Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Deeje]

The reality is that without the germ theory there was no reason to test the trade off between cleanliness and speed, despite Ignaz Semmelweis' finding that medical students fresh from the dissecting room were causing excess maternal death compared to midwives. Semmelweis introduced compulsory handwashing for everyone entering the wards and there was a sharp decrease in maternal and fetal deaths, however the Royal Society dismissed his advice and it took a decade for Pasteur's discoveries and then another decade for Lister put the puzzle together. That is how science works and to rail against science because it doesn't get it perfect every time from the get-go is absurd. But ... modern communications mean that today things move much faster.

And this nicely demonstrates what happens when evidence is presented to those with a particular mindset that disagrees with their habitual practices. If it was clearly demonstrated that the simple act of washing hands saved lives, why was that a challenge to the medical profession? Was the simplicity of the remedy a blow to their egos? Why did people have to die unnecessarily because of their refusal to acknowledge the clear evidence that a simple procedure was saving lives?

We see this mindset still in medicine and in science. There is staunch resistance when a procedure is clearly shown to be in error. We look back at those early surgeons and the "Royal Society" that governed them and shake our heads at their egotistical stupidity.....will we do the same in the future? No doubt we will.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

There cannot be “Evolution” before LIFE.

LIFE has to already exist for any life to evolve, and evolving passing genes to the next generations.

So essentially every offspring required parents, and that parent required parents of their own, and so on.

You can’t have evolution coming from nothing or non-living matters. And you cannot have evolution before life.

Correct. Evolution is a product of life. Life isn't the product of evolution.

 

[Deeje]

I'm not asking you to "swallow the whole scenario". I'm asking you to at least acknowledge and understand very basic facts about what evolution actually says.

And I have quoted countless articles linked to by the evolutionists here to show exactly why the basic "facts" of evolution are not "facts" at all. You seem to think supposition is a substitute for proof. There is no proof in science so why push it like it's fact? Beliefs are not facts as evolutionist are quick to tell creationists.

You have beliefs based on faith just like we do.

Again, evolution is the name we give to the process that causes adaptation.

That is not true. Science uses adaptation, which has limits, to prove macro-evolution, which apparently has no limits. Amoebas to dinosaurs is possible in your macro-evolutionary scenario, bit adaptation does not allow for that. The limits are clear in adaptive change, but science pretends that they don't exist.

As my post clearly explained, that's not what evolution does and evolution has NEVER claimed populations diversify outside of their taxa.

If you can believe that amoebas can transform over time to become dinosaurs, then that is exactly what science is implying.

If you can believe that dinosaurs are the ancestors of today's chickens, then I rest my case. Who has the unprovable fairy tale?

Macro-evolution has been directly observed multiple times.

Please show us all this macro-evolution. I eagerly await your examples. Please don't bother posting anything that relies on faith or belief though.....OK? You said it was observed, so let us observe it too.

So, to you, someone using uncertain language is proof that what they're saying is complete fantasy? In that case, if they had replaced all "might haves" with "definitely did", would you change your mind and consider what they say to be fact?

Are you serious? If science is so sure that what they suggest is true, then the language would reflect that certainty....but we know that the language of fact is missing because there simply are no facts. You have an unprovable theory that frankly, upon examination makes me laugh. All the uncertainty is there hidden in plain sight in every article I have read, but it is glossed over like it isn't even there. I want the readers here to see it for themselves and understand when they are victims of a snow job. It is as @cladking said...."a mass delusion", sold to an unsuspecting public by a bunch of ego driven scientists, who can't be told and can't be wrong.

 

[Deeje]

Yeah, that's me and all the rest of the more sensible - uneducated morons - keep believing that Deeje - except I don't have a religious belief dictating what I think, unlike yourself.

Actually I wouldn't swallow evolution even if I wasn't a Christian. It defies logic and there is not a shred of real evidence to support it.

"Educated" can mean "indoctrinated" you know. It is not just religion that is capable of indoctrination. "Sensible" to me means having real evidence that you have verified for yourself. I have verified the evidence that the Bible has given and I have compared it to what evolution teaches, and quite frankly, evolution requires more faith and belief that creation does. So to me, it's the sensible, logical option.

