If you cannot believe the genesis account....

[aeroz19]

Faith- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

Neither does evolution. Faith fills in the gaps where evidence or proof are missing, and allows me to trust God when I should. I probably shouldn't be discussing this with people who are so closed-minded about it, and who simply want to tear it up instead of read about it honestly.

If you want to believe that people of faith are ignorant fools, you just go right ahead. Whatever you say.

 

[Gracchus]

Neither does evolution. Faith fills in the gaps where evidence or proof are missing, and allows me to trust God when I should. I probably shouldn't be discussing this with people who are so closed-minded about it, and who simply want to tear it up instead of read about it honestly.

If you want to believe that people of faith are ignorant fools, you just go right ahead. Whatever you say.

The gaps are ignorance. When we learn we narrow or close a gap. So when we learn, we diminish God?

That does seem to be the position of the biblical literalists.

 

[Follower of Christ]

If you want to believe that people of faith are ignorant fools, you just go right ahead. Whatever you say.

Man, I wish I could learn to do that.....

Just shut em down ...... THAT is Christ-like...

Musta drove old Pilate nuts when Jesus just stood there silent

Then Pilate said to Him, "Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?" And He answered him not one word, so that the governor was greatly amazed.

(Mat 27:13-14)

 

[caravelair]

Faith- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

Neither does evolution.

wrong. evolution IS based on material evidence. here it is:


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Follower of Christ]

wrong. evolution IS based on material evidence.......:

and YOUR interpretation thereof.......

 

[caravelair]

and YOUR interpretation thereof.......

it has been explained to you that evidence for theories is not a matter of interpretation. if a theory specifically predicts something, and we find that thing to be true, then it is evidence for that theory. for example, evolution predicts the pattern of biogeography that we see. now you can't deny that we see the pattern of biogeography we see. it's there. it's fact. that is the evidence. there is no interpretation involved in determining the pattern of biogeography. we just look at it, that's all. neither is it a matter of interpretation that evolution predicts this pattern of biology. so really you've got no leg to stand on.

 

[JohnR7]

wrong. evolution IS based on material evidence. here it is:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Evolution as it is used here, is based on a opinion of a observation of material evidence. Your evidence simply does not support the theory of evolution.

 

[caravelair]

Evolution as it is used here, is based on a opinion of a observation of material evidence. Your evidence simply does not support the theory of evolution.

see my post right above yours. the evidence DOES support evolution, and this is objectively true, not a matter of interpretation or opinion. ask yourself this: does evolution predict a certain pattern of biogeography? do we see that pattern of biogeography? well then biogeography is evidence for evolution.

 

[Follower of Christ]

it has been explained to you that evidence for theories is not a matter of interpretation. if a theory specifically predicts something, and we find that thing to be true, then it is evidence for that theory. for example, evolution predicts the pattern of biogeography that we see. now you can't deny that we see the pattern of biogeography we see. it's there. it's fact. that is the evidence. there is no interpretation involved in determining the pattern of biogeography. we just look at it, that's all. neither is it a matter of interpretation that evolution predicts this pattern of biology. so really you've got no leg to stand on.

Ok......so you found some pattern and can make predictions.... STILL doesnt prove common decent now does it??

Yep, I agree, its there........just where God put it for you to find

Does it make sense to you that an orderly God would create in such a way that there WOULD be patterns and order about things.
Even common design features.......
Probably not Ill bet..

and it is ALL a matter of interpretation..... Ill admit it, why cant you be honest enought to ???

 

[caravelair]

Ok......so you found some pattern and can make predictions.... STILL doesnt prove common decent now does it??

the point is not that it proves common descent. the point is that it is evidence for common descent. i said evolution was based on evidence. you disagreed. you are wrong, since there clearly is evidence, regardless of whether you personally find it convincing or not.

and it is ALL a matter of interpretation..... Ill admit it, why cant you be honest enought to ???

because it's NOT just a matter of interpretation. did you even read my post?

 

[Follower of Christ]

the point is not that it proves common descent. the point is that it is evidence for common descent.

Its also evidence for a common designer......
"lets see......this car works guys.....mebe we should use some of these ideas in the REST of them"

you disagreed. you are wrong, since there clearly is evidence, regardless of whether you personally find it convincing or not.

DITTO


I did indeed....

