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

[AV1611VET]

Do you only do things that result in "winning a soul" (Whatever that means)?

Bible: The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise.

Science: The genes of the healthy have good DNA; and we are sapiens (wise) by birth.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Bible: The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise.

Science: The genes of the healthy have good DNA; and we are sapiens (wise) by birth.

Did you notice those two statements aren't contradictory?

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you notice those two statements aren't contradictory?

No, I didn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientists are Homo sapiens acram, not Homo sapiens.

 

[Kenny'sID]

There is much evidence for evolution, and if that evidence contradicts your biblical point of view, that is evidence against your biblical point of view. As a person set on not believing evolution, you will not accept that evidence for yourself. That leaves you, however, in error.

Interesting, your opinions is correct while his is not, simply because you deem it so. I mean if you have proof of evolution, by all means post it, however, if you do not, seems to me you can only claim one of the two opinions, yet...

Curious, what part of the following shows even so much as an indication man evolved and was not created on the spot. At what point does your opinion begin to move in a different direction. I honestly don't see a thing that even hints at such a thing, but maybe it's just me.

26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

as i said: according to that definition even if human will stay as human for a billion years you will still call it evolution. this is what you want to argue? fine. but remember that under this definition evolution is true even if special creation is true.

Yep. But we know common descent is the most likely outcome given the evidence.

by the way; according to berkeley site the definition of evolution also include common descent:

An introduction to evolution

"The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother."

"Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales."

you can see that in this definition they actually include common descent and not just changes over time in the gene pool.

This is part of the body of knowledge and facts that comprises the Theory of Evolution. We've observed every aspect that leads to this diversity from common ancestry, so you'll actually have to posit evidence to the contrary otherwise, or explain the observations we do have in some other way.

and i already told you that variations of evolution theory are still kind of evolution. so we still have 2 possibilities: creation or evolution.

No we don't. We only have "Evolution" or "we don't know". There is no scientific idea behind "Creation".

sure. we can start with this : Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution,” pp. 352-370 (you can find it as a pdf file).

https://www.researchgate.net/public...nto_the_Conceptual_Toolbox_of_a_Pseudoscience which covers off on the various iterations of Intelligent Design proponents' various publications (including this one) is a good read.

we can say the same about any paper about evolution.

Not even close. Firstly, the peer reviewed science criticising (parts of) evolution aren't actually disproving it by any means. They simply ask questions that haven't been asked yet, or highlight areas that need to be researched. That's it. ID on the other hand doesn't even make legitimate peer reviewed journals, so no peer reviewed articles critical of ID even need to be written (although they are anyway)

 

[Waggles]

So what, you think that tens of thousands of scientists are sitting around just publishing carefully constructed research papers full of lies for... why would they do that again?

Because they are blind to the truth.
And thus they all agree with each other.

 

[Skreeper]

Because they are blind to the truth.
And thus they all agree with each other.

Ohh so you're one of those people who thinks it's a big global conspiracy. How delightful.

 

[pitabread]

Because they are blind to the truth.
And thus they all agree with each other.

Do you think it's a deliberate conspiracy though? Or are all the scientists just grossly incompetent?

And what about biologists who also happen to be Christians? Do you think they are heretics?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think it's a deliberate conspiracy though? Or are all the scientists just grossly incompetent?

Demon influenced.

And what about biologists who also happen to be Christians? Do you think they are heretics?

Demon influenced.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Yes, I'm aware of that. Not sure how it's relevant though...

 

[Kenny'sID]

So what, you think that tens of thousands of scientists are sitting around just publishing carefully constructed research papers full of lies for... why would they do that again?

Brainwashing/programming...either term will do.

Lets, for the sake of argument, take a religious cult as for instance. We have nut jobs, and groups of nut jobs all over the place, it's a fact, but since the Christian is often enough depicted as such, let's use that here to make the point.

The cult listens to Top Dog nut job, and see things in a way they have allowed themselves to be programmed to see, true or not, right or wrong. Things like, "No, lets not give that child conventional medication, God will take care of them". Then when the child dies, "Well, it was Gods will". And a whole collective of people can see all that as fact. They are all doing wrong, thinking wrong, and their thought process is adversely affected by working with each other. We know this type programming really happens even over a short span of time, but over a life time, it's much more likely.

