Darwin's Illusion

[KWED]

In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.

I always enjoy the delicious irony of religionists mocking sceptics or scientists for supposedly believing that life, and even the universe itself, just suddenly happened from nothing by magic!

 

[Firelight]

No, since proof is logic and philosophy. Science operates with evidence and as a concept that is not the same as proof.

Maybe you should look up the definition of proof. Proof is evidence. Here’s one definition:

proof - evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

You’ve been on this form for a long time, I’m sure you have seen how many commenters post stating the theory of evolution is true. If one states it’s true, then they need to provide the proof. Instead of providing proof, they drone on with explanations about scientists.

 

[Firelight]

Either evolution is true, or your God has an obsession for apes, to the point of creating the whole Universe for an ape and make His Son incarnate into one. Evidence? Easily provided by a simple mirror.

your call

The “or” is intended in the inclusive variant.

ciao

- viole

Hahahaha. Since when do you make the rules for mankind?

 

[cladking]

...I’m sure you have seen how many commenters post stating the theory of evolution is true. If one states it’s true, then they need to provide the proof. Instead of providing proof, they drone on with explanations about scientists.

They'll use the ToE as proof you're wrong and then scream bloody murder that nothing in science is proven. Their logic is always circular and then they accuse everyone else of faith based reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They'll use the ToE as proof you're wrong and then scream bloody murder that nothing in science is proven. Their logic is always circular and then they accuse everyone else of faith based reasoning.

More false claims about those that have handed you your back side in debates. Naughty, naughty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe you should look up the definition of proof. Proof is evidence. Here’s one definition:

proof - evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

You’ve been on this form for a long time, I’m sure you have seen how many commenters post stating the theory of evolution is true. If one states it’s true, then they need to provide the proof. Instead of providing proof, they drone on with explanations about scientists.

There are other definitions of "Proof" as well. Since scientists want to keep an open mind they tend to use the mathematical definition of proof, and by that definition evolution is not proven. But then you will not find anything but math that is proven with that definition.

By the definition that you used there is no doubt that evolution has been proven.

 

[cladking]

More false claims about those that have handed you your back side in debates.

What debate is that? All you do is gainsay everything and play word games.

You've still shown exactly no evidence at all relevant to the debate. A few are trying and (mostly) failing but you don't even seem to try.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What debate is that? All you do is gainsay everything and play word games.

You've still shown exactly no evidence at all relevant to the debate. A few are trying and (mostly) failing but you don't even seem to try.

That is false and you know it. You have been given evidence and simply denied it, which is a loss in a debate, so many times that you have lost the right to demand evidence. You are not fooling anyone when you make posts like this. You lost, you got your rear spanked, you know it, I know it. It is why you hate science so much. You lose every debate that you ever enter.


Here is a hint. Do you know what it takes to win a debate? It takes evidence. You don't have any. You do not even appear to understand the concept.

 

[cladking]

You have a very selective memory but that's typical among believers also.

For anyone new to this he's just gainsaying me again. He is fully aware that I say evidence is irrelevant to theory and he's implying that evidence reveals truth; in this case that Darwin is correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have a very selective memory but that's typical among believers also.

For anyone new to this he's just gainsaying me again. He is fully aware that I say evidence is irrelevant to theory and he's implying that evidence reveals truth; in this case that Darwin is correct.

Really? Then why do you never acknowledge that your number one demand has been met dozens of times?

And at this point "gainsaying" is all that it takes to refute you. That is not our fault.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes!

And if you question it all you get is evasion, insults, and referrals to the "vast amount of data" that shows it must be true though nothing is proven in science. You get nonsense.

The problem is that many don't like the idea that there is a God. They also don't understand Him and His requirements for life everlasting. He can and has revealed himself, but that is up to him, how he does it. IF the Bible weren't true, there would be nothing, I suppose, but shamans and other things like that trying to figure things out on their own anyway. Or suppositions like evolution, based on what is deemed by some as evidence making the theory true?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that many don't like the idea that there is a God. They also don't understand Him and His requirements for life everlasting. He can and has revealed himself, but that is up to him, how he does it. IF the Bible weren't true, there would be nothing, I suppose, but shamans and other things like that trying to figure things out on their own anyway. Or suppositions like evolution, based on what is deemed by some as evidence making the theory true?

