Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Would a definition of the word "evidence" help?
-
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!
The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.
- Thread starter Autodidact
- Start date
Would a definition of the word "evidence" help?
Danmac
Well-Known Member
Yes... it's called loving your enemies.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Or maybe you'd like to start a thread about the moral implications of the fact that ToE is correct? You clearly have nothing to say about the subject of this one, EVIDENCE.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Well I don't know what bizarre notion you think macro-evolution is. Maybe you should tell us. To a biologist, macro-evolution is a quantity of evolution. Saying you don't accept it is like saying you accept 1, 2 and 3, but you have a problem with 100 and over. It makes you sound really dumb. I suggest you use the term ToE. Speaking of which, how about that evidence?! Interested in learning about it?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I'd love to discuss morality with you in a thread on the subject.
So, I take it that you are completely satisfied in every way with the abundant evidence in support of ToE, since you have no criticism of it.
How about if I lay out the evidence for why it is correct, and your HoP (Hypothesis of Poofing) is wrong. Sound good?
Danmac
Well-Known Member
yes, that would be quite interesting. I'm game.
I have no problem with dust to dust.
I'm not a poofer. I told you that 5 times in this thread already. Remember?
DarkSun
:eltiT
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
I'm trying to think of a word ...
What is that word I'm looking for ...
It reminds me of one of the elements ...
Give me a moment ...
Don't tell me ...
Oh yeah - ferrum.
Now I know what the word that I was looking for - Irony. That's right - irony.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
O.K., I'll start it soon. This one is about evidence, in case you have any.
I don't know what this means. I asked you about the EVIDENCE that supports ToE. Apparently you think it is more than sufficient, as you don't seem to have any criticism of it.
No, I'm pretty sure you told me you were. Didn't you say your hypothesis is that around 6000 years ago God magically poofed two of each "kind" into existence, but you have no idea what a "kind" is?
I then asked you what predictions we could generate from this hypothesis, but not being an evidence kind of guy, you declined to answer.
McBell
Unbound
FOUL!!
You reply with mere rambling bull **** more often than not.
Why is it not ok for others to follow your lead?
McBell
Unbound
Prove it.
Sorry Danmac, but you are most famous for making unsubstantiated claims and then refusing to support them.
Danmac
Well-Known Member
Do you believe in intelligent design?
DeitySlayer
President of Chindia
Yourself being a prime example.
Statistical evidence? There is a difference between die-hard fundamentalism and the rest of Christianity, you know.
DeitySlayer
President of Chindia
Intelligent design is just Creationism dressed up to look scientific. It's been comprehensively whupped in the courts every time a case is brought forwards for teaching it in schools.
Intelligent design proposes that life is complex and bears evidence of design, hence it is designed. It ignores the theory of evolution and the alternative, and much better evidenced, explanations of this apparent design, as well as continually touting disproven arguments like the irreducible complexity of the eye.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
I realize that you haven't been a member here for as long as many of the rest of us, but come on.
She told you that she is a biologist. She posts (unceasingly) in threads that discuss evolution and creationism. She has told you (in this thread) that she has no problem reconciling her belief system with evolution.
And still, you ask if she believes in intelligent design.
I'm beginning to think that you are simply trying to provoke people. No one can be that dense and still turn on a computer.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Like I've said many many times.... if they can provide any scientific evidence that supports their point. (not pop-sci books, magazine or web opinion pieces... actual scientific experimental evidence) Then I will consider ID to be worth considering.
However ID is built on misrepresentations, outright lies and lazy thinking. For now I can't support ID let alone "believe" in it.
wa:do
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Trying heroically to focus the thread on the subject of evidence, despite Danmac's strenuous efforts to talk about anything but:
So, to recap, Danmac accepts everything about ToE, except that he believes it is restricted to sets he calls "kinds," which he cannot define or identify. That is, and try to remember this, Danmac, you accept that there are mutations that create changes in successive populations of any breeding group ("Species") of organism, and that natural selection results in these species changing over time, until new species arise. (In fact, we will see as we go on that you assert this happens rapidly and constantly.) But you assert, if I understand correctly, that God magically poofed two of each "kind" into existence around 6000 years ago, and these "kinds" have been proliferating into various different species ever since. Is that correct?
While ToE says that this process explains the introduction of every species, that each and every species now or ever in existence arose from this process, so that every organism on earth can trace its ancestry back via this process, back up the twig, branch, and limb of the great tree of life, to a common ancestor.
To reiterate with the same metaphor, ToE says we have one tree, and Danmac says we have an orchard with an unspecified number of unrelated trees, each one created separately.
Does that capture where we agree and disagree?
So, to recap, Danmac accepts everything about ToE, except that he believes it is restricted to sets he calls "kinds," which he cannot define or identify. That is, and try to remember this, Danmac, you accept that there are mutations that create changes in successive populations of any breeding group ("Species") of organism, and that natural selection results in these species changing over time, until new species arise. (In fact, we will see as we go on that you assert this happens rapidly and constantly.) But you assert, if I understand correctly, that God magically poofed two of each "kind" into existence around 6000 years ago, and these "kinds" have been proliferating into various different species ever since. Is that correct?
While ToE says that this process explains the introduction of every species, that each and every species now or ever in existence arose from this process, so that every organism on earth can trace its ancestry back via this process, back up the twig, branch, and limb of the great tree of life, to a common ancestor.
To reiterate with the same metaphor, ToE says we have one tree, and Danmac says we have an orchard with an unspecified number of unrelated trees, each one created separately.
Does that capture where we agree and disagree?
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
You and I may die of old age before Danmac ever comes close to addressing the issue of evidence.
Be careful that you don't blow an O-ring trying to get him to focus.
DeitySlayer
President of Chindia
I believe it does, but I have a strange feeling that Danmac will merely ignore this and start quoting from Scripture again. Can't imagine why.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
The sound of Danmac addressing the OP:
*crickets*
*crickets*