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.
You're right that there is more as to how evolution works, but this isn't a biology class and starting with the basic facts is always good.Correct me if Im wrong, but isn't that the fact of evolution? Allele frequency changes is an undeniable fact. The theory gives a model regarding how those changes come about.
I did! Without the body the rest of the post it worthless... kinda my point really.How about if you actually address my post? After all, you quoted the entire thing.
Just wondering
Then it won't be a problem for you tell me where and why I was wrong will it?..... So go on then.So far I haven't seen anything right that you have posted.
You weren't describing anything, you asked two questions.I was describing the creationist approach to origins research.
What "evidence to the contrary"?Creationists assume a supernatural agency was at work and ignore any evidence to the contrary
The evidence of God is all around and within you.even though there is no supportive evidence for the supernatural agency.
200,000 ERVs, most of the fossil record, almost all of geology, twin nested hierarchy, astrophysics, morphology, transitional fossils, atavisms, biogeography, the thousand of observed instances of speciation... Do I need to keep going?What "evidence to the contrary"?
I have yet to see evidence of your specific god.The evidence of God is all around and within you.
FoeHammer.
I still don't understand why Creationists hate things like empiricism, naturalism, and deductive reasoning.
I guess I should correct my statement: Creationists only dislike empiricism, naturalism, and deductive reasoning when it proves them wrong. Any other time is fine. It's their own particular brand of Special Pleading. Science works except when it conflicts with their religious books.common i thought you would have picked up on it by now.
they don't like it because it proves them wrong.
I guess I should correct my statement: Creationists only dislike empiricism, naturalism, and deductive reasoning when it proves them wrong. Any other time is fine. It's their own particular brand of Special Pleading. Science works except when it conflicts with their religious books.
O I get it!!!I did! Without the body the rest of the post it worthless... kinda my point really.
FoeHammer.
200,000 ERVs, most of the fossil record, almost all of geology, twin nested hierarchy, astrophysics, morphology, transitional fossils, atavisms, biogeography, the thousand of observed instances of speciation... Do I need to keep going?
yes, but do you even know where you are going? the examples you cite are starting to bore me,they are all associated with manufactured pseudosciences and have been constantly defended by their worldly and sophisticated advocates, who incidentally are paid handsomely to maintain the charade. Evolutionary science(for want of a better word) is impotent with respect to origins
I have yet to see evidence of your specific god.
And you are boring me with your unsubstantiated claims.yes, but do you even know where you are going? the examples you cite are starting to bore me,
Prove that they are pseudosciences.they are all associated with manufactured pseudosciences
I do believe that preachers make much more than scientists. I guess I should stop listening to them too.and have been constantly defended by their worldly and sophisticated advocates, who incidentally are paid handsomely to maintain the charade.
Evolutionary science(for want of a better word) is impotent with respect to origins
That is extremely vague. That could be evidence for any god. (Ironically, my daughter is named after an ancient goddess, Eris)Look into the eyes of your child
Ahh, Trial by Ordeal. They used to do that a lot in the middle ages...I watched this show once (cant remeber the name) where an arab woman was accused of adultery.
The way they went about getting evidence was to put a pan on a fire for a few mins and then touched it on her tounge, if here tounge swells, she dies, if it doesent, she lives.
Lucky for her she is still alive.
I think others have alread done a pretty good job of that but calling evolution nonsense was certainly wrong. Nonsense is things like talking snakes and "created kinds"Then it won't be a problem for you tell me where and why I was wrong will it?.....So go on then.
I asked whether we should take an approach similar to the creationist approach to origins which is to assume that a supernatural being did it and stop looking for any evidence that he didn't.You weren't describing anything, you asked two questions.
The evidence to the contrary has been been discussed on countless posts on this board and fills millions of pages in scientific journals. Do you want evidence for evolution or for an earth that is far older than young earth creationists allow or against the global flood. The evidence for the contrary depends on which brand of creationist you are.What "evidence to the contrary"?
So how does that "evidence of God" which you can't actually provide, say anything about the evidence of modern science?The evidence of God is all around and within you.
FoeHammer.
How about I provide my name and address and you can pop any evidence you think you have into a very small box and mail it to me, I'll even refund the P&P? But I guess you don't have any of that kind of evidence do you? You'll want to link me to some article on the web which you consider evidence but I consider someones interpretation of alleged evidence.200,000 ERVs, most of the fossil record, almost all of geology, twin nested hierarchy, astrophysics, morphology, transitional fossils, atavisms, biogeography, the thousand of observed instances of speciation... Do I need to keep going?
You have seen the evidence of God you just don't see it as evidence of Him.I have yet to see evidence of your specific god.
You freely admit to proposing a hypothetical situation and then accuse me of building strawmen LOL! go figure.O I get it!!!
Lets see if I have this straight-
I propose a hypothetical situation related to the OP.
Then you come along and say "Yeah but what if the situation you propose is completely different?"
I see now...........well have fun with your strawman statements instead of just addressing the points brought up.
I watched this show once (cant remeber the name) where an arab woman was accused of adultery.
The way they went about getting evidence was to put a pan on a fire for a few mins and then touched it on her tounge, if here tounge swells, she dies, if it doesent, she lives.
Lucky for her she is still alive.
How about I provide my name and address and you can pop any evidence you think you have into a very small box and mail it to me, I'll even refund the P&P? But I guess you don't have any of that kind of evidence do you? You'll want to link me to some article on the web which you consider evidence but I consider someones interpretation of alleged evidence.You have seen the evidence of God you just don't see it as evidence of Him.
FoeHammer.
In other words you can't? I thought not.I think others have alread done a pretty good job of that
That would depend on whether you think it makes sense or not. It doesn't make sense to me therefore it is nonsense. The only argument you can have with that would amount to nothing more than a difference of opinion.but calling evolution nonsence was certainly wrong.
I have a different opinion with regards to "talking snakes" and created kinds.Nonsense is things like talking snakes and "created kinds"
No you didn't, post #44 page 5 go take another look.I asked whether we should take an approach similar to the creationist approach to origins which is to assume that a supernatural being did it and stop looking for any evidence that he didn't.
So this evidence you speak of amounts to nothing more than yet more differences of opinion?The evidence to the contrary has been been discussed on countless posts on this board and fills millions of pages in scientific journals. Do you want evidence for evolution or for an earth that is far older than young earth creationists allow or against the global flood. The evidence for the contrary depends on which brand of creationist you are.
Actually you already have the evidence that you say I cannot provide. Look without and look within... That is real evidence, now, what do you make of that evidence?So how does that "evidence of God" which you can't actually provide, say anything about the evidence of modern science?
Look into the eyes of your child
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?