Oh my! How wrong can one person get?

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh my! How wrong can one person get?

Scientists may examine fossils and decide how old they are according to the techniques they use. They don't really know. They decide based upon their beliefs about the fossil and its surroundings. But they don't really know. (As is often said, no proof.) I see you say you are an atheist. How do you know that there is no God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have a very selective memory but that's typical among believers also.

For anyone new to this he's just gainsaying me again. He is fully aware that I say evidence is irrelevant to theory and he's implying that evidence reveals truth; in this case that Darwin is correct.

Yes, we all know that you do not understand what a scientific theory is either. Just this once, ask nicely and I will provide links for you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe you should look up the definition of proof. Proof is evidence. Here’s one definition:

proof - evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

You’ve been on this form for a long time, I’m sure you have seen how many commenters post stating the theory of evolution is true. If one states it’s true, then they need to provide the proof. Instead of providing proof, they drone on with explanations about scientists.

Okay.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientists may examine fossils and decide how old they are according to the techniques they use. They don't really know. They decide based upon their beliefs about the fossil and its surroundings. But they don't really know. (As is often said, no proof.) I see you say you are an atheist. How do you know that there is no God?

No, we do know how old they are why do you think that they don't?

 

[cladking]

Then why do you never acknowledge that your number one demand has been met dozens of times?

I don't have any number of demands.

True science has only one demand here; a single experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest would suffice to make Evolution a true theory.

No, we do know how old they are why do you think that they don't?

You have beliefs about how old things are which generally are probably reasonably accurate if your premises are accurate. I have no problem with most of these premises but it is always possible an old earth was created, isn't it?

Why is it so important to you to be right when you've done none of this research yourself? Anyone can read a book and think they understand the mind and hand of God. Anyone can read a book and think there is no God or must be. You do not know everything. Homo omnisciencis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't have any number of demands.

True science has only one demand here; a single experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest would suffice to make Evolution a true theory.

Sorry, science does not work that way. But we do have experiments that show slow change occurring.

Would you like to learn what science is?

You have beliefs about how old things are which generally are probably reasonably accurate if your premises are accurate. I have no problem with most of these premises but it is always possible an old earth was created, isn't it?

Are you asking if God can be a liar. Sure, why not? God could be a liar.

Why is it so important to you to be right when you've done none of this research yourself? Anyone can read a book and think they understand the mind and hand of God. Anyone can read a book and think there is no God or must be. You do not know everything homo omnisciencis.

Umm, you don't seem to understand research either. We can't even begin to go over that until you learn the basics first.

 

[cladking]

Are you asking if God can be a liar. Sure, why not? God could be a liar.

Nonsense!

The only argument you know is to continually just contradict everyone and play word games.

I never suggested that if there is a God He is lying. You make this stuff up. What you don't reads in books you invent and accuse others of strawmen.

What I said was I don't know how to create a universe. What I implied was even if I did know how to create a universe (Knowledge > Understanding > Creation) then I might not be able to create a universe without fossils that made the universe appear far older than it is.

You might do well to read some scriptures about Job. Where were you when the cornerstones were laid? Homo omnisciencis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense!

The only argument you know is to continually just contradict everyone and play word games.

I never suggested that if there is a God He is lying. You make this stuff up. What you don't reads in books you invent and accuse others of strawmen.

What I said was I don't know how to create a universe. What I implied was even if I did know how to create a universe (Knowledge > Understanding > Creation) then I might not be able to create a universe without fossils that made the universe appear far older than it is.

You might do well to read some scriptures about Job. Where were you when the cornerstones were laid? Homo omnisciencis.

Yes, you did. You simply won't let yourself see it. Your reasoning skills are blinded by your religious beliefs and lack of scientific education. There was no game playing by me. Serious scientists that are Christians do not believe the myths of Genesis because they do not believe that God is a lair either. Your "what if" proposed that God is a liar.

And why bring up Job? You are trying to use a book of myths to defend a book of myths. That is treating the Bible as fan fiction. Why do you do that?