Free yourself from this delusion!

I will if you will

 

[Deeje]

Please provide evidence in the form of citation ot link to your claimed conflicting data. Lets see if it can be falsified and if it has been peer reviewed. I.e. meet the scientific method

This is another example of why those who support evolution over ID cannot accept that their theory is flawed.

What can be "falsified" if no evidence for the Creator is allowed even a foot in the door. There is no more proof for evolution than there is for creation, so science only accepting the word of other scientists and demanding "peer review" when it is worthless because it is reviewed by other evolutionists, paints a nice cosy picture of why science reject everything that disagrees with the status quo. The "scientific method" is the invention of the scientists. It's the only rules of the game. If you don't play by their rules, you don't play....period.

Step back and see that it's a "members only" club that permits no one who is 'out of uniform' into their inner sanctum. It's a closed room and no light is permitted unless you use their torch.

No exactly a level playing field, is it?

 

[gnostic]

"Evidence found in the field" is not science because it is open to interpretation.

Excuse me, but can you tell me what astronomy is?

You cannot perform experiments on stars, planets, galaxies, nebulae, comets, etc, inside laboratories.

Early astronomers (before the telescopes), have to be outside, diligently and patiently observe the pattern of the stars, watch the movements of observable planets (only 5 can be seen without the telescopes), plot the stars, calculated the rise and setting, etc, night after night, season after season, year after year, all so they can make predictions as to “what” will happen “when”.

When the telescopes developed, they could observe more than ever before, but there were limits to what early telescopes could observe.

Some of the “limiting” factors were design and technology. What astronomers discovered is that larger aperture.

Here is one fact, you should know about astronomy:

Did you know that before 1919, every astronomers with the telescopes who saw Andromeda (as well as Triangulum), thought it was a nebula, not a galaxy?

They all thought the Milky Way was the entire universe, and the only galaxy we could observe. And that Andromeda was nebula that was part of Milky Way.

It wasn’t until 1919, they built the largest optical telescope in the world at that time - the Hooker Telescope - that Edwin Hubble observed Andromeda, was not seeing a nebula as part of Milky Way, but a separate spiral galaxy. And it was the same with other galaxies.

The 20th century, saw many breakthrough discoveries, with both optical telescopes and radio telescopes, but working in any of these observatories, are considered working in the fields.

Now, we know that you cannot visit other planets, stars, galaxies, as you would go to Galapagos or Madagascar, to work in the fields to study wildlife, but astronomers working in observatories, are working in the fields, not laboratories.

Some past astronomers have theoretically concluded and explained that the planets, including the Earth itself, orbiting around the Sun, known as the Heliocentric model.

Heliocentric model was first by the Greek astronomer of the 3rd century BCE, Aristarchus of Samos (his work is lost, but his work was summarised by Syracusan engineer and inventor Archimedes) to Nicolaus Copernicus.

But the heliocentric model was unpopular among astronomers, most favouring Geocentric model (like that of Ptolemy), where the sun and all planets observed, orbiting around the Earth, making the Earth the centre of the universe.

It wasn’t until Galileo with his telescope, who prove Copernicus’ heliocentric model is the right one. But it was still unpopular among the Roman Catholic Church, where the then Pope deemed Galileo’s works to be heresy, and he was under house arrest for the rest of his days.

My point is that some evidences cannot be found in the experiments in the laboratories.

 

[gnostic]

What can be "falsified" if no evidence for the Creator is allowed even a foot in the door.

Sorry, but can scientists explain what electricity is, where it come from (or how it is generated), or how it work or how it can be used, all without the need to include the Creator?

Of course, they can.

Does the bible or any other scriptures can explain what electricity is?

If you don’t need god to explain electricity, then why do biologists need god to explain the anatomy and physiology of the human bodies.

The bible explain nothing about human body, like how the brain, heart, lungs, stomach, reproduction system work. Nor can the bible explain biodiversity of animals or plant life.

