Evolution is the only theologically plausible answer

[Wildswanderer]

They're the building blocks of life

Lol, that like saying a rock in the woods is a house.
Only much worse, because life is much more complex than that. You need a DNA code for starters.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Claiming that an event must be observed before scientists can study it and draw conclusions about it is just plain ridiculous and quite ignorant. If that were so, geologists couldn't study or say anything about glacial erosion of U-valleys or ancient volcanic eruptions.

And do you assume they get everything right about ancient volcanos too? How incredibly naive.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You can't explain why there is evidence of no life in the oldest rocks

The assumption that they are the oldest rocks is highly debatable.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I was waiting to see how long before you took the thread this direction again.

It isn't my fault that you can't figure out subtleties in simple questions.

Are are you afraid to admit that you wouldn't ask expert medical advice from a plumber, because his point of view would not be sufficient in normal cases to offer sound, rational medical opinion?

I don't assume that a "medical professional" is right either.
What a plumber has to do with it, I have no idea.
Sometimes I've got better medical advice from people who aren't professionals.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What is it about this topic that gets some theists so riled up? If evolution has no bearing on the existence of God, why do some Christians insist that we must reject it in favour of a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis?

Bingo!

 

[Wildswanderer]

Creationist sources do not count. If people cannot support their claims by going through peer review why would you believe them?

Facepalm!
"Peer review" is actually often another term for "bias." as in, "we only accept material that fits our preconceived notions."

 

[SkepticThinker]

IDK, seeing as I'm not riled up. I'm amused how many people defend evolution theory as if it's the Holy Grail.
Never mind that it's always changing. Darwin believed bears could evolve into whales for goodness sake.
It's like so many people cannot see the obvious flaws.

And here we have yet another attempt by a creationist to drag science down to the level of religion. Which is an admission of sorts, isn't it?
It's like you guys are following a poorly written playbook.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have a popular, accepted myth.
And I understand that evidence doesn't exist for molecules to many evolution.
So we have schools teaching the myth that we are merely advanced primates and then we wonder why there are school shootings, hopelessness and high suicide rates.

Please present your studies demonstrating a causal relationship between school shootings, suicides and hopelessness with the teaching of evolution in schools.
You must have these, right? I mean, you wouldn't just be making stuff up.

 

[metis]

The idea that "peer review" is done for the purpose of bias is just another nonsensical conspiracy theory, as it's done to allow other scientists access to the data and possibly comment on it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't believe that the overall theory of evolution is rational, or that defending it is sound reasoning.
So from my point of view you're the one making up irrational claims.

Rationality isn't a matter of opinion. A person who is thinking rationally is a person who is making arguments based on, or in accordance with reason and logic You've already demonstrated that you employ logical fallacies in your attempt to argue against evolution. For example, you've asserted arguments from personal incredulity several times in this thread. That is irrational.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Only it hasn't.
It has been explained away, by people who already accept the overall theory, and refuse to step out of that box, and view history from another angle.

I used to see the world from a Christian point of view back when I was a Christian.
I'm now an agnostic atheist.
I've already viewed this from "another angle."
Oops.
How about you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lol, that like saying a rock in the woods is a house.
Only much worse, because life is much more complex than that. You need a DNA code for starters.

No, it isn't. It's like saying the trees in the woods are some of the building blocks used to construct a house.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Facepalm!
"Peer review" is actually often another term for "bias." as in, "we only accept material that fits our preconceived notions."

Nonsensical conspiracy garbage.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Facepalm!
"Peer review" is actually often another term for "bias." as in, "we only accept material that fits our preconceived notions."

Nope. To get published in a peer reviewed source one has to follow the scientific method. To even woork at AiG and most creationist sites one must swear to not follow the scientific method.


Unfortunately you don't even have a fifth grade level of scientific literacy and you reject offers to help you to learn more.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, it isn't. It's like saying the trees in the woods are some of the building blocks used to construct a house.

Thanks for pointing out the need for a designer and architect.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And here we have yet another attempt by a creationist to drag science down to the level of religion. Which is an admission of sorts, isn't it?
It's like you guys are following a poorly written playbook.

Evolution is the religion of many. Nothing wrong with religion, but don't pretend is doesn't require faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for pointing out the need for a designer and architect.

You still don't understand analogies.


Creationist beliefs can cause such extreme cognitive dissonance that it looks as if the person can no longer add 2 + 2 to get 4.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution is the religion of many. Nothing wrong with religion, but don't pretend is doesn't require faith.

No. Religion is your weakness. Just because you know that you are wrong you should not falsely accuse others of that too.

You really really should try to learn the concept of evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thanks for pointing out the need for a designer and architect.

You've missed the point again.

If you're claiming that somebody designed the trees, you'll need to demonstrate that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evolution is the religion of many. Nothing wrong with religion, but don't pretend is doesn't require faith.

Nonsense. It's a scientific theory, like plate tectonics or germ theory of disease.

It's only religious-minded folks claiming it as a religion in order to drag it down to their level. I've seen it time and again.