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.
Gravity isn't moving (is it?). Evolution is a *process* but gravity is not. A process must have a beginning, just as gravity had a beginning.
I disagree. Evolution does require that domino A exist and that it got tipped.
Evolution today cannot be falsified.
if you would actually put more importance on actual evidence instead of bronze age mythology.
There's no reason to pull gods into it, when you actually care about evidence, because no data suggests that any god had anything to do with it. Or that any god even exists in the first place, for that matter.
He wont answer that question.
Who determines reasonable doubt?
Just stopped in to answer but I think I'll let Bhsmte have his needed jollies and claim some sort of victory because I didn't...much more productive in my strive to helping others, as well as more important than the rather mundane answer I had....true but not earth shattering.
ToE is the assumption.
4th on this list is a known fake. And none are transitional. All are fully formed.
Ever heard of biology, heredity and common design?
Those are all you need.
Evolution has done nothing
but set science back 50 years looking for vestigial
organs and junk DNA.
You believe that your great-great x10000 grandfather
was a slug and his was an amoeba. After that, any
fairy tale should be considered science.
Those who have knowledge in the area under questions and are willing to look at the evidence
Ok. Start with the family trees of bats, platypus, and narwhales.
Every transitional form to the last major kind.
How good are sciencists? Not very, it seems.
"By some estimates, at least 51%—and as much as 89%—of published papers are based on studies and experiments showing results that cannot be reproduced."
http://qz.com/638059/many-scientific-truths-are-in-fact-false/
Where are the proto-wings, all 100 steps or more?
Proto legs, hands, feet, knees, every change that it
took to go from one kind to another. There are none.
Meaningless comment.
Because I see something different than you do as evidence, doesn't mean mine is not evidence at all.
Yours isn't the only evidence out there, there are other things to consider, it's just a matter of what we choose to see as evidence and how we process that evidence. To drive the point home even further...I have all the evidence I need, and because it doesn't work for you, doesn't mean it isn't evidence. Not sure if this assumption comes for arrogance or ignorance.
No, it's not that simple/easy to push God out of the picture.
Of course there is a reason to pull God into it
There you go again assuming your data or whatever is the only form of evidence.
Ether you guys are genuinely generally very short sighted or you are knowingly making up more ridiculous, one sided rules where you define what constitutes "evidence".
All you really have with your evidence is something you choose to "think" makes evolution/whatever a fact, nothing more.
You have made a decision on what to accept and what not to accept with what you consider viable evidence
For instance, to me, the universe and all in it, and just the fact it is there, is the most compelling evidence there is supporting God. Let's start from my eyes first opening and looking at it all with no preconceived notions of how it got here (as much as possible) I then see the universe/all in it, and I can either decide:
A) Because the evidence I choose to see as the most viable evidence compels me to believe we were evolved, that our beginning is either uncertain, it all came from nothing or something mysterious over a long period of time, for those reasons I choose to accept that as the reason for it all. Also for the reason, I am being taught this, and there are a lot of very smart people that teach it, prove it (to me anyway) and believe it as well. The word has a few versions of what they believe, but the one where there is no God, we were evolved from an unexplained phenomenal beginning millions/billions of years ago, is the one I choose to go with. No God creating anything, it all just happened.
B) Or, since I have never once seen anything made by man come about from nothing, OR for no reason at all, OR, in a way we don't understand...in any way other than it being created, I first have to think...the universe must be created too. And Especially because what we as man create is not nearly as advanced as what we didn't, yet THAT occurred by accident? Or the more advanced, the better chance it occurred by accident/whatever...makes no sense at all. Plus the fact I have this Bible that they say was passed down to me because that creator saw fit to see too it I understood what was going on with all this (the creator that makes perfect logical sense to me as reason/how we are here). For all those reasons, I choose to accept God. Also, that Bible warns me not to believe what the world says. We have to now consider "why" we are here, that being, to believe there is God and God requires things of us, and that same world wants you to believe differently. And lo and behold the Bible is exactly right on that because that is exactly what is happening. So, though there is much more, with just the preceeding evidence, I choose to go with God, the God of the Bible and what the Bible tells me, over the alternatives. It's just the most sensible by far to me.
It's all a matter of what we choose to believe,
and to pretend because you have gobs of evidence, it proves something more than the simple evidence I/others see, means nothing.
All your gobs of what you see as evidence may prove, is it takes all that to try to prove God out of the picture to whatever degree
So, in the end, neither one of us have anything but a choice we have made by our logical processing of whatever we deem is evidence, and that's it. Beyond that, If we want to claim more, like feelings/gut or "God's built in, or put
it in my heart" type stuff is evidence (evidence CAN be defined as something that makes something evident...period)...surely if logic tells one to trust in the unknown as the beginning, we can trust our
feelings as well...one is certainly no less logical than the other.
What it demonstrates is that creationists are not reasonable. They don't care what the evidence is. Creationists will protect their beliefs no matter what the evidence is.
If not ancestral, how can transitional be related? If they aren't
related, then they just look similar and they prove nothing.
That is simply not the truth...I have the evidence that convinces me and you have the evidence that convinces you.
To assume yours is more compelling than mine is arrogant at the very least.
Just stopped in to answer but I think I'll let Bhsmte have his needed jollies and claim some sort of victory because I didn't...much more productive in my strive to helping others, as well as more important than the rather mundane answer I had....true but not earth shattering.
Fine tuning doesn't care how the universe came to be, it is just the way it is required to be.That's because in your god-argument of fine tuning, you are actually making claims that are directly related to the origination of universes.
Evolution makes no such claims about the origins of life.
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?