I don't think you are going to get a reasonable response to a reasonable request. I am pretty sure that you and I both know why and we are not even in the same ballpark of belief either.
-
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!
How many fossils would it take to "prove" the theory of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt?
- Thread starter Subduction Zone
- Start date
So you will not back up your claims about mountains? How dare you.
See how silly your argument is.
So far you haven't presented anything unique or used unique tactics either.
I see. And your way is to belabor the obvious until those asking you to meet your obligations get tired and go away.
Have your heard of pigeon chess?
I didn't make any claims about mountains. I made a list and then the humorous conclusion that cannot rationally be derived from a list. A conclusion that you seem to have gotten despite your inability to apply the logic behind it.
You misread. It is the scientists failure to adequately explain the origins of life that are a part of the mosaic that leads me to my claim that the Bible is accurate.
For details that are above my knowledge level I direct you to James Tour, Stephen Meyer and John Lennox.
Never said I would.
I ask you to kindly make allowances for my autism.
Nope.
McBell
Unbound
So what is your explanation about the origins of life?
Genesis 1.
Best answer based on the complexity of life. Fits with historical narrative structure and not mythology structure.
But if you don't have room for a God in your model of the universe... then you will not share my conviction. But it explains the fossil record better than evolution. Another thing a naturalist mind can not accept.
This is what is known as an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy. What you are saying is that since we do not know, your belief is assumed to be true by default. That is the default paradigm and it is baseless and a fallacy too.
At one time, we did not know that you could put the heart of one person into the body of another and have it work. Now we do.
Of course, the gurus of pseudoscience that sound like they have answers and should know something, but they just have their belief that they put in a lab coat and called it science.
And the reality that was obvious revealed at last. You cannot provide an adequate defense and must defer your defense to those not in attendance that need to have their views validated as well. And the chess game continues.
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
Except for the fact that "GodDidIt" does not explain anything..
McBell
Unbound
As soon as I saw the list reply I knew.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
Ah, an argument from personal incredulity. You personally think that life is complex and you cannot personally do anything to sort that out, so it must be that your personal belief is the default answer from the basis of science. Which it is not.
This is like review of Dealing with literalist creationist claims 101.
How do you explain that the narrative of creation in Genesis is not consist with the evidence? For instance, plants arrive before the sun and no mention is made of the microbial life at all.
Show me that the structure of Genesis is inconsistent with mythology?
That is not consistent either. Many believe in God and accept science. And you cannot default there belief either.
It doesn't. The fossils would not be sorted as they are. There are numerous fossils of things that are clearly not mentioned in the Bible and not mentioned as cargo on the ark. A single cataclysmic flood would not sort things anymore than a modern flood of any recognized scale does.
Then you put yourself at another distinct disadvantage. I wouldn't recommend using ignorance of the rules as a defense.
I have. You have done your best to avoid them.
Support your claims. That is specific enough for any reasonable person should be able to understand it.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
As I was saying in another thread, I think that is quite common on this forum. Some theists make extraordinary claims and then refuse to back them up.
This is the first I'm reading about autism.
Since I cannot know that this isn't another tactic and I have seen no evidence that it isn't, I still must consider it.
While I think it is just another tactic given what has been posted so far, I think it best that we end our engagement here.
Do review the rules and make sure you understand them. Others are not always as forgiving and my forgiveness has limits.
McBell
Unbound
I strongly suspected when they said "same evidence, different conclusion".
I mean, that phrase was made popular by the Liars For Jesus Group.
When I saw the list reply, I knew.
We've gotten the entire show of the theist new to these arguments presented as if never seen before.
That they cannot is the norm and not the exception in my experience.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
The Liars For Jesus Group?
There are certain patterns that are a dead give away.
There was a part of your post that I missed. I'm sure you mean a view of literalist creationists.