Question for people that believe in evolution

[Dirty Penguin]

Back to the OP,
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that proves evolution and common descent. While any alternative hypothesis I have ever heard has been based on pure speculation, supernatural explanations, and psudoscientific supposition.
Unless empirical evidence provides a reasonable alternative, I will continue to support the purly scientific explanations for diversity in the species

Yea, I apologize. I keep getting off track as well.

 

[Kerr]

I wasn't aware of that. Can you show us a few sources please.

There is an older thread about a specific case here.
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...onism/89039-directly-observed-speciation.html
It also debated if it is actually proof or not about macro-evolution, you may find it interesting.

EDIT:

The specific case in that thread, about a new species of birds, has been linked to by a previous poster, but still, the debate may be interesting to read if you are interested.

 

[Nepenthe]

Micro evolution is a proven fact. However, there isn't a shred of evidence that supports macro evolution. Here's great article that explains it.
What is Micro and Macro-Evolution?

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion you are using a creationist definition of the terms? Speciation has been observed; macroevolution is well documented.
Here's this just in case you're interested in how scientists actually use macro and micro and instead of how creationists hijack and manipulate the terms to suit their agenda:
Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

And really? Why would you refer to an Eddie Snipes site as confirmation of a scientific reference?

 

[footprints]

So you can't be serious....You actually called me a bigot a few pages ago as if that was a problem and now it appears you're acknowledging this trait in "everybody". Isn't that the definition of "hypocrisy"?

LOL Penguin if you do not know you cannot call another person a Bigot, without being a bigot yourself, then you don't know it. I have known that since I was a child. Does this make me a hypocrite, you better believe it does, though I knew that too before I posted. Do I know my negative was wrong, you better believe that I knew that too, you cannot combat a negative (as in your initial negative comment, freethinker et al) by adding another negative to it (as in my bigot comments) all you end up with is a greater negative. -3+-3 doesn't equal a positive, it equals a greater negative or in this case -6. The premise in everyday life goes like this, "Two wrongs never make a right." Lord Jesus put it like this, "turn the other cheek (only a greater positive when added to a negative will move a negative to a positive." There are numerous variations of the same thing. A person who calls another a fool is a fool themselves(sorry forget the part of the bible that comes from).

Ah but enter the Sun Tzu, the Sun Tzu knew in the reality of life, you cannot talk rationally and logically to a fool or an idiot. You cannot beat your enemy unless you use their own weapons against them. Your weapons, words and intelligence. Sometimes when people are shown a negative, intelligent people say, "Yeah that wasn't very nice of me, I will try to refrain from doing that." Of course with people who try to use intelligence but being deficient in its use, they will be incapable of learning a lesson from it and see only abuse or the wrong from only one side (not their own side).

You told a story of a child in the playground, taunting another student about aides. I am sure by your standards of taunting people and calling them sheep, this child would not have been in any trouble, in fact praised for their intelligence. Of course if this child was told (and should have been) that it was not very nice, how do you think they would see you, knowing you call people sheep et al?

These are some of the things a human brain must combat, before they can observe anything rationally and logically, even things like empirical evidence as they pertain to experiments. Else their bias and prejudice will influence their judgment.

 

[Sunstone]

...there isn't a shred of evidence that supports macro evolution.

Are you a comedian, now?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

LOL Penguin if you do not know you cannot call another person a Bigot, without being a bigot yourself, then you don't know it.

It's not about what I think of myself. It was you who made the statement "Just my sense of humour, I always laugh at bigots and hypocrites."

Yo talked ill of some one whom you said you weren't going to talk bad about because the person wasn't here to defend themselves..yet it didn't stop you from making the statement. I don't care that you made the statement..rather you couldn't cite what it was that you disagreed with Dawkins about. The problem here is we keep digressing from the main topic. You have your opinion of me and others and vice versa. It means nothing in the grand scheme of things...when concerning Evolution.

We can continue to psychoanalyze each other ad nauseam in another thread as this one is not for that purpose. I am of the opinion that a lot, not all, religious people are sheep....especially those thick headed ones such as Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Wendy Wright who do biology a great disservice. Wendy Wright probably doesn't know that she doesn't know. Ken Ham and Hovind are different. They actually stand in front of the youth of the world serving up their misinformation built off of presupposition and dishonesty.

I honestly don't care about calling you names for the sake of good debate here but I reserve the right to exercise my free speech and give my opinion. We all do it here. You are in the wrong place if you want to be the censor police or some sort of voice of the people coming to their defense because you may not like what I or others say about people who we feel blindly follow others.

You told a story of a child in the playground, taunting another student about aides. I am sure by your standards of taunting people and calling them sheep, this child would not have been in any trouble, in fact praised for their intelligence.

What I think of people outside this forum I may not express verbally. If I am speaking with someone whom I have shown the evidence from one of more credible sources and the person says I'm incorrect then I formulate in my mind the person has previously been ill informed. If that person continues to dwell in what I "perceive" as their delusion then I conclude they are brainwashed sheep. It's just my opinion. If you over analyze my opinion then you're wasting your time as I would have concluded after presenting all the tested and testable evidence to the person. No doubt that me and that person may part ways civilly. At this forum it's no different. I'm using free speech here in a discussion/debate format. But also take note I never said ALL are sheep...I said some are....AND "some" are.....IMO

Of course if this child was told (and should have been) that it was not very nice, how do you think they would see you, knowing you call people sheep et al?

Should I care? Like I said I don't go around calling people that. What I express to some one's face may be different than how I express it here but know that I am not afraid to express openly and verbally I think some people are sheep. What would others think if they knew you called others bigots and/or hypocrites? And why would you care what they think about you? If YOU see it as negative then don't say it......I see it as my observation of some.....


How about we just try our hardest to stay on the main topic?

There is an overwhelming amount of information for evolution.

Do you, or others like you, have any testable evidence to the contrary?

 

[Mr Cheese]

this tread is simply to learn and understand.

What evidence of evolution has persuaded you to the believe that evolution occurs?

if you have articles or anything that supports your statement i would be interested in reading them.

Evolution is change

things change

I don't need no steekin articles.....

the argument against evolution advocates that thigns don't change
In effect, it goes AGAINST how the universe actually is......

Things change.... Evolution is NOT rocket science

 

[footprints]

It's not about what I think of myself. It was you who made the statement "Just my sense of humour, I always laugh at bigots and hypocrites."

Yo talked ill of some one whom you said you weren't going to talk bad about because the person wasn't here to defend themselves..yet it didn't stop you from making the statement. I don't care that you made the statement..rather you couldn't cite what it was that you disagreed with Dawkins about. The problem here is we keep digressing from the main topic. You have your opinion of me and others and vice versa. It means nothing in the grand scheme of things...when concerning Evolution.

We can continue to psychoanalyze each other ad nauseam in another thread as this one is not for that purpose. I am of the opinion that a lot, not all, religious people are sheep....especially those thick headed ones such as Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Wendy Wright who do biology a great disservice. Wendy Wright probably doesn't know that she doesn't know. Ken Ham and Hovind are different. They actually stand in front of the youth of the world serving up their misinformation built off of presupposition and dishonesty.

I honestly don't care about calling you names for the sake of good debate here but I reserve the right to exercise my free speech and give my opinion. We all do it here. You are in the wrong place if you want to be the censor police or some sort of voice of the people coming to their defense because you may not like what I or others say about people who we feel blindly follow others.




What I think of people outside this forum I may not express verbally. If I am speaking with someone whom I have shown the evidence from one of more credible sources and the person says I'm incorrect then I formulate in my mind the person has previously been ill informed. If that person continues to dwell in what I "perceive" as their delusion then I conclude they are brainwashed sheep. It's just my opinion. If you over analyze my opinion then you're wasting your time as I would have concluded after presenting all the tested and testable evidence to the person. No doubt that me and that person may part ways civilly. At this forum it's no different. I'm using free speech here in a discussion/debate format. But also take note I never said ALL are sheep...I said some are....AND "some" are.....IMO



Should I care? Like I said I don't go around calling people that. What I express to some one's face may be different than how I express it here but know that I am not afraid to express openly and verbally I think some people are sheep. What would others think if they knew you called others bigots and/or hypocrites? And why would you care what they think about you? If YOU see it as negative then don't say it......I see it as my observation of some.....


How about we just try our hardest to stay on the main topic?

There is an overwhelming amount of information for evolution.

Do you, or others like you, have any testable evidence to the contrary?

All relates to the main topic, it shows how our own observation cannot be trusted, not even group observation in peers. The logic and reason of the brain is forced in one direction only.

As for the person I labelled a Bigot and Hypocrite, I have said the same to this person personally, and highlighted examples of the same. I also have his answers. Being an intelligent person, he understood the point that was being made.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Back to the OP, here are some of the evidences that make the case so strong for evolution.

