Irony of the evolutionary belief

[McBell]

So not Ray comfort as he isn't anything other than a lousy theologist in my view.

I disagree.
I find him to be a great theologist.

He doesn't know his backside from a hole in the ground when it comes to anything outside theology.
But he is a great theologist.

 

[danieldemol]

I disagree.
I find him to be a great theologist.

He doesn't know his backside from a hole in the ground when it comes to anything outside theology.
But he is a great theologist.

Perhaps its just me, I find theology itself to be lousy because it is likely based on unsound premises in my view.

 

[gnostic]

No FT doesn't mean tweaking

Ft simply means that the life permitting values are narrow. ..... There is no Tunning in the literal sense of the word

But you are forgetting that you are applying an entity (be it God, Designer or alien) into the FT concept, a different version of FT.

But by whatsoever versions they are, none of them are science, because they all required too many what-if questions that they never really answered. The Designer or God version is definitely not falsifiable, so the version of FT you are advocating would even qualify as beinga “hypothesis“.

A hypothesis required the explanatory & predictive models to be at the very least, be falsifiable, which God & Designer are not. So any values that you assert, are meaningless, if God cannot be observed, measured & tested.

And btw, you have spoken about the Universe collapsing into black hole, if gravity was 1% or 0.1% stronger. Which is it?

But it doesn’t which percentages you are talking about, because you are wrong about this on both counts, as neither values are strong enough that it would cause the Universe turning into black hole. The gravitation would have to be far stronger than 1%.

You are still playing what-if game, and what-if isn’t science, as you and every other people who ever advocated for FT, have not demonstrated a single they have been to be true.

 

[danieldemol]

But neither side had any evidence to support their claims, it was nothing more than two opposing world views clashing. Both walked away holding on to their view as being the truth while rubbishing the opponent.

The challenge was domed from the start, as the opponents didn't accept each others evidence as valid as the nature of the subject requires faith to validate either side. So nobody was willing to place any faith in the opponents view.

Thank you for your admission that the creationism side did not have any evidence to support it's claims, however the fossil record, genetics and the Long Term Evolutionary Experiment do not require faith to be validated in my view.

 

[McBell]

But neither side had any evidence to support their claims, it was nothing more than two opposing world views clashing. Both walked away holding on to their view as being the truth while rubbishing the opponent.

The challenge was domed from the start, as the opponents didn't accept each others evidence as valid as the nature of the subject requires faith to validate either side. So nobody was willing to place any faith in the opponents view.

Intelligent Design lost.
On an epic scale Intelligent Design lost.
Just ask Michael Joseph Behe....

 

[Charles Philips]

Your parents did not need to have any clue. The hormones still would have done their work. All due to evolution.

That doesn't fill the gaping hole in the theory of evolution, where is the evidence. I don't have enough faith to believe that Mickey Mouse exists in real life

 

[Charles Philips]

So your parents didn't know how to have sex?

Having sex can't create anything

 

[McBell]

That doesn't fill the gaping hole in the theory of evolution, where is the evidence.

What "gaping hole" are you talking about?

I don't have enough faith to believe that Mickey Mouse exists in real life

No idea what this has to do with evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

wow, thats a statement of ignorance...there's a ****load of evidence against it. What you should have said is that YOU dont believe the evidence against it!

Share your best example.

Creation.com and Answers in Genesis are two major entities that have produced enormous amounts of material that cast doubt on many aspects of evolutionary "THEORY"!

Religious pseudo-science propaganda channels made up of exposed liars, is not a great source

(you know what a theory is right?)

We know. But it sounds like you don't.
You might want to read this

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

notjustatheory.com

To illustrate my point about theories...I have a theory that one day i might become a billionare (despite my not even being a millionare right now. However, im an ideas man and some of my ideas are theorectically, brilliant ones!). The point is, historically i have nothing to support the theory i might become a billionare and that leaves my theory in tatters.

You are confusing stupid "wishes" with scientific jargon.

