• 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!

Search results

  1. E

    ericmurphy's bunnies

    It's not illogical. I've explained at great length what I said, and why. If there are living organisms alive today that did not exist in the past, and vice versa, then one way or another life has changed, i.e., evolved. Q.E.D. You simply cannot get past the distinction between evolution and...
  2. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Autodidact is correct. There's no difference between the two. You're misinterpretating what I'm saying. I am not saying rabbits evolved from trilobites. In fact, rabbits most certainly did not evolve from trilobites. What I am saying is that organisms exist today which did not exist in the...
  3. E

    ericmurphy's bunnies

    Completely incorrect. I'm saying nothing about trilobites evolving into rabbits. (In fact, it's totally incorrect that trilobites evolved into rabbits.) Read what I'm writing, not what you think I'm writing.
  4. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    So you do not believe in an external reality, independent of human observation? If no one sees the document, it doesn't exist? I got it from the fact that you've been disputing my claim for some time now that evolution is a fact. That isn't what you've been doing? Then what, exactly, is it...
  5. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    I'm not. Of course, at bottom, even mathematical proofs rest on axioms, which are not themselves proven but are nevertheless believed inductively to be true. At some point, the ability to "prove" something to be true runs out of steam, and you get to the whole "brain in a vat" problem...
  6. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    You've mixed up our assessment of what are facts from the facts themselves. Again, our assessment of what are facts and what are not may change, but the facts themselves don't. If we once thought it was factual to assert that 2 + 2 = 5, that doesn't change the factual nature of the statement...
  7. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Of course you can. A witness states that a particular document exists. Opposing counsel expresses doubts. The witness produces the document. The document is evidence for its own existence. In the same sense, change over time is evidence for change over time. If we can observe that such change...
  8. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Facts don't change. Our assessments of what are facts and what are not may change over time, but facts themselves do not. I don't think 2 + 2 will ever = anything but four. Some are. See above. That life has changed over time is astronomically unlikely ever to be shown not to be a fact...
  9. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    No I absolutely am not discussing the theory of evolution. There are two different concepts at work here that while related are absolutely not the same thing. One is the simple, straightforward observation that life is not the same today as it was in the distant past. That is what I am...
  10. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Yes. Evolution is self-evidently factual. That's why I'm surprised you and Jay are having such trouble with it. But I still don't think you're making the distinction between evolution and evolutionary theory, or you wouldn't be getting hung up on this point. Think of it this way: the...
  11. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Actually, I would say that you are confused about what a fact is. Facts, ideally, should never change. It is a fact that 2 + 2 = 4. There will probably never be a time when we discover that 2 + 2 = some other number. It is a fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. The sun will...
  12. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    It's not the fact that a bunny is dead or alive that's the issue. The issue is that bunnies have not always existed. If you want to exclude an explanation for why the ball fell, but still agree it's inarguable that the ball fell for some reason, i.e., some process made it fall, then we're in...
  13. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    I am not discussing the theory of evolution. I thought I was clear about that. I was at some pains to make a distinction between the observable fact of evolution, and the theory (evolutionary theory) that attempts to account for that observable fact. If rabbits exist now, but did not exist...
  14. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    I want to make clear, once again (since plainly I'm not getting my point across), that when I say evolution is factual, all I am saying is that life, i.e., populations of living organisms, have changed over time. I don't see how this is even arguable. There are species in existence now that did...
  15. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    You're missing a critical point in the analogy. It isn't a matter of just seeing a ball in one place and then seeing it in another place. You can fix your analogy in at least two ways: you can add the fact that you observe the ball falling (because we can observe, through the fossil record...
  16. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    I still don't think I'm getting my point across. By saying evolution is factual, all I'm saying is that living organisms have changed over time. To deny evolution is to deny that living organisms have changed over time. In other words, you have to believe that the same organisms that exist today...
  17. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Hopefully everyone is now clear on the distinction between the observation of evolution (which is indisputable), and the theory of evolution. If not, we can wrangle over it a bit more, but in the meantime, I'd like to start discussing the evidence for macroevolutionary theory. The principal...
  18. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Okay. If you think evolution has not happened, then you necessarily believe that life has never changed, and is the same now as it always has been. Is this what you believe? Or are you using some different meaning for the term "evolution"? So far, you have disagreed with me, but not said why...
  19. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Of course there is. Humans came from somewhere. Rabbits came from somewhere. Dinosaurs came from somewhere. Trilobites came from somewhere. If they were not always here, then life on earth has changed over time. Hence, it has evolved. Can you show me where this is not true?
  20. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    I don't need to. In fact, if things had turned out differently, I could just as justifiably say, "rabbits existed in the past, but do not exist now. Trilobites exist now, but did not exist in the past." Those two observations are sufficient to establish the factual nature of evolution...
Top