• All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
• Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
• Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
• Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
• The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
• Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
• Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
• Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
• The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
• Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
• The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
• When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
• The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
• Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
• Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
• Speciation has been observed.
• The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Source

 

[Dirty Penguin]

All relates to the main topic, it shows how our own observation cannot be trusted, not even group observation in peers. The logic and reason of the brain is forced in one direction only.

Do you have any idea how this sounds...? Biologist aren't necessarily a single person working in a lab with a microscope, a beaker and some science hobby kit.....

It's usually a group. The findings of the group present their data, findings and "evidence" to others to be evaluated. If it doesn't make the grade it is dismissed. That's a really rudimentary way of putting it but it's like a system of checks and balances. You don't just get to put forth your hypothesis as evidence without review. Again, this is where the scientific method comes into play. You may say...(well it's all subjective)...It is subjective but it's rigorously tested and evaluated before it gets any sort of approval. This is why the ToE stands as a valid theory. It, so far, is the best explanation we have because the "testable" data is there. If you doubt the findings and "conclusions" and you're qualified the examine to the data then there's nothing precluding you to. This is why I asked if you had evidence to the contrary. And if you did... would you care to share it with the rest of us here?

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

What evidence of evolution has persuaded you to the believe that evolution occurs?

if you have articles or anything that supports your statement i would be interested in reading them.

The amount of scientific articles is overwhelming to a point where there are journals dedicated only to that.

As for why I believe evolution occurs, I'll answer it in a few ways. First, compared to Creationism, evolution has a process that explains how individual features arose. Creationism doesn't do this, it simply refers back to the exact same vague explanation as being an umbrella-like explanation that apparently everything somehow fits under. The reason why everything apparently fits under this blanket explanation is because the faith supporting Creationism and Creationism itself say so. In other words, it's a circular argument that doesn't address specific processes nor why some things are different. For example, why do certain animals have an organ that works while in others it doesn't do much of anything. The answer of course is that it pretty much happened or "God wanted it". That may indeed be the case, however, there is no way to verify it without consulting the bible, which would lead it to be circular and also to commit the bare assertion fallacy. This explanation would be suitable if there was reasons to fill in these assumptions and gaps, however, left unfilled they cause the idea of Creationism to be defeated by itself.

In contrast to evolution, there are assumptions and there are specific processes that reveal how certain features arose. There are still some gaps in some areas, however, for the most part, it's a very solid theory.

Second, Creationism fails to account for why fossils are present. The presence of fossils allows for evolution to have some evidence. These fossils cannot be reasonably accounted for by Creationism if evolution is not present.

Third, evolution can be witnessed in many ways and has been witnessed in many ways. Creationism unfortunately cannot and so, we have to rely on the account that it occurred long ago but cannot verify it. It leaves open the immense possibility that it never happened and is completely and utterly false. For evolution, it can be witnessed via bacteria, mice, fruit flies, etc... . Perhaps evolution is false, however, if we can see it happen, if we can examine it and so forth, then it makes it substantially more likely that it is the reason. Creationism we can do none of this with. The only evidence of it is sadly the reasoning and conclusion: the bible. Further, there is no verification as to whether the contents of the bible are actually accurate and correct. We assume they are, however, every time we make an assumption or reasoning using Creationism, there's a 50% chance the source supporting it is completely wrong. With evolution, individual explanations regarding how something came to be can be wrong, however, the overall evolutionary theory is still intact and is verifiable.

For example, one of the evolutionary theories for how jaws came about is the Serial Theory of Jaw Evolution. It asserts that a certain number of branchial/pharnygeal arches led to the evolution of jaws. For some time that was thought to be correct, however, it was refuted because in the grand scheme of things, jaws are new and not from branchial arches. Furthermore, if they were from branchial arches, they would be different from how they are today. Hence, that theory is incorrect but the overall view that evolution occurred in general still remains intact because it's not a blanket explanation.

In a more scientific explanation for why I believe in evolution, there are no competing theories against evolution. Although that does not make it proven, it does make it incredibly likely that since it has remained unrefuted for years and years, either it's likely to be true or the entire scientific community has been duped. It's been tested over and over and over again, and each time it remains unrefuted. Each time it's tested and remains unrefuted, the likeliness that it's true is progressively increased. It is subjective in a sense because of course we are interpreting data, however, there is objective analysis of the data.

There are various features in some organisms that evolution cannot quite account for how they occurred, however, that does not disprove evolution. It verifies an underlying assumption of science, which is that we cannot know everything there is to know just like that.