 

[Deeje]

Which branch would that be?

The branch that has no real evidence for its claims.

Remember, like I've told you dozens of times now, evolutionary theory draws from multiple branches and fields of science. The amazing part is that all the evidence drawn from those multiple branches of science all points to the same conclusion.

No collusion of course. Scientists belong to the same club, a bit like doctors....they won't disparage other doctors because they might just disparage themselves and their own practices in the process.

When scientist back up other scientists, how is that more convincing than creationists backing up other creationists?

Unless there is proof for what scientists claim, it is all unverifiable assumption.....what you accuse us of having.

 

[gnostic]

Both hypotheses are baseless. There is no evidence there even was religion or belief before 2000 BC. It is illogical to assume either of these hypotheses carried any weight at all.

Sorry, but are you seriously saying that there were no religions BEFORE 2000 BCE?

What of the 3rd millennium BCE (Bronze Age) religions of Egypt and Sumer/Akkad?

Amun, Atum, Re, Hathor, Horus, Osiris and Isis, Ptah, Khnum, etc, were all worshipped in the 3rd millennium, as well as in Bronze Age Egypt of the 2nd millennium BCE and in Iron Age Egypt of the 1st millennium BCE.

Heck, there are evidences that Horus, Seth, Hathor, Wadjet, Nekhbet and Neith were worshipping before the 1st dynasty (about 3100 BCE), known as the Predynastic Egypt.

Predynastic Egypt is dated from about 4000 BCE to about 3100 BCE, when there were two kingdoms of Egypt:

• Upper Egypt (southern kingdom)
  
• Lower Egypt (northern kingdom, the Nile Delta)
  

Despite the Egypt being divided politically and culturally, they were united in their religion, because those deities existed before Egypt unification in 3100 BCE, and survived the unification.
Egypt in the Predynastic period coincided with Egypt in the Chalcolithic period, when they were still using stone tools but have discovered how to make copper tools. Hence the Chalcolithic period is also known as the “Copper Age”.

Chalcolithic period is a transitional period between the Neolithic period and Bronze Age.

Though more primitive than the Bronze Age Egypt, the artworks found in Predynastic have some of the same symbols on the animals, like hawk/falcon (Horus), serpent (Wadjet) and vulture (Nekhbet) wearing the same crowns as their Bronze Age counterparts. Horus was worshipped both in the north (Lower Egypt) and south (Upper Egypt), wearing the red crown (deshret) and white crown (hedjet) in respective kingdoms. In respective kingdoms, were also the papyrus plant and lotus plant, more symbols of north and south.

In Mesopotamia, they also have the Chalcolithic period (Copper Age), which began around 4000 BCE to about 3100 BCE, which was the start of Jadet Nasr period (c 3100 - 2900 BCE). This time frame (4000 - 3100 BCE) is called Uruk period, because at that time, the city of Uruk was flourishing during this period as the largest city in the world, from 3400 to 2700 BCE.

Uruk period was also known as the Proto-Sumerian period, because of the development of proto-Sumerian cuneiform began in mid-4th millennium BCE, and Jemdet Nasr marked the beginning of Sumerian civilisation (3100 - 2900 BCE).

Bronze Age in Mesopotamia, is similar to that of Bronze Age in Egypt (3100 - 1000 BCE).

Uruk played an important role in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, because Gilgamesh was the king of Uruk, and though his story is mythological or legendary, he is believed to have lived historically in 27th century BCE, as one of the king of the 3rd dynasty of Uruk. And the earliest myth of Gilgamesh (or Bilgames, as he is known) is found in 5 Sumerian poems, possibly written in 22nd or 21st century BCE, that predated the Epic.

An (Babylonian Anu), Innana (Ishtar), Enki (Ea), Enlil (Ellil), Utu (Shamash) have all appeared in Sumerian poems.

But An and Inanna have older history, dating back to the Uruk period (4th millennium BCE). We know this because of the city Uruk was divided into 2 districts, dedicated to these sky deities: Eanna District and Anu District.

