We Believe In Dinosaurs

[Phil W]

The scientific account is also written, and the evidence that supports it is very believable.

Fantastical stories is something that I would associate more with talking serpents and such.

I'll have faith in my religion and you can have faith in yours.
It is a free country so far.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'll have faith in my religion and you can have faith in yours.

I prefer to look at the evidence and where it leads.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll have faith in my religion and you can have faith in yours.
It is a free country so far.

It is your right to follow your faith. But it is improper to accuse others of the same error. Just because you have faith does not mean that others are guilty of that.

 

[Phil W]

It is your right to follow your faith. But it is improper to accuse others of the same error. Just because you have faith does not mean that others are guilty of that.

I can't agree with your assessment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't agree with your assessment.

That is only because you do not know what others know. There is no need of faith to accept the fact of evolution. In fact accusing others of faith is a slur and almost certainly a breaking of the Ninth Commandment. It is a "bearing of false witness" against others.

 

[Phil W]

That is only because you do not know what others know. There is no need of faith to accept the fact of evolution. In fact accusing others of faith is a slur and almost certainly a breaking of the Ninth Commandment. It is a "bearing of false witness" against others.

You believe something not of scripture.
I call that faith in the unGodly.
Your faith is in what men have come up with.
Call it what ever you want, but believing something is faith in something.
Evolution isn't fact.
It is dogma.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'll believe what is written, and let others believe the fantastical stories that they evolved from apes and fish and protoplasm.

The stories you think are fantastical are based on real-world evidence and form the basis for much medical research and many advances (such as disease control) as well as commercial developments which are likely to benefit you during your lifetime - responses to the new coronavirus pandemic are just one example.

It doesn't really matter whether you believe in them or not - as Philip K. Dick said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".

 

[Speedwell]

You believe something not of scripture.
I call that faith in the unGodly.
Your faith is in what men have come up with.
Call it what ever you want, but believing something is faith in something.
Evolution isn't fact.
It is dogma.

How does faith (belief without evidence) differ from accepting something as probably true because there is tangible evidence of it? Or do you not see any difference?

 

[Phil W]

The stories you think are fantastical are based on real-world evidence and form the basis for much medical research and many advances (such as disease control) as well as commercial developments which are likely to benefit you during your lifetime - responses to the new coronavirus pandemic are just one example.

It doesn't really matter whether you believe in them or not - as Philip K. Dick said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".

Let me know when they find the "missing link".
Or when they can create life from nothing in a lab.
Or when they have names for all the stars.

 

[Phil W]

How does faith (belief without evidence) differ from accepting something as probably true because there is tangible evidence of it? Or do you not see any difference?

Faith is a personal state.
Some believe one way and some believe the opposite way.
It is up to the hearer to decide which way is worthy of their faithfulness.

 

[Ophiolite]

Let me know when they find the "missing link".

We have found thousands of "missing links". Perhaps you should educate yourself on what a "missing link" is.

Or when they can create life from nothing in a lab.

Since all scientists would agree this is and will always be impossible, why do you mention it? Perhaps you should educate yourself on abiogenesis hypotheses and related experimental programs.

Or when they have names for all the stars.

Now you are just yanking my chain. That doesn't even meet the standards for a strawman argument, like your first two. Perhaps you should educate yourself on how to construct an interesting, challenging post.

 

[Phil W]

We have found thousands of "missing links". Perhaps you should educate yourself on what a "missing link" is.

I mean a link that hasn't been discredited.

Since all scientists would agree this is and will always be impossible, why do you mention it? Perhaps you should educate yourself on abiogenesis hypotheses and related experimental programs.

Yet here we are, to the glory of God our Creator...from nothing.

Now you are just yanking my chain. That doesn't even meet the standards for a strawman argument, like your first two. Perhaps you should educate yourself on how to construct an interesting, challenging post.

