realize you are not confident enough with your proof to simply post it..

 

[pitabread]

Anyway, I'll keep an eye open in case you change your mind or realize you are not confident enough with your proof to simply post it..

I posted you sources to look at. Your refusal to look is on you.

And you're going on "ignore", since you're just wasting time.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I posted you sources to look at. Your refusal to look is on you.

You aren't paying attention, but I think that's by design. Glad you think that's working for you.

 

[Greg Merrill]

No, not really. I was taught biology in a Benedictine abbey school, and - credit to them - there was no mention of God in the class. I then took an honours degree in Human Biology, and I don't recall any relevant mention of God in lectures or textbooks in four years.

To paraphrase Laplace, 'We had no need of that hypothesis'.

Secular scientist generally do not come from religious schools such as you. There are usually exceptions to the rule, of which you seem to be one. Secular scientists in general follow the religion of humanism, not of the doctrines of specific churches like the Catholic Church, let alone those taught in God's Word, the Bible. Check out the following URL.
Secular Science

 

[Speedwell]

Secular scientist generally do not come from religious schools such as you. There are usually exceptions to the rule, of which you seem to be one. Secular scientists in general follow the religion of humanism, not of the doctrines of specific churches like the Catholic Church, let alone those taught in God's Word, the Bible. Check out the following URL.
Secular Science

I also took my undergraduate degree at an RC school. The head of the biology department, a brother in orders, was considered at the time to be a leading expert in the evolution of bats.

This is not about theism vs atheism. None of these discussions ever are; they are about the Bible--"Bible believing" fundamentalist Protestants vs everybody else, theists and atheists together.

 

[pitabread]

Secular scientists in general follow the religion of humanism, not of the doctrines of specific churches like the Catholic Church, let alone those taught in God's Word, the Bible. Check out the following URL.
Secular Science

You do realize this doesn't encompass all scientists, yes? Any more than creationists encompass all Christians.

 

[Speedwell]

Nothing but propaganda. Creationists trying to defend their beliefs about the Bible by painting it a cosmic struggle between theism and atheism.

 

[Greg Merrill]

I also took my undergraduate degree at an RC school. The head of the biology department, a brother in orders, was considered at the time to be a leading expert in the evolution of bats.

This is not about theism vs atheism. None of these discussions ever are; they are about the Bible--"Bible believing" fundamentalist Protestants vs everybody else, theists and atheists together.

So where do you stand? Do you believe the Bible or not?

 

[Greg Merrill]

You do realize this doesn't encompass all scientists, yes? Any more than creationists encompass all Christians.

That should go without saying. Not all Christians are on the same level, or with the same amount of education.

 

[Speedwell]

So where do you stand? Do you believe the Bible or not?

I believe it is divinely inspired.

 

[pitabread]

Not all Christians are on the same level, or with the same amount of education.

True, there tends to be an inverse relationship between educational attainment and belief in creationism.

 

[DavidFirth]

I believe it is divinely inspired.

Poorly divinely inspired? Man was created on the sixth day or he evolved from an ape. You can't have it both ways, one is right, the other is wrong.

 

[Go Braves]

ramp·ant
ˈrampənt/
adjective
adjective: rampant
1.
(especially of something unwelcome or unpleasant) flourishing or spreading unchecked.
"political violence was rampant"
synonyms: uncontrolled, unrestrained, unchecked, unbridled, widespread; More

The same type stretches used yo promote evolution, and do away with any who disagree.

When evolutionists have to stoop to those levels in order to make their case, I figure they don't have much of a case. Now watch this, I'll prove that out right no when I ask GB to show us the proof of evolution...please?

See. pretending the opposition (creationist in this case) is someone that cannot be trusted, while in reality, showing the complete opposite, has nothing to do with whether evolution is fact or not. Doing so only creates illusion, the same thing that makes evolution work. So let's get down to brass tacks if you don't mind.

Hi Kenny, well I sure am glad you looked up the definition of rampant for yourself, and posted it to confirm to the folks around here that the OP and I used the word properly!

 

[Speedwell]

Poorly divinely inspired? Man was created on the sixth day or he evolved from an ape. You can't have it both ways, one is right, the other is wrong.

No, divinely inspired wonderfully well. Making Genesis into 100% accurate literal history--a second-rate form of literature--does it a great discredit.

 

[DavidFirth]

No, divinely inspired wonderfully well. Making Genesis into 100% accurate literal history--a second-rate form of literature--does it a great discredit.

So you think Genesis can be combined and fit well into the TOE. Guess what. It can't. You're wrong.

You can't just decide it isn't literal because you don't believe what it says.

 

[Greg Merrill]

I believe it is divinely inspired.

Do you believe it is the Word of God or only includes the Word of God among man's own words?

 

[Greg Merrill]

True, there tends to be an inverse relationship between educational attainment and belief in creationism.

It depends on whom one is educated under. That is why it is a good question to ask a person where they went to school. A person that graduates with honors from a university that promotes atheism may be thought by some to have a better education than a person that never even attended high school, but God says "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God." Psalms 14:1; Psalms 53:1.

 

[Speedwell]

Do you believe it is the Word of God or only includes the Word of God among man's own words?

It is man's words as inspired by God.

 

[pitabread]

It depends on whom one is educated under. That is why it is a good question to ask a person where they went to school. A person that graduates with honors from a university that promotes atheism may be thought by some to have a better education than a person that never even attended high school, but God says "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God." Psalms 14:1; Psalms 53:1.

Non-sequitur response is a non-sequitur.

None of that changes the reality that creationists are, on average, less educated than non-creationists. That's just statistical reality.