In the Anu District is the Anu Ziggurat, built about 4000 BCE. Around 3000 BCE, the White Temple dedicated to An, was built on this Ziggurat.

In the Eanna District, 5 temples, most of them were dedicated to Inanna, were built between 3600 and 3100 BCE. The Stone-Cone temple is the earliest temple of Inanna, built in c 3600 BCE.

The whole points of these history, is to show that different civilisations, have different religions, that predated your absurd claim that religion only started in 2000 BCE.

The bible also make claims that Egypt and Uruk (which some translations called Uruk “Erech”, didn’t exist until after the Flood. But archaeologically Egypt and Uruk (Erech) predated 2000 BCE.

Heck, the first Egyptian pyramid was the Step Pyramid of Djoser, built in the necropolis Saqqara. Djoser was the 1st king of 3rd dynasty (Old Kingdom), reigning from 2686 to 2667 BCE. The pyramid was a symbol of Re’s ladder or stair that he used to ascend his the sky and board the sun boat (Solar Barque). The dead king in his afterlife, will ascend the sky via the pyramid and become a crewman to Re’s Solar Barque.

The pyramids were also symbol of the very first land that rose from primeval water, Nu, like a mound or hill. The mound created by Re was the integral part of the Sun cult in Heliopolis.

 

[gnostic]

No collusion of course. Scientists belong to the same club, a bit like doctors....they won't disparage other doctors because they might just disparage themselves and their own practices in the process.

Scientific Method is not about proving any hypothesis, but about testing and refuting the premises of hypothesis than verifying it.

The scientific method and peer review are used to weed out the cheats or to find errors.

If the pass the testings of scientific method and peer review, only then can be potential scientific theory.

Testing, either through finding evidences or through repeated experiments, is the only mean of finding out if it is truly scientific, factual.

 

[cladking]

Sorry, but are you seriously saying that there were no religions BEFORE 2000 BCE?
What of the 3rd millennium BCE (Bronze Age) religions of Egypt and Sumer/Akkad?
Amun, Atum, Re, Hathor, Horus, Osiris and Isis, Ptah, Khnum, etc, were all worshipped in the 3rd millennium, as well as in Bronze Age Egypt of the 2nd millennium BCE and in Iron Age Egypt of the 1st millennium BCE.
Heck, there are evidences that Horus, Seth, Hathor, Wadjet, Nekhbet and Neith were worshipping before the 1st dynasty (about 3100 BCE), known as the Predynastic Egypt.

Uruk played an important role in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, because Gilgamesh was the king of Uruk, and though his story is mythological or legendary, he is believed to have lived historically in 27th century BCE, as one of the king of the 3rd dynasty of Uruk. And the earliest myth of Gilgamesh (or Bilgames, as he is known) is found in 5 Sumerian poems, possibly written in 22nd or 21st century BCE, that predated the Epic.
Heck, the first Egyptian pyramid was the Step Pyramid of Djoser, built in the necropolis Saqqara. Djoser was the 1st king of 3rd dynasty (Old Kingdom), reigning from 2686 to 2667 BCE. The pyramid was a symbol of Re’s ladder or stair that he used to ascend his the sky and board the sun boat (Solar Barque). The dead king in his afterlife, will ascend the sky via the pyramid and become a crewman to Re’s Solar Barque.
The pyramids were also symbol of the very first land that rose from primeval water, Nu, like a mound or hill. The mound created by Re was the integral part of the Sun cult in Heliopolis.

Ancient superstition is a mass delusion. Most people don't realize it but there was not even the word "belief" in Ancient Language. This is a fraud perpetuated by those who actually believe the ancient writing was incomprehensible gobbledty gook. Despite the fact they know they don't understand it they simply interpret it in terms of magic and religion. The reality is these terms were part of ancient science and "gods" were actually ancient theory. Horus was the phenomenon of the "Land of Rainbows". Set was water. Hathor was the beauty of water on the horizon. Tefnut was the normal force and shu was inertia. The "goddess" of the counterweight was isis whom was acted upon by tefnut who made the earth high under the sky.

These "gods" got together to build pyramids on the primeval mounds which were the sources of the water. The pyramids were the boats of re.