 

[caravelair]

Its also evidence for a common designer......
"lets see......this car works guys.....mebe we should use some of these ideas in the REST of them"

i believe i used biogeography as my example. please explain how biogeography is evidence for a designer. in fact, please tell me how creationism explains the patterns of biogeography we see.

and as for your common design = common designer argument, you still haven't explained why god would use a different design for a bat's wing, a design homologous to structures in other mammals, or why he would put a homologous structure in the fin of a dolphin, instead of saying "let's see......this fin works.....maybe i should use this idea in the REST of them". hmmm.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Its also evidence for a common designer......
"lets see......this car works guys.....mebe we should use some of these ideas in the REST of them"

Yeah, but it's more like "hey - these bits work - lets use them, as well as these spare screws that don't do anything, and that hose that doesn't go anywhere, and that line of red paint from when that motorbike crashed into it, in the REST of them"

 

[JohnR7]

the evidence DOES support evolution, and this is objectively true, not a matter of interpretation or opinion.

No one can deny evolution. It is man's theory of evoluion, what they call evolutionism, that is a pack of lies. Darwinism has been falsified, and the neo darwinism that replaced it will be falsified right along with Darwinism.

As I just pointed out from a link to a evolutionist site. The evolutionary theory regarding horses after a long time standing has recently fallen and been falsifed. Of course they are quick to rush in with another theory that in time will again be falsified and replaced with another theory. This is the modern scientific method.

The first theory was like a tree, the new theory is like a bush. So, if you do not mind changing theorys more often then some people change their underware, then by all means, go with man made theorys.

 

[JohnR7]

the evidence DOES support evolution, and this is objectively true, not a matter of interpretation or opinion.

No one can deny evolution. It is man's theory of evoluion, that is a pack of lies. Darwinism has been falsified, and the neo darwinism that replaced it will be falsified right along with Darwinism.

As I just pointed out from a link to a evolutionist site. The evolutionary theory regarding horses after a long time standing has recently fallen and been falsifed. Of course they are quick to rush in with another theory that in time will again be falsified and replaced with another theory. This is the modern scientific method.

The first theory was like a tree, the new theory is like a bush. So, if you do not mind changing theorys more often then some people change their underware, then by all means, go with man made theorys.

 

[caravelair]

No one can deny evolution. It is man's theory of evoluion, that is a pack of lies. Darwinism has been falsified, and the neo darwinism that replaced it will be falsified right along with Darwinism.

As I just pointed out from a link to a evolutionist site. The evolutionary theory regarding horses after a long time standing has recently fallen and been falsifed. Of course they are quick to rush in with another theory that in time will again be falsified and replaced with another theory. This is the modern scientific method.

The first theory was like a tree, the new theory is like a bush. So, if you do not mind changing theorys more often then some people change their underware, then by all means, go with man made theorys.

you're changing the topic john. biogeography is evidence for evolution, yes or no? if no, you must show that either the pattern of biogeography we see does not exist, or that evolution does not predict such a pattern.

 

[Follower of Christ]

and as for your common design = common designer argument, you still haven't explained why god would use a different design for a bat's wing,

He just creative like that

a design homologous to structures in other mammals, or why he would put a homologous structure in the fin of a dolphin, instead of saying "let's see......this fin works.....maybe i should use this idea in the REST of them". hmmm.

I dont see the dolphins complaining about it

 

[Follower of Christ]

if no, you must show that either the pattern of biogeography we see does not exist, or that evolution does not predict such a pattern.

So you see something that GOD created.......you figured out how to predict with it.....and THEN youre going to give your theory the credit for it ?!?


hey, i figured the pattern of the seasons here in ohio......does that mean I get to take credit for them too?

 

[ryfso]

He just creative like that

Did this Ad-Hoc rationalization evolve, or was it designed?

So you see something that GOD created.......you figured out how to predict with it.....and THEN youre going to give your theory the credit for it ?!?


hey, i figured the pattern of the seasons here in ohio......does that mean I get to take credit for them too?

You're not here to intelligently participate in any debate, are you?

 

[Nathan Poe]

No one can deny evolution. It is man's theory of evoluion, what they call evolutionism, that is a pack of lies.

They don't call it evolutionism, you do.

Darwinism has been falsified, and the neo darwinism that replaced it will be falsified right along with Darwinism.

Darwinism hasn't been falsified; it has been added to, corrected, and modified. Call the result neo-Darwinism if it makes you feel better...

As I just pointed out from a link to a evolutionist site. The evolutionary theory regarding horses after a long time standing has recently fallen and been falsifed.

Nope, you just misunderstood it.

Of course they are quick to rush in with another theory that in time will again be falsified and replaced with another theory. This is the modern scientific method.

This is the first correct thing you've said in a while.

The first theory was like a tree, the new theory is like a bush. So, if you do not mind changing theorys more often then some people change their underware, then by all means, go with man made theorys.

And what do you offer instead, man?