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.
ok. just choose your favorite example and i will show you why its not evidence for eovlution.
how its relevant to my question?
when i said "evolution" i mean a common descent for cats and human for instance. do you think we have evidence for that?What do you mean by evolution? I don't know if you're dragging in all the anti-theistic materialist baggage when you say "evolution," in which case no, there isn't actually any evidence.
i think its very relevant since the same method you use to conclude design when you see a robot is also true for creatures. so can you tell me why you conclude design when you see a robot but we cant do that with creatures?That is precisely my point. Your hypothetical robots are irrelevant to the question at hand.
i think its very relevant since the same method you use to conclude design when you see a robot is also true for creatures.
It's not constraining God... it's showing the commonality of the design via the designer.Because they could?
This is something I generally find odd about the creationist position. Species arising via evolutionary processes involves certain constraints related to said process. A supernatural designer would not be bound by the same constraints, yet creationists continually apologize for the designer being bound in that manner.
It's not constraining God... it's showing the commonality of the design via the designer.
That is a false statement, as we have explained to you many times. By this time you should know it is false.i think its very relevant since the same method you use to conclude design when you see a robot is also true for creatures.
Because that's not the method we use, and you know it. If you can't be honest in your arguments, why should we pay any attention to you?so can you tell me why you conclude design when you see a robot but we cant do that with creatures?
If you're suggesting that I wouldn't go out of my way to read creationist literature, then you'd be incorrect in that assumption. In fact, I'd wager I've absorbed more creationist/ID material than most creationists.
Otherwise, I don't really care what point you were making since you've already long revealed you have little to no interest in learning about the ToE. Which reinforces the point of my question to the other poster.
Yes, it is a simple concept. I don't know why you can't get it. "Proof" is the validation of the conclusions of axiomatic formal systems."Proof" is a simple concept and only gets complicated when one has no proof while trying to pretend what they cannot prove, is true.
Nope, I simply made a point and your replies have nothing to do with it.
Ah, the desperate, and very old old defense "you don't understand" even though I've asked time and time again for you all to explain/make me understand by simply proving evolution is a fact, with not a single taker that I recall...just excuses.
I would say then I have no idea what point you were trying to make.
But I don't care what you believe and have no interest in trying to "prove" something to you that you're already ideologically opposed to. Your continual asks for proof of evolution are inherently dishonest.
If you want to read about how the theory of evolution is constructed, the evidence which supports it and so on, you can go do so. Nobody is stopping you. And the access to information in this day and age makes it easier than ever. Heck, I've even given you sources in the past to get started (which you've summarily dismissed).
So go do it. Or don't. I don't care.
Yes, it is a simple concept. I don't know why you can't get it. "Proof" is the validation of the conclusions of axiomatic formal systems.
Hmm, "dishonest" to ask for proof now?At least that's a new and equally non viable/funny excuse.
Thanks for livening things up with a little something new, and I'll ad that to my list along with "You should not expect proof from science, or proof evolution is a fact"
And this is the type of goading reply which reinforces the insincerity of your request.
I would however think your time would be better spent in proving evolution is a fact.
I'm not really surprised but I have noted also, recently, no one will so much as try, no one, and that looks very bad for the evolution end of this.
Why? Whether you accept the science of evolution or not is completely irrelevant. Nothing is going to change with respect to modern science.
Like I said, myself and others have pointed you to material on the subject, but you refuse to look and/or hand-wave away anything you're presented with. Your request is inherently insincere, so why should anyone bother? You've already made it clear you're not interested in what you claim to be asking for.
Emphasis added.evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, documentation, validation, attestation, substantiation
"proof of ownership"
And thank you just the same.
Emphasis added.
Yet you reject "confirmation" out of hand. When we offer confirming evidence of evolution you sneer and demand proof! Have you read your own definition?
No. I don't trust you. I have offered you confirming evidence of evolution on a number of occasions and you have always rejected it because you wanted proof! instead. And, of course, the theory of evolution is a theory, not a "fact."Can you please just lay the proof out instead of always talking around it? Confirm evolution is a fact...please.
No. I don't trust you. I have offered you confirming evidence of evolution on a number of occasions and you have always rejected it because you wanted proof! instead. And, of course, the theory of evolution is a theory, not a "fact."
I'm afraid you are just going to have to continue to believe that the theory of evolution is fraudulent.
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?