Subduction Zone
Regular Member
It does not need to be. If you want to claim that he was anything but a man the burden of proof is upon you. I can only say that there is no valid reason to think that he was not just a man.
Upvote
0
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.
It does not need to be. If you want to claim that he was anything but a man the burden of proof is upon you. I can only say that there is no valid reason to think that he was not just a man.That didn't sound too convincing.
From an atheist's perspective, I would assume he was [sic] either a man or a woman.
Sorry none of that is proof unless you,want it to. Its still,all assumption because you cannot prove any of it causes one creature to turn into,something else. You can try to explain until you are blue in the face but all your explanations do is prove that you want evolution to be true no matter the fact you can't prove it. All those wonderful discoveries show is common design not evolution. When someone can prove that one thing can evolve into something else then you will,have proof. Until then it is only wishful thinking.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
Yes, but the common-design argument is bogus. It does not explain why there is a genetic mechanism of inheritance. It would assume that I look like my father simply because the Designer had in min a common design for humans. OK, but what did I inherit from my father, what role did my genes play in this?Sorry none of that is proof unless you,want it to. Its still,all assumption because you cannot prove any of it causes one creature to turn into,something else. You can try to explain until you are blue in the face but all your explanations do is prove that you want evolution to be true no matter the fact you can't prove it. All those wonderful discoveries show is common design not evolution. When someone can prove that one thing can evolve into something else then you will,have proof. Until then it is only wishful thinking.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
Sorry none of that is proof unless you,want it to. Its still,all assumption because you cannot prove any of it causes one creature to turn into,something else. You can try to explain until you are blue in the face but all your explanations do is prove that you want evolution to be true no matter the fact you can't prove it. All those wonderful discoveries show is common design not evolution. When someone can prove that one thing can evolve into something else then you will,have proof. Until then it is only wishful thinking.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
Nothing, acceptance would mean abandoning his belief and he would never do that, without his belief he would feel worthless.What would you accept as proof of evolution?
Yes, but the common-design argument is bogus. It does not explain why there is a genetic mechanism of inheritance. It would assume that I look like my father simply because the Designer had in min a common design for humans. OK, but what did I inherit from my father, what role did my genes play in this?
And there are other fallacies here. Why should teh Designer have a common design in mind? Whatever is created has nothing whatsoever to do with its predecessors, it is a wholly independent event. Given that the Designer is creative, he or she need not stick with the same old, same old.
Actually all of that is evidence for evolution. And there is no denying that. If you deny that it only means that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Science does not use "proofs". As the saying goes proof is for mathematics and whiskey.
There are literally mountains of scientific evidence that support the theory of evolution and none that supports the concept of creationism.
But aren't you arguing evolution is wrong because it violates your religious belief system?Actually all of it supports creation. Because God made everything according to its kind. What do we have and always have had on this planet? All kinds of living creatures. Myriads of them, Fossils proving different kinds of creatures. Most all of them with similarities to one another which speaks of common design. Yet all different than one another.
Evolutions nature of evidence is only good upon interpretation of the evidence. Evolutionists believe in evolution and their interpretation of what they find is based upon that belief system.
And yes science does use proofs. You can prove gravity. You can prove the earth is spinning. You can prove that water boils at a certain temperature. You can my identity by my DNA. All this because you can actually show it in action. Evolution is something you can't prove because you can't seen it in action. You can assume, you can guess. You can believe. But you can't prove. The fossil record proves nothing but that the creature existed. There is no way to say what it came from or what it turned into. Unless of course you make an assumption based upon your belief system.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
Nothing, acceptance would mean abandoning his belief and he would never do that, without his belief he would feel worthless.
No one can change a creationists mind they must change their own minds and the majority of them do eventually come to their senses.
Actually all of it supports creation. Because God made everything according to its kind. What do we have and always have had on this planet? All kinds of living creatures. Myriads of them, Fossils proving different kinds of creatures. Most all of them with similarities to one another which speaks of common design. Yet all different than one another.
Evolutions nature of evidence is only good upon interpretation of the evidence. Evolutionists believe in evolution and their interpretation of what they find is based upon that belief system.
And yes science does use proofs. You can prove gravity. You can prove the earth is spinning. You can prove that water boils at a certain temperature. You can my identity by my DNA. All this because you can actually show it in action. Evolution is something you can't prove because you can't seen it in action. You can assume, you can guess. You can believe. But you can't prove. The fossil record proves nothing but that the creature existed. There is no way to say what it came from or what it turned into. Unless of course you make an assumption based upon your belief system.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
I will tell you what would change,my,mind. Actual proof that something was turning into something else. Take any creature you like and watch it evolve into something else and I will believe. I promise.
Please don't insult me.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
If evolution was shown to be completely wrong your religion would still be no closer to being right, evolution is however a fact and your religion is just a belief like so many others you don't believe in, I just reject one belief more than you.I will tell you what would change,my,mind. Actual proof that something was turning into something else. Take any creature you like and watch it evolve into something else and I will believe. I promise.
Please don't insult me.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
That's true!If evolution was shown to be completely wrong your religion would still be no closer to being right,
That's true!
Teacher: What are 2 + 3?
Evolutionist: 4
Creationist: 5
Teacher: 4 is wrong.
In the above scenario, does the evolutionist's wrong answer make the creationist's right answer "closer to being right"?
Try.... In 'every' scientific claim it is of course the creationists that are wrong.In almost every scientific claim it is of course the creationists that are wrong.
I was being rather generous. I am fairly sure that lightning must have made one strike for them, where they had a minor claim that was shown to be correct. No major claim of theirs has ever been right. So a huge error of the sort that was used in the analogy would be only a creationist mistake.Try.... In 'every' scientific claim it is of course the creationists that are wrong.
Yes it does. We have evidence from the lab:I'll be off for some weeks later today, but specialized structures need specialized code.
Code doesn't write itself.
Yes it can. And even if the theory couldn't account for, it is enough to say it has happened before our eyes.Yet the theory can't account for how...
You are wrong. Gene duplication is a known and documented natural process. Read also the PLOS article linked in my post above.Was this a joke? Because if it is your suppose to add a smile face. For the benefit of the lukers: according to Theistic Evolution DNA is the "Language of God". There is no known natural process that can produce DNA.
Because I used consol's own words in it?That is a very poorly asked question.
You mean like the 1925 Scope's Monkey Trial?Subduction Zone said:I have doubts that you could ever find a case where the evolution side was wrong and the creation side was right.
You mean "voted wrong"? such as the Ham vs Nye debate?Subduction Zone said:In almost every scientific claim it is of course the creationists that are wrong.
If you think you'd like to debate me on the issue of creationism, you just bring all the science you can carry,* and I'll bring one page of the Bible ... just one page ... and we'll see whose loss will be apparent immediately.Subduction Zone said:That is why creationists will not participate in an actual scientific debate, their loss would be apparent immediately.
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?