-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence
- Thread starter Man of Faith
- Start date
RND
Seventh-day Adventist
Yes, one could say the same thing about your POV.
I must have missed it. Is your evidence of common decent fact or theory?
Or it's evidence that all life shares the same basic parts necessary for life on this planet.
I did?
Because I never said such a thing.
RND
Seventh-day Adventist
Using your chart I can see similarities between man and goats. Birds have eyes so that means I can fly right?
Ok, another little terminology thing I should get out of the way. Facts and theories are not mutually exclusive. Most theories explain the observed fact. So, while gravity is a theory, that doesn't mean it's not a fact. Or the germ theory for example, theories explain the observed fact. Theory to a scientist has a different meaning than the everyday common usage of the word. Evolution is a theory, but it is also a fact. sorry, just had to get that out of the way.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
So, RND, you understand that entemologists tell us that, for example, a new species of mosquito has arisen in the London Underground in the last century?
We know it's still a mosquito, and ToE predicts that it will be. That's not the point. The point is that it's a new species.
Do you disagree? If so, why?
(And please don't make me ask you 20 times, it's so rude and tedious. Thanks.)
We know it's still a mosquito, and ToE predicts that it will be. That's not the point. The point is that it's a new species.
Do you disagree? If so, why?
(And please don't make me ask you 20 times, it's so rude and tedious. Thanks.)
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
O.K. some preliminaries, before explaining ToE:
1. It's a scientific theory in a specific scientific field, biology, and it explains two very important question: How do we get so many different kinds of organisms, and why are they so spectacularly adapted to their environments? It does not address the origin of life, the universe, or any of that.
2. It's not a worldview, philosophy or religion.
3. Nothing in science is ever proven. Everything in science is based on evidence.
4. It has nothing to do with whether God created all things or not. We can all agree, for the purpose of this thread, that God created all things. The only question that ToE gets at is, how? RND proposes magic poofing, ToE proposes a different process, which I will explain.
Got all that?
1. It's a scientific theory in a specific scientific field, biology, and it explains two very important question: How do we get so many different kinds of organisms, and why are they so spectacularly adapted to their environments? It does not address the origin of life, the universe, or any of that.
2. It's not a worldview, philosophy or religion.
3. Nothing in science is ever proven. Everything in science is based on evidence.
4. It has nothing to do with whether God created all things or not. We can all agree, for the purpose of this thread, that God created all things. The only question that ToE gets at is, how? RND proposes magic poofing, ToE proposes a different process, which I will explain.
Got all that?
Amill
Apikoros
I like being related to gibbons
YouTube - Monkey Death Wish
YouTube - Monkey Death Wish
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
RND: Do species ever go extinct?
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
RND:
See post #283.
You got that evidence or no?
And why do we share DNA with yeast unless we both share a common ancestor? Do explain that with the scientific evidence you suggested you have but have not produced.
See post #283.
You got that evidence or no?
And why do we share DNA with yeast unless we both share a common ancestor? Do explain that with the scientific evidence you suggested you have but have not produced.
Alceste
Vagabond
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Did I miss something here?
RND posted this:
And RND actually thinks this picture is suggesting that monkeys/chimpanzees gave rise to humans????
My determiniation of RND has moved from ignorant to incompetent moron.
Here is another tree:
By RND muppet-logic I guess this graph is suggesting that I came from my sister.
Still absolutely bewildered at this. Dumb on purpose springs to mind, but even that doesnt come close to describing this.
RND posted this:
And RND actually thinks this picture is suggesting that monkeys/chimpanzees gave rise to humans????
My determiniation of RND has moved from ignorant to incompetent moron.
Here is another tree:
By RND muppet-logic I guess this graph is suggesting that I came from my sister.
Still absolutely bewildered at this. Dumb on purpose springs to mind, but even that doesnt come close to describing this.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Has everyone else noticed,
there is no evidence for creationism. Not one shred. Look at the creationist websites. For evidence they attempt to discredit the ToE, but not once have I seen them present credible evidence for creationism.
(Other than the Intelligently Designed banana):danana:
RND, Man of Faith and others can present no evidence because none exists. All they can do is reject the evidence for ToE, but they have none to present in favor of creationism.
Oh they may try "reinterpreting" the observable data, but never in a peer reviewed paper.
Creationism is a religion, not a science, a religion that relies solely on faith without evidence.
there is no evidence for creationism. Not one shred. Look at the creationist websites. For evidence they attempt to discredit the ToE, but not once have I seen them present credible evidence for creationism.
(Other than the Intelligently Designed banana):danana:
RND, Man of Faith and others can present no evidence because none exists. All they can do is reject the evidence for ToE, but they have none to present in favor of creationism.
Oh they may try "reinterpreting" the observable data, but never in a peer reviewed paper.
Creationism is a religion, not a science, a religion that relies solely on faith without evidence.
MSizer
MSizer
Well I must confess, ray comfort almost converted me with the banana argument, and then when the engineer with the peanut butter did his thing, man, I was worried we darwinists were exposed for good.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
Yes actually, I have. Which is why I asked RND pages back if he had any. He said he did. But so far . . . nada
And somehow - I am not surprised.
And somehow - I am not surprised.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
Actually MadHair I disagree. RND and his like are not incompetent morons. They are functioning individuals. They have families, jobs, obligations they meet - all with at least some success.
They ARE believers in the myth of religion. And they are so wedded to this belief that evidence simply doesn't matter to them. If JC and Mohammad both appeared together tomorrow and said it was all a joke and it never happened it wouldn't matter. They would simply say that was a trick by Satan to test their faith. And they would continue in their blind and fanatic devotion to a bronze age myth that has zero scientific to support it and a great deal to challenge it. But they just don't care. The myth is more important than reality.
They aren't morons MadHair. They are just faithful believers.
Such is religious faith in action.
They ARE believers in the myth of religion. And they are so wedded to this belief that evidence simply doesn't matter to them. If JC and Mohammad both appeared together tomorrow and said it was all a joke and it never happened it wouldn't matter. They would simply say that was a trick by Satan to test their faith. And they would continue in their blind and fanatic devotion to a bronze age myth that has zero scientific to support it and a great deal to challenge it. But they just don't care. The myth is more important than reality.
They aren't morons MadHair. They are just faithful believers.
Such is religious faith in action.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
True believing is one thing, being incapable of telling what a simple graph says is quite another.
logician
Well-Known Member
There is as much evidence supporting the ToE as there is supporting theories in the "hard" sciences such as physics or chemistry, if not more. The only qestions that remain are the exact details of the mechanims of evolution. That it occurred is not open to debate among scientists.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
They DO know. They are NOT stupid. They know exactly what that graph shows. They fully realize and UNDERSTAND exactly what it presented there and what the implications are.
They simply choose NOT to accept it.
Listen to Ken Ham for example. He KNOWS what the science is. He KNOWS the facts. He simply doesn't care. These folks are the same. The evidence simply doesn't matter. They KNOW what it is and they KNOW what it means. It jus -don't -make- no- fracking -difference. God said it. I believe it. That settles it.
QED.
Last edited: