Ignoring The Evidence : Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

[SkyWriting]

A sketch of a mammal looks like a mammal too.
Do we really need to discuss the difference?

It's still an arbitrary classification system.

 

[durangodawood]

It's still an arbitrary classification system.

Not sure I agree.
Morphology features can indicate a lot.
Add to that what we know about underlying physiology, and the similarities are striking.

 

[Doveaman]

So let's try this in reverse: Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

Because evolution does not explain the origin of the human spirit.

*For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.* -- (1 Cor 2:11-12).

It is the human spirit that empowers us with human life, consciousness and intelligence, just as God's Spirit empowers us with divine life, consciousness and intelligence.

It is not possible for apes and monkeys to evolve a human spirit.

The human spirit is a gift from God just as God's Spirit is.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because evolution does not explain the origin of the human spirit.

*For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.* -- (1 Cor 2:11-12).

It is the human spirit that empowers us with human life, consciousness and intelligence, just as God's Spirit empowers us with divine life, consciousness and intelligence.

It is not possible for apes and monkeys to evolve a human spirit.

The human spirit is a gift from God just as God's Spirit is.

Why would evolution need to explain the origin of the human spirit? It's like saying that you reject germ theory because it doesn't explain the origin of disco.

 

[dougangel]

Why would evolution need to explain the origin of the human spirit? It's like saying that you reject germ theory because it doesn't explain the origin of disco.

what on Earth ? loudmouth are you sure your not a YEC ? your logics is quite similar.
Dovemen is saying there is a spiritual dimension aspect to man. There is quite a lot of evidence for that fact.

 

[Loudmouth]

what on Earth ? loudmouth are you sure your not a YEC ? your logics is quite similar.
Dovemen is saying there is a spiritual dimension aspect to man. There is quite a lot of evidence for that fact.

There is no scientific evidence for a spiritual dimension. A scientific theory doesn't need to explain evidence that doesn't exist.

Also, evolution only tries to explain genotypes and phenotypes.

 

[dougangel]

Well you want to have it both ways don't you ?
There is millions of anecdotal evidence for God and the nature of man. (who could of use evolution as how created man)
But a lot of Evolution is an unobserved science (cough conjecture )
Yet you spout every thing as if it was observed proven science and it just isn't.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But remember:

It was a miracle the trench was brought to them in the first place.

not really, the mariana trench is huge.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well you want to have it both ways don't you ?
There is millions of anecdotal evidence for God and the nature of man.

That isn't scientific evidence. A scientific theory doesn't need to explain non-existent scientific data.

But a lot of Evolution is an unobserved science (cough conjecture )

How are fossils not observable? How is DNA not observable? How are the features of living species not observable? These are the observations that support the theory of evolution.

Yet you spout every thing as if it was observed proven science and it just isn't.

You don't observe the theory. That isn't how science works. The theory explains the observations.

 

[justlookinla]

Do you post snippets like that just so parts of your post will be right?

Snippets?

That was back in the 1890's, was it not? Well, science has made a bit of progress since then. You better get to the wiki page and update with your knowledge.

So you do think that the latest in evolutionary theory is correct. It has taken you a long time to come around. Good to see it though.

We don't know if the latest in the Darwinist view is correct or not. It may be time for Neo-Neo Darwinism. Then follows Neo-Neo-Neo Darwinism. It's certainly not something one should place their faith in, even though there are many who embrace the faith-based view of Darwinist creationism.

 

[Davian]

We don't know if the latest in the Darwinist view is correct or not. It may be time for Neo-Neo Darwinism. Then follows Neo-Neo-Neo Darwinism. It's certainly not something one should place their faith in, even though there are many who embrace the faith-based view of Darwinist creationism.

You just said it was the latest scientific truth. I can go with that. With new evidence they will update it as needed. I do not have a problem with that either.

 

[justlookinla]

You just said it was the latest scientific truth. I can go with that. With new evidence they will update it as needed. I do not have a problem with that either.

You'll then embrace the new truth, until another new truth is presented...and on and on and on. Of course that means that the 'truth' you previously embraced was a lie. You never know when it's truth or a lie.

 

[Davian]

You'll then embrace the new truth, until another new truth is presented...and on and on and on.

Okay.

Of course that means that the 'truth' you previously embraced was a lie.

Or, simply had a lower degree of accuracy.

You never know when it's truth or a lie.

How do you know? You are the one calling it the truth.

 

[justlookinla]

Okay.

Or, simply had a lower degree of accuracy.

Who knows?

How do you know? You are the one calling it the truth.

I should have said 'truth'.

 

[Davian]

Who knows?

The people working and studying in the field of evolutionary theory. Are you new to this?

I should have said 'truth'.

The state of being true. I do not dispute that. That is what you called it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You'll then embrace the new truth, until another new truth is presented...and on and on and on. Of course that means that the 'truth' you previously embraced was a lie. You never know when it's truth or a lie.

Lie implies purposeful deception, which is not what happens in science when it is done to code. Typically, those "new truths" are just updated versions of the old ones, with new information we previously did not have added.

 

[justlookinla]

The people working and studying in the field of evolutionary theory. Are you new to this?

They're the ones who are constantly discarding old guesses and suppositions and introducing new guesses and suppositions. They're either incompetent or dishonest.

The state of being true. I do not dispute that. That is what you called it.

As I said, I should have said 'truth'. Notice the single quotes.

 

[justlookinla]

Lie implies purposeful deception, which is not what happens in science when it is done to code. Typically, those "new truths" are just updated versions of the old ones, with new information we previously did not have added.

We really can't trust the new 'truths' then, can we? Who knows how long they'll be 'true'?

 

[AV1611VET]

not really, the mariana trench is huge.

Ya ... I used to live near it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We really can't trust the new 'truths' then, can we? Who knows how long they'll be 'true'?

Better to trust a new thing that appears, based on all the evidence, to be factual, than to trust something that contradicts itself.