Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope, you are describing yourself. You really should not have run away when I offered to discuss the concept of evidence with you.
-
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!
Evolution My ToE
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Nope, you are describing yourself. You really should not have run away when I offered to discuss the concept of evidence with you.
nPeace
Veteran Member
The one you don't understand.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Practically no scientists make the claim that there is no evidence for evolution. Even most lying creationist "scientists" know better than that.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Again, remember the Ninth Commandment. Making claims about others that you cannot support all but guarantees that you broke it.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
The response of someone who has nothing to support themselves
No there the only ignorance is from someone who clearly does not know what real evidence is or does not want to understand the evidence that is present. Your desperate attempt only showed how the scientific process progresses and actually explains things not through your magical thinking.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
I am sorry it was you that presented the example that supported the scientific process not I. I appreciate it. Do you have better evidence? Apparently not.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Really?
Preternatural vs Dark Matter
The Good in Bad Science
And that's only a few, out of a lot.
Sadly, the LUCA is only taught as science because it has political props.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Has anyone ever seen anything poofed into existence? What mechanism would explain such a thing? It violates the laws of physics. It's a claim of magic.
Abiogenesis posits no magic. It's mechanisms are intuitive and observable. Evolution, as well, posits no magic, it's mechanisms are observed all the time. In fact, the whole process has been observed, and there are mountains of consilient evidence supporting the theory, yet you still claim that magic is a more reasonable "explanation?!"
Tested and proven scripture? How was scripture tested? How was it proven? What features were proven?
But which "God's Word?" -- the Quran? the Tao? the Gita? Is there any evidence that the Bible is more authoritative than any other religious book? Is there any reason to believe the Bible's authoritative at all? It seems to me that it's considered sacred 'cause children are taught that it's sacred, and see those around them treating it as sacred. It's an argumentum ad populum.
Critical analysis is hard; it's uncomfortable, it threatens the social fabric of shared beliefs and values, it threatens one's faith-based ego integrity.
Do you avoid it because it makes you uncomfortable; because it threatens you?
How so? Name the fallacy, please.
?????????? -- Proven how? What proves it? "Millions tried Him and know?" What does that prove? Millions tried Thor, Millions tried Allah. Millions tried Krishna --and know. How are the Christian millions any different?
This is not evidence. This is not a reason to believe.
The reports of Jesus are hearsay. There are no first-person accounts.
Other holy books report witnessed miracles. Why are the Biblical reports any more believable?
Modern Israel observed Jesus? Is there video footage? Why have I not heard of this?
Dad, you don't understand the concept of evidence. You don't understand how to evaluate evidence. The Bible is a heavily edited, cherry-picked and altered anthology of ancient writings. Don't you agree? What makes it reliable evidence of anything?
What are you, then? A canine? A viverrid? A lemur?
nPeace, you must know exactly what's meant by "selected for." This has been explained over and over, in many posts in many threads. Your false confusion is getting annoying.
You're arguing against natural occurrence. You're not offering any natural alternative. What does that leave but magic?
Please link to the anachronism you're referring to. I know of nothing that alters the evolutionary timeline.
Exactly. It's folklore. One should not take it literally.
Yes. Question everything. But keep in mind that anomalies in science aren't evidence for religion or magic poofing. There are reasonable explanations for 'apparent' stratigraphic anomalies.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Are you a mammal?
How about a vertebrate?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Every newborn comes with a set of mutations. ie, changes.
The genes that make an individual more succesfull in surviving and reproducing, are the ones most likely to survive and reproduce.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Environment.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
They are very different.
For example, you can't use your mere baseless declaration of "goddidit" to accomplish a crazy feat like when the study of fossils and genetics and biogeography and phylogenies and.... resulted in scientists being able to predict the finding of a "land walking fish", aka titkaalik, complete with expected anatomical traits, age and geographic location.
That's explanatory power for ya. Being able to predict the existance of a very specific fossil of a previously unknown species and then actually finding it in the exact location with the exact properties of age and anatomy as expected.
God-did-it-folk have nothing even remotely comparable to that. And the reason is because they have no working hypothesis that is even capable of making testable predictions . Because they got nothing at all, really, except some baseless bare statements that are unfalsifiable and which have exactly zero explanatory power.
Employing rational and reasonable methodologies that help us reach valid conclusions however, clearly isn't what we all do.....
True, putting a label name on it is not going to make a difference.
What makes one better then the other though, is that one is actually supported by evidence, is concluded from studying the evidence, makes testable predictions and has great explanatory power.
While the other is just an unfalsifiable bare declaration which explains nothing at all, which isn't helpfull and which doesn't make any testable predictions.
Creationism is, yes.