The scientists in question, are programmed as he/she grows up in a world that teaches what they do. There never was a good reason to teach evolution over a Creator, however they did, and as of the past few generations, children were brought up in that "mode". So, as scientists, they naturally take that programming with them, true or not, wrap a bit of scientific fact around it and see/conclude what they do...Very simple/factual concept. Unintended, preconceived conclusion.

So, is that a conspiracy, as mentioned earlier? Probably not, but the thought process is all based on a lie, or at the very best, people forgot that there was a chance that God did it, a very logical explanation over many others, and something that got lost in time for this generation. Tossing the creation possibility out of the schools helped that dramatically. If they every could prove the universe just happened, expanded, and here we are, ruled over what I call a much much more reasonable explanation, they did not then, and they cannot now. Nonetheless, people allow that programming to rule their thought process without a second thought as to maybe they are off track right from the onset.

To end any race successful, we need to start at the proper starting point, and that point just may not be something as illogical as "it just happened."

 

[HitchSlap]

Demon influenced.Demon influenced.

If demons exist, odd they would affirm the truth, no?

Maybe they’re the good guys in your narrative.

 

[HitchSlap]

Brainwashing/programming...either term will do.

Lets, for the sake of argument, take a religious cult as for instance. We have nut jobs, and groups of nut jobs all over the place, it's a fact, but since the Christian is often enough depicted as such, let's use that here to make the point.

The cult listens to Top Dog nut job, and see things in a way they have allowed themselves to be programmed to see, true or not, right or wrong. Things like, "No, lets not give that child conventional medication, God will take care of them". Then when the child dies, "Well, it was Gods will". And a whole collective of people can see all that as fact. They are all doing wrong, thinking wrong, and their thought process is adversely affected by working with each other. We know this type programming really happens even over a short span of time, but over a life time, it's much more likely.

The scientists in question, are programmed as he/she grows up in a world that teaches what they do. There never was a good reason to teach evolution over a Creator, however they did, and as of the past few generations, children were brought up in that "mode". So, as scientists, they naturally take that programming with them, true or not, wrap a bit of scientific fact around it and see/conclude what they do...Very simple/factual concept. Unintended, preconceived conclusion.

So, is that a conspiracy, as mentioned earlier? Probably not, but the thought process is all based on a lie, or at the very best, people forgot that there was a chance that God did it, a very logical explanation over many others, and something that got lost in time for this generation. Tossing the creation possibility out of the schools helped that dramatically. If they every could prove the universe just happened, expanded, and here we are, ruled over what I call a much much more reasonable explanation, they did not then, and they cannot now. Nonetheless, people allow that programming to rule their thought process without a second thought as to maybe they are off track right from the onset.

To end any race successful, we need to start at the proper starting point, and that point just may not be something as illogical as "it just happened."

I agree with you, all religions are cult-like.

 

[xianghua]

It's worth noting (as I pointed out in my prior post above), that Michael Behe actually accepts common descent and the shared evolutionary relationships of species.

no he doesnt (at least for some biological systems) and you can see it clearly in his article. he doesnt believe in a stepwise evolution. he also give evidence for design. and this is what you asked for.

 

[AV1611VET]

If demons exist, odd they would affirm the truth, no?

Would you know the truth if you saw it?

 

[Speedwell]

. Tossing the creation possibility out of the schools helped that dramatically.

The creation possibility has not been "tossed out of the schools." What has been tossed out of the schools--and rightly so--is the "creationism" of a 19th century Protestant pop-up. Nobody really cares what you believe about our origins, any more than we care that Seventh Day Adventists don't eat meat or that Mormons wear funny underpants. But your creationism is not science and has no place being taught in science classes to children of other faiths. They already believe in their God and you have no warrant to require that they be indoctrinated to believe in yours.

 

[HitchSlap]

no he doesnt (at least for some biological systems) and you can see it clearly in his article. he doesnt believe in a stepwise evolution. he also give evidence for design. and this is what you asked for.

He was also forced to admit his definition of science would also include astrology.

 

[HitchSlap]

Would you know the truth if you saw it?

I would.

 

[xianghua]

we will not ever be anything other than human from here on, even if we do survive a billion years as a race.

so you dont believe in evolution then.

Apart from not being peer reviewed science, .

what are you talking about? those are peer review articles. the "International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics" jornal is a peer review jornal and behe article was published by cambridge university press in 2004. this is simply incorrect.