The Origin of Complex Life Forms and Their Purpose

[metis]

And that's why scientists make the conclusion they do.

And what "conclusion" do you think that is?

 

[DavidFirth]

And what "conclusion" do you think that is?

Whatever is politically correct.

 

[metis]

Whatever is politically correct.

Then that's not science, as one whom is on the inside well knows. Anyone who has a copy of "Scientific American" well knows that we are constantly cross examining each other as you can even see that in the letters to the editor at the beginning of each copy.

So, it appears that you may be confusing science with theism, the latter of which heavily relies on what's "politically correct" within each denomination-- or they're out.

 

[DavidFirth]

Then that's not science, as one whom is on the inside well knows. Anyone who has a copy of "Scientific American" well knows that we are constantly cross examining each other as you can even see that in the letters to the editor at the beginning of each copy.

So, it appears that you may be confusing science with theism, the latter of which heavily relies on what's "politically correct" within each denomination-- or they're out.

Right now the popular politically correct opinion of most scientists is the Big Bang & Macro-Evolution. Tomorrow it could very well be something else. We'll just have to wait until tomorrow...

 

[SkepticThinker]

Right now the popular politically correct opinion of most scientists is the Big Bang & Macro-Evolution. Tomorrow it could very well be something else. We'll just have to wait until tomorrow...

Evolution has been a well established scientific theory for over a century. So odds are, tomorrow will be the same.

That is, unless you want to present some evidence that falsifies it. We're still waiting for that ....

 

[DavidFirth]

Evolution has been a well established scientific theory for over a century. So odds are, tomorrow will be the same.

That is, unless you want to present some evidence that falsifies it. We're still waiting for that ....

Well, Creation theories have been around much longer than that and unless you want to present some evidence that falsifies it. We're still waiting for that ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, Creation theories have been around much longer than that and unless you want to present some evidence that falsifies it. We're still waiting for that ...

There has been no empirical evidence to establish them as factually accurate to begin with. If there is an abundance of evidence, then it should be easy to do.

Here's the evidence that falsifies creation theories: We have no empirical evidence for the existence of any creator(s).

 

[DavidFirth]

There has been no empirical evidence to establish them as factually accurate to begin with. If there is an abundance of evidence, then it should be easy to do.

Here's the evidence that falsifies creation theories: We have no empirical evidence for the existence of any creator(s).

Here's the evidence that falsifies macro-evolution theories: We have no empirical evidence that establishes it as fact.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here's the evidence that falsifies macro-evolution theories: We have no empirical evidence that establishes it as fact.

Nonsense.

 

[DavidFirth]

Nonsense.

Link?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Link?

It's been presented to you by myself and many others many times over. I'm so sick of this kind of run-around we get from some creationists where you ask for evidence, it's provided and then later you claim it doesn't exist and/or was never presented. You either care about evidence and discovering truths about the world we live in, or you don't. You seem to want to stick to your preconceived religious beliefs contained in an old book. Am I wrong?

 

[metis]

Right now the popular politically correct opinion of most scientists is the Big Bang

It is classified as a "scientific theory", which does mean that there is some significant evidence that it may well have happened.

OTOH, there isn't a single shred of objective evidence that supports the Creation accounts as being correct. If you think there is, then please post it.

...& Macro-Evolution

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community has it that not only is it possible, that it appears to be pretty much a slam dunk.

OTOH, there isn't a single piece of objective evidence that suggests there's some sort of magical wall that stops "micro-" from becoming "macro-", and if you think there is, then please post that as well.

Well, Creation theories have been around much longer than that and unless you want to present some evidence that falsifies it.

When one makes the assertion that "X" exists, then it's up to them to put forth the objective evidence for it, not the other way around. So, please put forth your evidence that these Creation accounts, which vary widely btw, are based on real events.

 

[DavidFirth]

It's been presented to you by myself and many others many times over. I'm so sick of this kind of run-around we get from some creationists where you ask for evidence, it's provided and then later you claim it doesn't exist and/or was never presented. You either care about evidence and discovering truths about the world we live in, or you don't. You seem to want to stick to your preconceived religious beliefs contained in an old book. Am I wrong?

It has not ever been established as fact. Scientists say they think it is fact based on their evidence but they cannot prove it is fact. So you might as well give up because neither can you prove it as fact because it isn't fact.

 

[DavidFirth]

It is classified as a "scientific theory", which does mean that there is some significant evidence that it may well have happened.

OTOH, there isn't a single shred of objective evidence that supports the Creation accounts as being correct. If you think there is, then please post it.

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community has it that not only is it possible, that it appears to be pretty much a slam dunk.

OTOH, there isn't a single piece of objective evidence that suggests there's some sort of magical wall that stops "micro-" from becoming "macro-", and if you think there is, then please post that as well.

When one makes the assertion that "X" exists, then it's up to them to put forth the objective evidence for it, not the other way around. So, please put forth your evidence that these Creation accounts, which vary widely btw, are based on real events.

I stand on the word of God, sir. I need no other evidence.

 

[metis]

Here's the evidence that falsifies macro-evolution theories: We have no empirical evidence that establishes it as fact.

Then I guess you must agree that there's no empirical evidence that there is a God based on what you wrote above.

See, here's the double-standard with your approach, namely you keep telling us to "prove" but then you can't do the same with your theology. You put nothing forth, but we do all the time. Your use of your own paradigm that you've blindly swallowed even blinds you even seeing just how disingenuous your own approach really is.

Fortunately, most Christian theologians don't use that same blind paradigm.

 

[DavidFirth]

Then I guess you must agree that there's no empirical evidence that there is a God based on what you wrote above.

See, here's the double-standard with your approach, namely you keep telling us to "prove" but then you can't do the same with your theology. You put nothing forth, but we do all the time. Your use of your own paradigm that you've blindly swallowed even blinds you even seeing just how disingenuous your own approach really is.

Fortunately, most Christian theologians don't use that same blind paradigm.

I have no "blind paradigm." I ask you to prove it because you say it is fact when it isn't fact.

The prophets and the apostles have spoken. You can read Christian Creation sites and you can read non-Christian sites. Believe them or don't believe them.

You can't prove anything empirically either way. You must choose based on faith.

 

[metis]

I stand on the word of God, sir. I need no other evidence.

Except that you can't even establish it's "the word of God".

You have what is called "blind belief", namely to accept "X" without even challenging it to see if it's true or not. Science doesn't work that way.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It has not ever been established as fact. Scientists say they think it is fact based on their evidence but they cannot prove it is fact. So you might as well give up because neither can you prove it as fact because it isn't fact.

Yes it has, hence the reason that evolution is both fact and scientific theory.

And by the way, why couldn't the god you worship have designed evolution?

And I have to wonder why you don't hold yourself and your religion to the same standards you hold science to. Where's all the empirical evidence for your beliefs?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I stand on the word of God, sir. I need no other evidence.

Thanks for making my point for me.

 

[DavidFirth]

Except that you can't even establish it's "the word of God".

You have what is called "blind belief", namely to accept "X" without even challenging it to see if it's true or not. Science doesn't work that way.

Wrong. What would the priest in your wife's church say? I believe based on spiritual and empirical evidence.