It is written that God knows the names of all the stars He created...from nothing. (Psalm 147:4)

 

[Speedwell]

Yet here we are, to the glory of God our Creator...from nothing.

This is the evolution/creation forum. Atheist/theist debates are really not on topic.

 

[Ophiolite]

I mean a link that hasn't been discredited.


Yet here we are, to the glory of God our Creator...from nothing.


It is written that God knows the names of all the stars He created...from nothing. (Psalm 147:4)

As I said, there are several areas where you would benefit from extensive study. No significant number of missing links have been discredited - and when this has happened it is scientists who have made the corrections. And more so-called "missing links" are being added all the time. You really should study this to avoid making embarrassing statements.

Your other remarks are off-topic and self imposed ignorance of the on-topic science matters is not something I care to waste more time over. Thank you for your responses, but - from my POV - this conversation is over.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You believe something not of scripture.
I call that faith in the unGodly.
Your faith is in what men have come up with.
Call it what ever you want, but believing something is faith in something.
Evolution isn't fact.
It is dogma.

Then at best you do not know what "faith" is. Faith is in reality not an asset. It is a flaw. I believe in concepts that have been well supported by evidence. That is the opposite of faith. Faith is a belief without evidence.

And yes, like it or not evolution is a fact. Like it or not you are an ape. I can explain how we know that, but it might take some time. If you accept gravity as a fact then you definitely should accept evolution as a fact.


The good news is that evolution only shows that a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect, but that was known to be the case long before evolution came along.

 

[Shemjaza]

I mean a link that hasn't been discredited.

Discredited by evidence, or just discredited by someone saying:
"Well, my faith tells me it's wrong, so it must be wrong!"

Because we have plenty of transitional relatives of humans and other apes.

A couple of good ones are:
Homo habilis
Homo erectus

 

[Subduction Zone]

I mean a link that hasn't been discredited.[/quoite]

Only a handful of "links" have been discredited. The vast majority have been confirmed.

Let me know when they find the "missing link".

The concept of a "missing link" is a creationist idea. Scientists use far more than the fossil record to demonstrate that evolution is a fact.

Or when they can create life from nothing in a lab.

You are getting off the topic of evolution. In effect you are moving the goalposts and that is an indication that you lost the previous debate. Abiogenesis is a separate but related subject to evolution. You have as much as just conceded the evolution debate since it does not matter to evolution where the first life came from. Can you understand this?

Or when they have names for all the stars.

Wow! Even further. So now you concede abiogenesis.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Let me know when they find the "missing link".
Or when they can create life from nothing in a lab.
Or when they have names for all the stars.

You must have missed the many announcements of links, fossil, genetic, etc., between Hom. Sap. and earlier hominins, stretching back to shared ancestors with other primates. Unless you have some other kind of 'missing link' in mind... Of course, every time a transitional form is discovered, it leaves two smaller gaps either side where previously there was one large gap. Those gaps will continue to multiply in number and decrease in size exponentially until we have a sample of every generation of every species in the lineage, which - of course - will never happen, as fossilisation is extremely rare and discovery of fossils even rarer.

I think there's a good chance they'll create life in the lab; good progress is being made - not from 'nothing', that would be silly - with materials and conditions thought to be present on the early Earth. But if/when they do, there's no way to know for certain that is how it arose the first time.

Whether all stars have names has no bearing whatsoever on the origin of life or human evolution. This is clutching at irrelevant straws to scrape the bottom of your barrel of blind scepticism.

But, at least for the first two questions, you'll be able to continue your increasingly spurious feeble and plaintive denials for the forseeable future. I hope that cheers you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is written that God knows the names of all the stars He created...from nothing. (Psalm 147:4)

It is written that Xenu drugged and paralyzed billions of people, froze them in antifreeze(!), flew them to Earth in interstellar rocket planes, put them around volcanoes and killed them with hydrogen bombs.

But we don't believe that either.

 

[Mantishand]

I wish these atheist would meet God and have their eyes opened.