The dilemma for Christians is that historically, the Bible simply does not support naturalism theory as the basis for life...or old age earth for that matter.

Who cares what the bible supports?

 

[McBell]

Having sex can't create anything

Define "create"

I ask because the dictionary disagrees with you:

 

[Charles Philips]

The entire fossil record supports it, but for some pertinent examples you may see the kitzmiller vs dover documentary here;

From 41:30 onwards

The entire fossil record only proves creation, Ry Comfort exposed pseudo science and nobody has resuscitated it thus far

 

[McBell]

The entire fossil record only proves creation, Ry Comfort exposed pseudo science and nobody has resuscitated it thus far

Ray Comfort did no such thing.

 

[Charles Philips]

Throughout the course of the film, we're given flashes of rapidly edited interview segments with biology and ecology professors at both the University of Central Los Angeles and the University of Southern California, as well as many of the young students they instruct. Many of these subjects are considered the brightest minds in their field, and they each hold steadfast in their convictions, but the filmmaker's seething anti-intellectual stance undermines their ability to successfully argue their case at every turn.​

​

The film's host, Christian evangelist Ray Comfort, who in creationism-mocking circles is known as the Banana Man, wastes no time in challenging his subject's assertions with questions posed in a frustratingly limited context. Interspersed with these clips are a series of quotes from famous non-believers, including Professor Richard Dawkins.​

​

Time after time, the filmmaker makes no effort to justify his own beliefs with the tangible evidence he demands of his dissenters. Taking his central argument at face value - that evolution requires no less a leap of faith than Creationism - why should anyone feel compelled to trade one cop-out explanation for the other?​

​

The host's true agenda becomes clear at the film's conclusion as he urges each of his subjects to achieve personal salvation through a full embrace of God's teachings. Whether you praise or condemn this approach, the film is certain to illicit a strong reaction.​

Evolution Vs. God

Ray Comfort tries to challenge the theory of evolution and suggests that the academe continues to bully intelligent design as an option.

topdocumentaryfilms.com

Thats all well and good, but we still haven't found the missing link to give the theory any credibility. Its still dead in the water

 

[Charles Philips]

What dictionary did you use to come up with the definition of "charges" you used in post #3,349?

It's a subjective word, so it means different things to different people

 

[Charles Philips]

Ray Comfort did no such thing.

Thats your private opinion, but how about some evidence instead of rhetoric

 

[McBell]

Thats your private opinion, but how about some evidence instead of rhetoric

Already given.
Two posts even.

 

[Charles Philips]

Thank you for your admission that the creationism side did not have any evidence to support it's claims, however the fossil record, genetics and the Long Term Evolutionary Experiment do not require faith to be validated in my view.

The whole theory hinges on a fake assumption until a singe shred of evidence is found. Ray Comfort, exposed pseudo science and it remains dead in the water with nobody willing to bury it

 

[Charles Philips]

Thank you for your admission that the creationism side did not have any evidence to support it's claims, however the fossil record, genetics and the Long Term Evolutionary Experiment do not require faith to be validated in my view.

The whole theory hinges on a fake assumption until a singe shred of evidence is found. Ray Comfort, exposed pseudo science and it remains dead in the water with nobody willing to bury it

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If not even stars (or any other object) organized such that they spell meaningful words and sentences count as evidence for design, then you are simply raising the bar unrealistically too high


And I'll bet you are being arbitrary, I'll bet that you only have this ridiculous standards, with stuff that opposes your own personal philosophical view

Dude, your very own claim included that the stars are simply naturally following natural orbits and natural laws...
And by doing so, at some point they just happen to resemble some type of pattern.

How is that different from a broken clock being correct twice a day?

But let's also not just skim over the fact that you are again arguing about imaginary evidence.
Do you have any real examples instead of these absurd imaginary hypotheticals?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No FT doesn't mean tweaking

Ft simply means that the life permitting values are narrow. ..... There is no Tunning in the literal sense of the word

I'ld be more impressed if we found ourselves in a universe that doesn't have life permitting values.