The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No. But it would make so-called "Creationism" even more ironic than it already is.

I must ask; How?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I have, there's nothing there.

Hence my question.

Nice

 

[fantome profane]

You've completely missed the point. The point wasn't for me to be Captain Obvious, the point was the fact that most of these people on here are agnostics, atheist, naturalist, or any other belief that does not include the belief in a supernatural Deity. Someone suggested that God could have used evolution as a method for his creation....and my point was, fine, if that is the case then that would still mean your belief of agnosticism/atheism/naturalism is FALSE.

That was the point. Your sarcasm was highly noted :clap

You are still being Captain Obvious, and the sarcasm was highly appropriate.

But putting the sarcasm aside, you are absolutely right. And I have been saying this on this board for years. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the existence of "God". And if you are just arriving to that realization, welcome.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Here's another thing you don't understand about science.

Scientific theories (like the theory of evolution) have been debated in the scientific literature (by scientists: ya know, the people who know what they're talking about). In the case of evolution, it's been debated for almost two centuries now, and as of yet, no evidence has ever been presented that has falsified it. In fact, all the evidence discovered since Darwin initially posed the hypothesis has only reinforced and validated it, which is why it is now referred to as scientific theory (the highest point of graduation for a scientific hypothesis).

The theory of evolution has been through the ringer (as all scientific theories have) which is why it is now accepted fact. Keep that in mind when you try using the old canard that it's "only a theory."

Dogs produced dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. My basis for drawing that conclusion is independent of what some guy in a white trench coat with a test tube in his hand tells me

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You are still being Captain Obvious, and the sarcasm was highly appropriate.

But putting the sarcasm aside, you are absolutely right. And I have been saying this on this board for years. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the existence of "God". And if you are just arriving to that realization, welcome.

Smh. Still missing the point I see. I don't think I can help you now.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It's called a joke.


Richard Dawkins said of William Lane Craig:

"Don’t feel embarrassed if you’ve never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either."


So what??

Please tell me why Dawkins debated John Lennox but refuses to debate Dr. Craig?

 

[Iti oj]

Please tell me why Dawkins debated John Lennox but refuses to debate Dr. Craig?

Because Dr. Craig has nothing, new interesting, or relevant to say. Nor can Dawkins debate every one who challenges him/.

 

[Iti oj]

Dogs produced dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. My basis for drawing that conclusion is independent of what some guy in a white trench coat with a test tube in his hand tells me

Can you tell my way, as an evolutionist , i see your stament as wrong? What data do II see that suggest other wise. You have been told a million times why this point is false.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well then present an argument. So far, you have yet to actually argue something of substance that is not based on mere belief. Once you have some facts that withstand scientific inquiry and can be rationally argued we can move on past your ideological sparring.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produced cats. Neither one of us has seen anything different.

Since when has evolution not been science? Are you even familiar with what a scientific theory actually is?

I don't think it is science and of course I don't think it is a fact, for reasons I already gave.

see above. You cannot have it both ways, it is either science or it’s not. So if you do not think of evolution as a valid SCIENTIFIC theoretical framework, then you cannot claim to explain it scientifically.

Science is supposed to be based on repeated experiment and observation. There has never been a repeated experiment that proves macroevolution nor has there been any observation of these large scale changes that is plaguing the theory. So there is no repeated experiment nor observation, which are two of the main key elements of the scientific method....so how can it be science?? Not only isn't it science, but it is a religion. It is what you believe happened. You can't prove it. That is as religious as any belief that I've ever heard of.

Oh that’s so funny. Xtian cherry picking practices at their best. You sure do have selective hearing. You might want to look at the whole video and that quote’s context before you say something that ignorant. Sarcasm apparently passes right over your head. And a sign of respect? What have you been watching? It certainly was not that debate where he says it. But I digress; you do not want to watch anything that puts your opinion in question.
So I inserted that particular video in which he shows Craig up for the self-righteous buffoon he is—just in case you need a refresher.
[youtube]FM-BC5QHexU[/youtube]
Sam Harris Destroys Craig in debate - YouTube

You are right, it is rather funny. You are making a big fuss about what I said about Sam Harris regarding what he said in reference to Dr. Craig in there debate. To be quite honest, I don't know what the heck you are talking about me having selective hearing and about the context of the quote. What are you talking about? I said, in post #613:

"Sam Harris said that Dr. Craig put the "fear of god" in some of his atheist friends."

So after you made your above comment, I actually watched the debate to see if I missed something, and here is what Sam Harris actually said:

"First of all let me say it is an honor to be here at Notre Dame. I am very happy to be debating Dr. Craig; the one Christian apologist who seems to put the fear of God in many of my fellow atheists"

Now compare that to what I said previously. So what is taken out of context and what is selective about it?

Again you might need to actually read what I say before you dip over the edge. I stated that he debates with other scientists concerning issues pertaining to his field of expertise—cosmology and astrophysics. Since the guys are debating to further their and other people’s knowledge in their fields, you cannot state that he is not willing to hear other scientists’ ideas. Even you should know that this is the foundational principle of science, it’s called the Socratic Method and we teach kids in high school how to employ it.