Then the Tower of Babel fell. This story though is merely a confused version of the collapse of Ancient Language. The new species lacked science so they had no understanding of the ancient writing. They tried and people tried so hard so long that no written paper survived. Only by chance did the Pyramid Texts turn up in the 1880's chiseled in walls. We had no chance to understand either because no individual possesses the breadth of knowledge necessary to understand. In fact ancient science was more advanced than 1880's science so they had no means possible even if someone had known everything.

It is by understanding the Pyramid Texts that I was able to predict that the second Sphinx lies under the NE corner of G1. I spent years trying to get infrared imaging done and when it finally happened in October 2015 they found the hot spot and issued an urgent call for Egyptologists to explain it. None of them even have an hypothesis for the anomaly I predicted. It's not really an anomaly at all but rather the side of the pyramid being heated by what the ancients called the "Mafdet Lynx". Around it is inscribed the ancient version of "The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" which they called the "book of Thot".

Unfortunately the powers that be are afraid of this and afraid of the pyramid. There are four entrances and they won't seek any of the others either. One entrance is outside the security wall built a few years back. There is a surprising amnount written about this all through the ancient literature. Indeed, it even appears in the Bible, I believe. The path they found leading right through the anomaly was called "Cool is the Crown Path" by the builders because the cold air would hit you like a hammer on the first hot day. "Crowns" were defined as the tips of fluid flows of which "wadjet" was a specific one that arose through iusaas and the eye of horus.

It's all pretty simple really but it's hard for people with beliefs to see. But make no mistake, the ancients had no word for "belief". There was no synonym. They saw evolution as change in species because this is what they observed. They could trust their senses because theory was checked by the logic of human thought and by repeated observation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Which branch would that be?

. The amazing part is that all the evidence drawn from those multiple branches of science all points to the same conclusion.

the fossil record is even more full of abrupt appearances, gaps and stasis than 150 years ago, DNA is uncannily computer like and we have only one proven origin for such information systems, evolution can't be modeled mathematically, and nobody can get it to work in the lab either.

They sure do all seem to point to the same thing..

 

[Deeje]

Scientific Method is not about proving any hypothesis, but about testing and refuting the premises of hypothesis than verifying it.

The scientific method and peer review are used to weed out the cheats or to find errors.

You obviously believe this. I don't have faith in people who postulate unverifiable ideas and pass them off as facts. Peer review is meaningless.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

If the pass the testings of scientific method and peer review, only then can be potential scientific theory.

You parrot off this stuff as if it should be believed without question.
I challenge the "scientific method" as flawed and riddled with errors. The real evidence is missing.....but the suggestions are without logical or verifiable limits.

Testing, either through finding evidences or through repeated experiments, is the only mean of finding out if it is truly scientific, factual.

There is no way to conduct any experiment for macro-evolution.
All science has are experiments with adaptation. This creates variety within a species....but it does not create any creature outside of its taxonomic family.

There are no facts in this branch of science.....so all you have are baseless assumptions that can no more be proven than our assumptions about an Intelligent Creator.

Science does not have the high ground on this topic. It just thinks it does and disparages anyone who dares to question the "science".

 

[cladking]

Science does not have the high ground on this topic. It just thinks it does and disparages anyone who dares to question the "science".

There are many areas that science not only lacks the high ground but they take the low road.

The problem isn't "science" but rather the misunderstanding of science and scientific results by most scientists. Even those who do understand know that the pecking order determines their grants and income. Step out of line and your funding dries up. I don't think most Egyptologists even believe in ramps any longer since I debunked them several years ago but I've still never heard an Egyptologist speculate that any means was used to build the pyramids other than ramps.

Scientific "theory" is always sound but the ToE is really just a bunch of hypotheses that can't be tested and run counter to all observation. It is generated by interpretation.

 

[cladking]

Excuse me, but can you tell me what astronomy is?

Stars represent actual masses of burning hydrogen. A fossil does not represent anything other than an individual which died by some means and was a member of some species. Evolutionists extrapolate that life as an example of natural selection and its distant relatives as proof of evolution.

