Floor's all yours, prove your evoplution, at least you admit its provable, the rest? well, we'll see how it goes.
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.
LOL, I think you've befuddled yourself with your rambling Kenny.
If you consider observing paper burning as "proof" of your theory, would you not consider observing a species evolve as "proof" of evolution? You are aware that we have observed such things aren't you?
Floor's all yours, prove your evoplution, at least you admit its provable, the rest? well, we'll see how it goes.
Actually, I’ve seen very little science, or indisputable fact, in this argument. What I have seen is a lot of apparent naturalism (only a belief itself) opposing God’s supernatural creation and interaction. I’m defending a “belief” (not arguing against science) and that’s all evolutionists have, a “belief”, nothing proven. It’s “belief” against “belief” really. Yet, evolutionists try to hamstring me to the scientific method, which is only a framework of their “belief” by which they claim to be champions of scientific thought... so, I ask for it.
Challenge response
First, give me a moment to collect myself/dry my eyes.
Conclusion to challenge,
You decide for yourself but I'd say that is refusal to accept the simple challenge to back up what was said.
But that's ok, I never expected such and no one is going to goad it out of you. The only purpose of the challenge, I wanted to make clear exactly where we are at here, and thanks for your contribution..
Kenny'sID said: ↑
Incomplete, not an experiment at all....pretty much the same thing.
Seriously, how can I take your word for anything...And are you seriously going to say "I didn't use the term "scientific". That's the whole subject here, what is scientific expirimentation/proof.
And YOUR science is where?
THAT is what I asked - you complained that you were not getting sufficient science, so I asked why you were demanding what you are unable to produce yourself.
And you totally ignored that questions and answered your own.
I’ll try my best to not be an offensive one-line snark by just offering a response of “please read my answer again,” but go further and bold the relevant parts of my answer for more clarity, understanding that these conversations move along quickly and things can be overlooked. I will say that where I state “nothing proven” in regard to evolution I’m referring to the theory as a whole. There have been many significant finds in the study involved with the evolutionist’s belief.
[Actually, I’ve seen very little science, or indisputable fact, in this argument. What I have seen is a lot of apparent naturalism (only a belief itself) opposing God’s supernatural creation and interaction. I’m defending a “belief” (not arguing against science) and that’s all evolutionists have, a “belief”, nothing proven. It’s “belief” against “belief” really. Yet, evolutionists try to hamstring me to the scientific method, which is only a framework of their “belief” by which they claim to be champions of scientific thought... so, I ask for it.]
Did you miss the word "scientific"?
For Pete's sake.
Are you incapable of understanding anything anyone says to you?
I have got no desire to "prove" anything to you, do you think that no one is aware of what your response would be anyway?
It seems that you are now pretending that species have not been observed evolving, well here are a few examples for you.
Observed Instances of Speciation
I'm not exactly sure what you are on about here. The scientific method is indeed the framework of scientific though and you are only "hamstrung" to it if you want to do science. As to "apparent" naturalism, I think what you must be referring to is the methodological naturalism of science. not the same thing as the metaphysical naturalism of atheism. I think you are trying too hard to turn this into a theism v. atheism contest, when really all it is the usual creationist controversy, that is, a cranky Protestant minority vs. all other Christians, theists and atheists together.I’ll try my best to not be an offensive one-line snark by just offering a response of “please read my answer again,” but go further and bold the relevant parts of my answer for more clarity, understanding that these conversations move along quickly and things can be overlooked. I will say that where I state “nothing proven” in regard to evolution I’m referring to the theory as a whole. There have been many significant finds in the study involved with the evolutionist’s belief.
[Actually, I’ve seen very little science, or indisputable fact, in this argument. What I have seen is a lot of apparent naturalism (only a belief itself) opposing God’s supernatural creation and interaction. I’m defending a “belief” (not arguing against science) and that’s all evolutionists have, a “belief”, nothing proven. It’s “belief” against “belief” really. Yet, evolutionists try to hamstring me to the scientific method, which is only a framework of their “belief” by which they claim to be champions of scientific thought... so, I ask for it.]
TrueScience doesnt need "belief", thats for religion.
TrueScience is accepted on the data and supporting evidence.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory well supported by empirical evidence. At the present time there is no evidence which contradicts it. Is that what you call a "belief?" And what is the well-evidenced alternative "belief" to which you refer?True
True
I've explained two or three times now that I'm not arguing science at all. I like science -- science is good "structured research and analysis," but it's not conclusive on the Theory of Evolution, therefore evolution, as a whole and despite a lot of evidence, is still only a "belief" you adhere to... again, not a 100% proven scientific fact. If evolution is not yet a fact, what else can it be but a "belief" that is at odds with another "belief"?
science is good "structured research and analysis," but it's not conclusive on the Theory of Evolution, therefore evolution, as a whole and despite a lot of evidence, is still only a "belief" you adhere to... again, not a 100% proven scientific fact. If evolution is not yet a fact, what else can it be but a "belief" that is at odds with another "belief"?
Yes, well-supportedThe theory of evolution is a scientific theory well supported by empirical evidence.
“No contradiction” does not equal “proof of it.”At the present time there is no evidence which contradicts it.
So yes, it’s still only a belief until someone can prove without a doubt that we’re distant cousins to a hickory-nut or something like that.Is that what you call a "belief?"
Nice try with “well- evidenced”, but I haven’t said there is an alternative with regard to science – all I have said, or intended to say,” is that Creationism and Evolutionism are two beliefs.And what is the well-evidenced alternative "belief" to which you refer?
first-hand observation you suppose?Physics isn't conclusive on gravity either, but you don't see people going around calling gravity a "belief". I wonder why that is...?
I'm not exactly sure what you are on about here. The scientific method is indeed the framework of scientific though and you are only "hamstrung" to it if you want to do science. As to "apparent" naturalism, I think what you must be referring to is the methodological naturalism of science. not the same thing as the metaphysical naturalism of atheism. I think you are trying too hard to turn this into a theism v. atheism contest, when really all it is the usual creationist controversy, that is, a cranky Protestant minority vs. all other Christians, theists and atheists together.
We've observed every necessary aspect of evolution: selection, genetics, inheritance, mutation and speciation.first-hand observation you suppose?
Head on over to the Conspiracy section...Physics isn't conclusive on gravity either, but you don't see people going around calling gravity a "belief". I wonder why that is...?
This doesn’t need to be a scientific or religious dissertation, simply what you feel about the subject.
For me, I love the Bible and science, but this wondrous universe coming about spontaneously from singularity (the meaning of which I barely understand) in a big bang, without the mighty hand of God; a “single cell something” rising up from a mud hole (primordial soup of some kind) “on its own” in baron, inhospitable conditions and becoming “the common ancestor” in a linear progression to the varieties of everything on a beautifully complex earth, including man... well, just step back from all the jargon and defense for a moment and look at that picture. I know there are a lot of Christians who enjoy investigating God’s creation, I do myself (my handle is inquiring mind), but how people are completely sold on that “one in a gazillion” possibility, and at the same time regard the biblical creation by an Almighty God (however and by whatever means He desired to accomplish it) to be a fairy tale, really puzzles me.
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?