What I am saying is I want to hear him debate someone who hold to the theory of ID. It is not enough to debate someone that shares his expertise on the field of cosmology, because that person can be a fellow atheists and they may just have disagreements concerning whatever it is they disagree with in physics, just like I have debates with Jehovah Witness's about certain theological implications, but we still both believe in God. Get the point?

As I mentioned before, you are way deep into the ignorance is bliss point of view to know much about anything outside your own interpretation of what ought to be. And I am sure you watch what is deemed safe by those you agree with, the question is, are you actually hearing anything you don’t want to hear?

I am sure Dr. Craig would love to debate your guy. Set it up.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Because Dr. Craig has nothing, new interesting, or relevant to say. Nor can Dawkins debate every one who challenges him/.

He can't debate every one who challenges him? As if Dr. Craig is some random guy off the street. Dr. Craig is the most prominent Christian apologist in the world today. He is the very best in what Christian apologetics have to offer today, and if you cant make time for him I shouldn't see you on youtube debating evolution with some chick that nobody knows.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Can you tell my way, as an evolutionist , i see your stament as wrong? What data do II see that suggest other wise. You have been told a million times why this point is false.

No, the point is true. Dogs produce dogs. I know that it is true based on observation and repeated experiment, you know, what science is SUPPOSED to be about. Not about speculation and false presuppositions. Not to mention a little sprinkle (a lot, actually) of faith.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It does. Too bad there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution. You almost had a point.

There is a big difference. The difference is we can see microevolution every day. Try breeding any kind of dog or cat. You will end up with a dog or cat every single time. Why am I to believe that long ago when nobody was around to see, animals began doing this other stuff, you know, the stuff that is in the text books?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Craig has been dismantled by half a dozen people. Not all of them even atheist. His opinion and arguments I find to be little more than the same re-hashed and false arguments given by those such as yourself but with bigger words in them. Same stupidity but with a slightly better vocabulary.

Not even you believe that.

Neil is one of the highest regarded scientists of his field. He doesn't debate usually as he spends his time focusing on learning and research rather than debate. He has been on record saying that he doesn't want to debate god because its a waste of his precious time.

Ok, I can respect that...if he doesn't want to debate God then his name shouldn't have been thrown in the lions den by posters on here. I am sure if he wanted to step in to the octogon with Dr. Craig or any other theistic scientists then it will be game on.

 

[McBell]

No, the point is true. Dogs produce dogs. I know that it is true based on observation and repeated experiment, you know, what science is SUPPOSED to be about. Not about speculation and false presuppositions. Not to mention a little sprinkle (a lot, actually) of faith.

Sad that you have no idea how foolish this makes you look.
Especially after the coyote incident.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Sad that you have no idea how foolish this makes you look.
Especially after the coyote incident.

Ps 53:1 "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

If I look foolish by your standards, then you look foolish by my standards.

 

[Iti oj]

No, the point is true. Dogs produce dogs. I know that it is true based on observation and repeated experiment, you know, what science is SUPPOSED to be about. Not about speculation and false presuppositions. Not to mention a little sprinkle (a lot, actually) of faith.

At this point, I am not asking you to accept what you have been told, only to display understanding. You seem competently incapable of doing so.

 

[adi2d]

At this point, I am not asking you to accept what you have been told, only to display understanding. You seem competently incapable of doing so.

He's not even trying to understand. He's just trying to out stubborn everyone

He has stated that one kind of life has produced other kinds of life. Now he's denying it again

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There is a big difference. The difference is we can see microevolution every day. Try breeding any kind of dog or cat. You will end up with a dog or cat every single time. Why am I to believe that long ago when nobody was around to see, animals began doing this other stuff, you know, the stuff that is in the text books?

And what is that, exactly? Evolution states simply that "everything reproduces with variation and this variation, over time and with enough environmental attrition, results in speciation." What you are seeing "every day" is exactly what evolution says occurs and nothing else is required. All that is required is for things to reproduce WITH VARIATION, and this is EXACTLY WHAT WE OBSERVE.

I've explained this to you dozens upon dozens of times. Why is it so difficult for you to understand??

 

[SkepticThinker]

You've completely missed the point. The point wasn't for me to be Captain Obvious, the point was the fact that most of these people on here are agnostics, atheist, naturalist, or any other belief that does not include the belief in a supernatural Deity. Someone suggested that God could have used evolution as a method for his creation....and my point was, fine, if that is the case then that would still mean your belief of agnosticism/atheism/naturalism is FALSE.

That was the point. Your sarcasm was highly noted :clap

And with that, you've made another point that has nothing to do with evolution.

Congratulations. :clap

 

[SkepticThinker]

Dogs produced dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. My basis for drawing that conclusion is independent of what some guy in a white trench coat with a test tube in his hand tells me

You should probably listen to the enormous groups of educated men in white coats who do this stuff for a living (and review the mountains of evidence that's been collected for 150+ years), because you know next to nothing about evolution. Nobody is asking you to accept the word of some guy in a white trench coat with a test tube in his hands. Notice how I never mentioned anything like that in my description of how things become accepted science? That's not how scientific theories come to be. It's the BODY OF EVIDENCE collected by thousands upon thousands of people who study the stuff for a living, that needs to be considered. I don't see you doing anything like that.

If you need medical advice, do you consult lawyers, or do you consult doctors? Hello!

Edit: Quick question - Do you accept germ theory? How about plate tectonics?