The nature of the star can be observed and even calculated. The cause of death and its meaning to change in species can only be guessed at for the fossil.

 

[gnostic]

Ancient superstition is a mass delusion. Most people don't realize it but there was not even the word "belief" in Ancient Language. This is a fraud perpetuated by those who actually believe the ancient writing was incomprehensible gobbledty gook. Despite the fact they know they don't understand it they simply interpret it in terms of magic and religion. The reality is these terms were part of ancient science and "gods" were actually ancient theory. Horus was the phenomenon of the "Land of Rainbows". Set was water. Hathor was the beauty of water on the horizon. Tefnut was the normal force and shu was inertia. The "goddess" of the counterweight was isis whom was acted upon by tefnut who made the earth high under the sky.

These "gods" got together to build pyramids on the primeval mounds which were the sources of the water. The pyramids were the boats of re.

Then the Tower of Babel fell. This story though is merely a confused version of the collapse of Ancient Language. The new species lacked science so they had no understanding of the ancient writing. They tried and people tried so hard so long that no written paper survived. Only by chance did the Pyramid Texts turn up in the 1880's chiseled in walls. We had no chance to understand either because no individual possesses the breadth of knowledge necessary to understand. In fact ancient science was more advanced than 1880's science so they had no means possible even if someone had known everything.

It is by understanding the Pyramid Texts that I was able to predict that the second Sphinx lies under the NE corner of G1. I spent years trying to get infrared imaging done and when it finally happened in October 2015 they found the hot spot and issued an urgent call for Egyptologists to explain it. None of them even have an hypothesis for the anomaly I predicted. It's not really an anomaly at all but rather the side of the pyramid being heated by what the ancients called the "Mafdet Lynx". Around it is inscribed the ancient version of "The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" which they called the "book of Thot".

Unfortunately the powers that be are afraid of this and afraid of the pyramid. There are four entrances and they won't seek any of the others either. One entrance is outside the security wall built a few years back. There is a surprising amnount written about this all through the ancient literature. Indeed, it even appears in the Bible, I believe. The path they found leading right through the anomaly was called "Cool is the Crown Path" by the builders because the cold air would hit you like a hammer on the first hot day. "Crowns" were defined as the tips of fluid flows of which "wadjet" was a specific one that arose through iusaas and the eye of horus.

It's all pretty simple really but it's hard for people with beliefs to see. But make no mistake, the ancients had no word for "belief". There was no synonym. They saw evolution as change in species because this is what they observed. They could trust their senses because theory was checked by the logic of human thought and by repeated observation.

I am not saying gods in Egyptian religion and Sumerian religion are real gods or their religions are true, but that there the HISTORY of these 2 religions have existed over a thousand years BEFORE YOUR CLAIM THAT THERE WERE NO RELIGION BEFORE 2000 BCE!

These are your words:

There is no evidence there even was religion or belief before 2000 BC.

History and archaeology showed that there were temples built for Inanna (Ishtar) and An (Anu), before the Sumerian civilisations, the earliest to Inanna (the Stone-Cone temple) being dated 3600 BCE.

History and archaeological evidences show that most of the Egyptian gods were mentioned in the pyramids of the 5th (Unas) and 6th dynasties (Teti, Pepi I and Pepi II, and a few other), inscribed on the walls of pyramids, written in hieroglyphs, known as the Pyramid Text.

Older pyramids (from the 3rd and 4 dynasties) have less writing inside the chambers.

But some of the Egyptian gods, such as Seth, Horus, Hathor, Neith, Nekhbet and Wadjet predated even the 1st dynasty, hence BEFORE 3100 BCE.

You are bad as other creationists here, who don't understand history, archaeological evidences and science. Why do you make positive assertions on things that you have no education in?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Actually I wouldn't swallow evolution even if I wasn't a Christian. It defies logic and there is not a shred of real evidence to support it.

You are really choosy about the science you believe or disbelieve then, since the vast majority who have any scientific literacy would accept ToE as being essentially true.

