The Demise of Evolution

[Bungle_Bear]

Science proves things that are provable.

I don't see a yes/no answer. Let me try again:

Has anyone ever told you science doesn't prove anything? Simple yes/no answer please.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

All they will prove is that we are of the same human family. No evolutionary development there.

No, you don't get to move the goalposts when you've scored an own goal. I provided what you asked for. Have the grace to accept it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

...

Huh? Did you reply to the wrong post?

I don't know. There have been quite a number of posts from a whole group of people debating the issue with me. It's all the same though, my question is the same for all, and I wait with bated breath for the answer. Like the cat who waited outside the mouse hole with baited breath!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science proves things that are provable. If you are going to accuse me of making ridiculous assertions, then prove it by one item of evidence of evolutionary change from one creature to another. Just one!

If you go with that standard then evolution is proven. It sounds like you are using the legal standard of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". But unfortunately you do not understand the concept of evidence and you refuse to learn.

You have painted yourself in a bit of a corner.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I don't see a yes/no answer. Let me try again:

Has anyone ever told you science doesn't prove anything? Simple yes/no answer please.

You won't trap me like that. That's being like a lawyer in a Hollywood movie making a witness answer his question the way he wants it answered.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you don't get to move the goalposts when you've scored an own goal. I provided what you asked for. Have the grace to accept it.

I have suggested invoking my Rule Number One. He has repeatedly denied evidence when the presentation of evidence put the burden of proof upon him. He won't allow himself to learn the concept of evidence because he knows the consequence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You won't trap me like that. That's being like a lawyer in a Hollywood movie making a witness answer his question the way he wants it answered.

You just answered the question for us. If the answer was "No" there would be no trap.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You won't trap me like that. That's being like a lawyer in a Hollywood movie making a witness answer his question the way he wants it answered.

You have a choice of answer - yes or no. The honest answer is "yes", but I cannot force you to be honest. Your refusal to answer says everything we need to know - you have been told repeatedly that science does not prove anything, so your continued demands for proof is a knowing lie.

That's on your head, nobody else's.

 

[Shemjaza]

Got any photographs to show the fossils? Yes, plenty of skulls, hips and feet, but no complete skeletons to match the skulls with the hips and the feet, or even to show that the skulls are human or even part human. What skulls have been discovered are either clearly ape, or human, but not half in half. The human foot is totally different from an ape foot, so the foot bones are either ape or human, but none have been found to have both characteristics in the same foot.

So, a reasonable doubt remains.

Preposterous...

please tell me where the clear human ends and where the clear ape begins:

 

[Need answers]

Science proves things that are provable. If you are going to accuse me of making ridiculous assertions, then prove it by one item of evidence of evolutionary change from one creature to another. Just one!

It sounds like a reasonable request.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It sounds like a reasonable request.

Actually, if Genesis 1-3 is not a literal historic account, then the rest of the Bible is meaningless, and there is no Christian gospel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, if Genesis 1-3 is not a literal historic account, then the rest of the Bible is meaningless, and there is no Christian gospel.

Only by your interpretation. And since Genesis is not literal history you just claimed that the Bible is meaningless. That could be considered to be blasphemy here. Please note that no one else has put that constraint on the Bible. I always wonder about creationists that have the Gall to tell God how he had to make the Earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It sounds like a reasonable request.

Not when the person making the request does not understand the concept of evidence and maintains his ignorance so that he can deny clear evidence without openly lying.

 

[Need answers]

Not when the person making the request does not understand the concept of evidence and maintains his ignorance so that he can deny clear evidence without openly lying.

We dont believe that we evolved from anything. We didnt evolve from stupid prehistoric apes. God created us to be different, to be above such creatures.

 

[Larniavc]

You see, this is what evolutionists do.

This is what scientists do. It is called tentatively. It is honestly acknowledging that in the light of new information our conclusions might change.

Welcome to the scientific method.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

This is what scientists do. It is called tentatively. It is honestly acknowledging that in the light of new information our conclusions might change.

Welcome to the scientific method.

Funny... I have heard of TV Evangelists getting new revelations too.

 

[Need answers]

This is what scientists do. It is called tentatively. It is honestly acknowledging that in the light of new information our conclusions might change.

Welcome to the scientific method.

Why then do evolutionists assert this science as fact when its not definite and subject to further confirmation? Why also do some evolutionists refuse to admit that God might be the creator?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We dont believe that we evolved from anything. We didnt evolve from stupid prehistoric apes. God created us to be different, to be above such creatures.

Yet all of the evidence says that you did.

By the way, you are still an ape. Creationists get the facts of evolution wrong all of the time. There is no "change of kinds".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why then do evolutionists assert this science as fact when its not definite and subject to further confirmation? Why also do some evolutionists refuse to admit that God might be the creator?

The theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution, just as the theory of gravity explains the facts of gravity. Theories are always treated as being tentatively correct. Some of the details are probably incorrect. But there is no doubt about whether we are the product of evolution or not.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Why then do evolutionists assert this science as fact when its not definite and subject to further confirmation? Why also do some evolutionists refuse to admit that God might be the creator?

The principle behind it is having to acknowledge that the universe was designed, there had to be a designer, who is immensely powerful to have created a universe so vast and complex as ours is. Then, if there is an all-powerful designer then we may be morally responsible to Him seeing that He created us. But atheistic evolutionists don't want to be morally responsible to anyone. They want to be their own gods to determine what they want to do without having to answer to a God who might judge them one day. So they choose to deny that there is a God, and hold to the universe coming into being by time and chance.