Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No kidding.Science, itself, does not deal with "truth" however.
I am well aware that science doesn't prove anything.This is the same issue as the guy who can't seem to comprehend that science doesn't prove anything.
However, as I stated early on in this trail, is there evidence enough to suggest that the ToE can support the full weight of explaining all life on earth?
Evolutionists just seem to take it by blind faith that the thesis of common ancestry has been demonstrated by the data, when in fact for those who know the data know that's really not true.
Pita bread, I want you to understand that, when the above, which is a fact (whether you like it or not), is considered in the context of probabilistic resources(please read Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer if you are seeking truth), then your inference cannot possibly be that chance has the explanatory power to explain away all that we see around us in such a short time.
And not only that, when you consider the fine tuning of the universe and the probabilities there as well as the reasoning there, then its like the table was laid for a dinner that was just inevitably coming.
Just as there is a cumulative force of evidence that can convict a criminal in court of law for a murder no one observed or could repeat, so there is a cumulative force of evidence to conclude that the origins of many things point to a mind, God's in fact.
Are you seriously kidding me?Nothing creationists and/or ID proponents have put forth offers an explanation for life's diversity.
Are you seriously kidding me?
If not, please read Genesis 1.
I've got an explanation that doesn't invoke evolution; that even a five year old can understand.The key word is explanation.
Creation mythology can take a hike.pitabread said:Creation mythology is not an explanation.
I've got an explanation that doesn't invoke evolution; that even a five year old can understand.
Creation mythology can take a hike.
Uh-huh.And yes, I'm familiar with Genesis.
The Japanese?Who are the least reasonable?
- if 1/3 of the people on earth saw a big red ball in the sky all reasonable, sane and credible.
- another 1/3 believes it's there on account of those who see it.
- The last 1/3 is split 90% say it might be there but they can't believe it is since they can't see it.
- The remaining 10% say it isn't there because they can't see it.
The article referenced in my post provides genetic evidence. Evidence that demonstrates that evolution is a fact. What is wrong with the SFS’s evidence? Where is the lie?
This reads like a loaded question.
I will say this:
1) The Theory of Evolution is currently the only explanation (scientific or otherwise) for the diversity of life on Earth. Nothing creationists and/or ID proponents have put forth offers an explanation for life's diversity. Rather they simply argue against evolution and treat "DesignerDidIt!" as the null hypothesis (it isn't).
2) This doesn't mean our knowledge of the theory of evolution is complete or immutable. Like everything in science, there is always more to learn. But gaps in knowledge do not invalidate what we do know.
Those who know the data best would be professional biologists. And they are in general agreement that the data supports common ancestry.
If this is your argument, then I'm going to have to go with the biologists.
I'm familiar with Meyer's work. He's a hack promoting pseudoscience.
Arguing over "fine tuning" or probabilities related to the universe as a whole isn't terribly meaningful considering we have a sample size of 1.
If the standard of evidence for God was the same as the standard of evidence in a court of law (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt), then everyone would be an atheist.
We're talking about how words get used and an understanding of the meaning of those words in a given context.
Using your prior example with the water and the ice, you would go into the experiment making the assumption the hypothesis is true and the test the hypothesis with the results either confirming or disaffirming it.
However, their replacement ideas are still not "proven" - they remain open to modification or replacement themselves, when some better idea or better evidence comes along.
lolNo kidding.
I am well aware that science doesn't prove anything.
Science is simply a belief based on opinion, speculation, theory, supposition, conjecture, guesswork, etc etc etc.
"Fact" that we all evolved, is that the evolution you are talking about?
Or are you getting tricky on me again and being deceptive in that you have a few little things that you consider evolution, hence the full scope of evolution is a fact?
Some of consider purposeful deception a lie.
Where is the lie in the article (that presents evidence for common ancestry)?
Would you like me to provide a link to it again?
The article referenced in my post provides genetic evidence. Evidence that demonstrates that evolution is a fact.
If you know the difference between an assertion and an argument, then please give us an argument against Christianity or ID theory.
Blind faith in science?
These unobjective stances reflect scientism, a self defeating world view.
I never dismissed both theses of evolution, only the 2nd one of random mutation and natural selection as the explanation for the vast level of biodiversity and biological complexity that we observe in our world. The thesis of descent with modification is evident, thank goodness we don't look like each other, id look like bread! please don't straw man me.
Another informal fallacy committed, ad hominem.
Again, show us with reason that his science is pseudoscience?
This never stopped you from being so confident?
Read the following with YOUR God in place, the ToE:
The standard of evidence for the ToE is the same as the standard of evidence in a court of law... Now why isn't everyone a Christian?! Works both ways!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You claim Nature to be your God, and it relies on the same principles re evidence: inference as to the best explanation with appeals to science from time to time, just like our arguments.
Except you have no theory for the origin of biological information?
Except we also have EYE WITNESS testimony, many people saw the risen Christ.
And we also have subjective evidence, we have personal relationships with God Himself!
Please refrain from responding with blithe assertions and committing so many fallacies going forward.
I prefer an intellectual conversation.
Proving or disproving.
No, in essence we are talking about how evolution cannot be proven and you need all the excuses you can come up with not to do so.
It's moved beyond obstinate to pathological at this point. You'd think one would realize, when numerous sources have been posted and everyone else is telling you the same thing that the error is on their part.You really can't let this go can you?
Why is using the term "prove" or "proof" such an issue for you?
I have never seen anyone be this stubborn about use of terminology (well, maybe mark kennedy and his private definition of "Darwinism").
I can't help but wonder if your stubborn insistence over the use of the word "prove" is tied to a degree of absolution with respect to the way proof or prove is often used. And therefore, anyone posting anything that you deem less than absolute "proof" of something, you could just handwave away as you have in the past.
After all, "evidence for" or "evidence to confirm" doesn't carry quite the same weight as "proved" does it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?