I will if you will

That's the kind of thing I wished a girl had said to me much earlier in my life. Might have solved a whole swathe of issues, but now - nah - seen too much. Thanks for the offer though.

I once thought up a proposal to end the world of all religions by having two people to mutually agree to give up their particular (opposing) faiths and for this then to initiate another couple and so on. A bit of a dream rather than any reality though, methinks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is another example of why those who support evolution over ID cannot accept that their theory is flawed.

What can be "falsified" if no evidence for the Creator is allowed even a foot in the door. There is no more proof for evolution than there is for creation, so science only accepting the word of other scientists and demanding "peer review" when it is worthless because it is reviewed by other evolutionists, paints a nice cosy picture of why science reject everything that disagrees with the status quo. The "scientific method" is the invention of the scientists. It's the only rules of the game. If you don't play by their rules, you don't play....period.

Step back and see that it's a "members only" club that permits no one who is 'out of uniform' into their inner sanctum. It's a closed room and no light is permitted unless you use their torch.

No exactly a level playing field, is it?

What makes you think that no evidence of a creator is allowed in the front door?

Perhaps you need to learn what evidence is. The world of science deals with testable hypotheses. That means one must have as a bare minimum a testable hypothesis to have evidence. What refutable version of god do you have? If you cannot think of a test that could refute your god if he does not exist then you do not have a hypothesis, and without a hypothesis for a concept you cannot have any evidence for that concept.

 

[Deeje]

You are really choosy about the science you believe or disbelieve then, since the vast majority who have any scientific literacy would accept ToE as being essentially true.

Its called indoctrination. The vast majority of people are educated in a system that does not allow for any other thought. From High School to University, kids are taught nothing but evolution. Why would you think indoctrination doesn't work? It is taught as verifiable fact, but there is nothing verifiable about it. It seems as if no one is game to challenge it...afraid of the derision that will inevitably follow.

I once thought up a proposal to end the world of all religions by having two people to mutually agree to give up their particular (opposing) faiths and for this then to initiate another couple and so on. A bit of a dream rather than any reality though, methinks.

The end of all world religions is not something new....God has actually been warning about it for centuries.
Depicting the world's failed religious systems under one designation (Babylon the great) the Bible warns that God will put it into the minds of the political powers to turn on this former consort (described as a harlot) and completely destroy her. Original Babylon was the place where all false religions got their start. This "greater Babylon" is representative of all religions that fall outside of the one prescribed by the Creator in the Bible.
Along with that description, God also warns his own people to "get out of her" (Revelation 18:4-5) or else share in her fate.

If you recall, there was actually no religion in Eden. There was no need for one....there will be no need for one in the future when all false religion is gone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its called indoctrination. The vast majority of people are educated in a system that does not allow for any other thought. From High School to University, kids are taught nothing but evolution. Why would you think indoctrination doesn't work? It is taught as verifiable fact, but there is nothing verifiable about it. It seems as if no one is game to challenge it...afraid of the derision that will inevitably follow.

Sorry, but it is no more indoctrination than the acceptance of gravity. There is no opposing idea that is based upon the scientific method. If I am wrong it should be easy to show my error. Find an idea that follows the scientific method, a concept that was developed independent of the theory of evolution, that shows that I am wrong.

The end of all world religions is not something new....God has actually been warning about it for centuries.
Depicting the world's failed religious systems under one designation (Babylon the great) the Bible warns that God will put it into the minds of the political powers to turn on this former consort (described as a harlot) and completely destroy her. Original Babylon was the place where all false religions got their start. This "greater Babylon" is representative of all religions that fall outside of the one prescribed by the Creator in the Bible.
Along with that description, God also warns his own people to "get out of her" (Revelation 18:4-5) or else share in her fate.

Sorry, but that is not God, that is from a book of myth. Once again, use the scientific method to show the error in my claim, since we are discussing the sciences here.

If you recall, there was actually no religion in Eden. There was no need for one....there will be no need for one in the future when all false religion is gone.

That's right. It is a myth. It is no problem not to have an opposing idea in a myth. Once again, can you actually support your claims for once?