Also, regarding embryonic development and ontogeny, a question that is explainable by evolution but not by Creationism is, why do we as humans have certain features visible during embryonic development that we lose later in life while other organisms retain or change them? Take for example the pharyngeal slits or post-anal tail (humans are part of phylum Chordata, which is characterized by having a post-anal tail, dorsal hollow nerve cord, pharyngeal slits, notochord and endostyle). In modern-day humans, these typically are lost yet other animals retain them.

The list goes on as to the amount of evidence for evolution, whereas for Creationism, the only evidence and conclusion is the results, with no apparent mechanisms for each feature.

All relates to the main topic, it shows how our own observation cannot be trusted, not even group observation in peers. The logic and reason of the brain is forced in one direction only.

This argument works both ways. In terms of Creationism and the Bible, how can we trust that? You cannot use this argument to attempt to refute evolution without attempting to refute Creationism.

Unfortunately though, there is another weakness with your argument and that is that it fails to acknowledge that the chances a view or theory is right or wrong is dynamic, at least for science. Each time something supports it and is tested over and over, the chances it's right increases. Your argument would have some strength if this were false, however, this is not false and it's asinine to think it is. In fact, the idea of repeatedly testing and re-testing is one of the underpinnings of science, which you fail to acknowledge in your attempt to refute science. In other words, you're not considering the criticial thing of the topic you're attempting to refute. Unfortunately, Creationism cannot really be tested and re-tested so your argument ends up being stronger to refute Creationsim. If you attempted to use this to attempt to refute evolution, then it's a complete fail.

 

[footprints]

This argument works both ways. In terms of Creationism and the Bible, how can we trust that? You cannot use this argument to attempt to refute evolution without attempting to refute Creationism.

Unfortunately though, there is another weakness with your argument and that is that it fails to acknowledge that the chances a view or theory is right or wrong is dynamic, at least for science. Each time something supports it and is tested over and over, the chances it's right increases. Your argument would have some strength if this were false, however, this is not false and it's asinine to think it is. In fact, the idea of repeatedly testing and re-testing is one of the underpinnings of science, which you fail to acknowledge in your attempt to refute science. In other words, you're not considering the criticial thing of the topic you're attempting to refute. Unfortunately, Creationism cannot really be tested and re-tested so your argument ends up being stronger to refute Creationsim. If you attempted to use this to attempt to refute evolution, then it's a complete fail.

Of course it works both ways, that is what makes it factual.

Science continues to test and retest and study the creation story as listed in the bible, albeit science does this under other names like Big Bang Theory, Genetic Engineering, Stem Cell Research, Cloning and Genetic Modification.

The Question which remains at the end of both either Evolution or Creationism is; Has a deity ever existed, and/or does this deity still exist. Blind Faith in either the Positive or Negative context will answer this question for most people, for other people they will give you the only answer they can and say, "I really don't know, maybe yes and maybe no."

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

Science continues to test and retest and study the creation story as listed in the bible, albeit science does this under other names like Big Bang Theory, Genetic Engineering, Stem Cell Research, Cloning and Genetic Modification.

Wrong. Science attempts to study and formulate likely explanations for natural phenomena using a specific paradigm. The bible is not a phenomenon, it's an explanation also, although using a different paradigm. If science were to analyze the bible, then it's not really studying natural phenomenon but rather analyzing an alternative paradigm. Science isn't oriented to this. Both the bible and science analyze some of the same phenomena, such as the origin of the universe. However, using an inter-paradigm analysis for explanations of the same phenomena isn't what science is meant for. Some may do that, however, that's not the purpose of science.

When you assert that science does indeed try to analyze what the Bible says, you're making an assumption about reality. That assumption is that reality is dictated by the bible. This is completely false because the bible is merely a way to achieve explanations about reality, however, it is not the subject of analysis. If it were, then tell me, can a phenomenon provide an explanation of itself? No, it cannot but that's what you're asserting if your statement is to be correct.

The Question which remains at the end of both either Evolution or Creationism is; Has a deity ever existed, and/or does this deity still exist. Blind Faith in either the Positive or Negative context will answer this question for most people, for other people they will give you the only answer they can and say, "I really don't know, maybe yes and maybe no."

Wrong. This question remains in Creationism because the scientific paradigm uses scientific means and takes specific views. If science does for whatever reason question the presence of a deity, then you've altered damn near everything about science and almost made science equal to religion. They are separate.

You seem to be taking very twisted views as to what science actually is and taking this views to support your belief. Let me give you some definitions of what science is:

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge.

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

From dictionary.com

Those are the definitions of science, which is not what you're asserting they are. If you're to refer to science in the way you are, then the best name is pseudo-science or maybe theistic science (which isn't recognized by the general scientific community).

 

[fantome profane]

The Question which remains at the end of both either Evolution or Creationism is; Has a deity ever existed, and/or does this deity still exist.

No, the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a deity has ever existed or still exists.

 

[footprints]

Wrong. Science attempts to study and formulate likely explanations for natural phenomena using a specific paradigm. The bible is not a phenomenon, it's an explanation also, although using a different paradigm. If science were to analyze the bible, then it's not really studying natural phenomenon but rather analyzing an alternative paradigm. Science isn't oriented to this. Both the bible and science analyze some of the same phenomena, such as the origin of the universe. However, using an inter-paradigm analysis for explanations of the same phenomena isn't what science is meant for. Some may do that, however, that's not the purpose of science.

When you assert that science does indeed try to analyze what the Bible says, you're making an assumption about reality. That assumption is that reality is dictated by the bible. This is completely false because the bible is merely a way to achieve explanations about reality, however, it is not the subject of analysis. If it were, then tell me, can a phenomenon provide an explanation of itself? No, it cannot but that's what you're asserting if your statement is to be correct.



Wrong. This question remains in Creationism because the scientific paradigm uses scientific means and takes specific views. If science does for whatever reason question the presence of a deity, then you've altered damn near everything about science and almost made science equal to religion. They are separate.

You seem to be taking very twisted views as to what science actually is and taking this views to support your belief. Let me give you some definitions of what science is:

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge.

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

From dictionary.com

Those are the definitions of science, which is not what you're asserting they are. If you're to refer to science in the way you are, then the best name is pseudo-science or maybe theistic science (which isn't recognized by the general scientific community).

I will give exactly the same logic and reason to Creationism as I do to Evolution.

I am sorry if this doesn't align with your personal belief. Technically speaking science has given all the evidence to highly suggest that creationism holds probability.

All that is now to be determined is has a deity ever existed and/or does this deity still exist. I am sure your faith will fill in this answer for you.

 

[footprints]

No, the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a deity has ever existed or still exists.

You are right and I never said it did. This is something your own mind has added to it.

What I said was the question which remains is:

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

I will give exactly the same logic and reason to Creationism as I do to Evolution.

Seeing as how the logic you gave for science and hence evolution is completely flawed, you're admitting that the logic for Creationism is flawed too. Excellent, you just discredited your own argument on Creationism before you even said a thing about it.

I am sorry if this doesn't align with your personal belief. Technically speaking science has given all the evidence to highly suggest that creationism holds probability.

It's not my personal beliefs alone, it's the definition of something that has shaped society and is the definition that the entire scientific community uses.

As I said, science and Christianity have their own separate paradigms. If you are to support Christianity via science, then that causes a massive problem in that the assumptions, the methods and knowledge used to obtain the information is completely different. You end up twisting the view inevitably by some degree. It's akin to me being in the front row of a basketball game taking notes on the plays while you sit at the front also except you compare how the basketball game relates to a novel. Both of us witness the same actions, however, you cannot seriously say that our findings support one another because they originated with two completely different, unrelated views with different methods to obtain the information.

So I don't know how science has apparently supported Creationism but regardless of how it apparently has, the transition between science to Creationism is inherently flawed. Thus, whatever the conclusion is that you provide is a flawed one because the data and argument you provide all are based on flawed evidence and assumptions.

But I'm curious as to what your flawed conclusions are, so please list them. Just remember though, that they are flawed and anyone, regardless of their religious views who knows what science actually is will discredit you immediately. So list them for your enjoyment.

All that is now to be determined is has a deity ever existed and/or does this deity still exist. I am sure your faith will fill in this answer for you.

That is a current question for us all, however, the scientific paradigm ignores the possible presence of a deity. This doesn't mean that it says there is no deity, it simply means that if one does exist, then the methods of analysis and data collection will ignore its presence.

 

[DarkSun]

You are right and I never said it did. This is something your own mind has added to it.

What I said was the question which remains is:

Yeah, yeah, this was your question:

The Question which remains at the end of both either Evolution or Creationism is; Has a deity ever existed, and/or does this deity still exist.

In other words, what you said in black and white, was that either evolution is false or God doesn't exist.

And the reply was this:

No, the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a deity has ever existed or still exists.

This is a perfectly adequate response. Evolution has NOTHING to do with the existence of a deity.



Why are we even arguing if you agree with that?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Why are we even arguing if you agree with that?

He's dishonest?

 

[DarkSun]

He's dishonest?

Dawkins isn't much better IMO...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtV22JPjmsk&feature=related