The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.

[tumbleweed41]

Probability based on assumption is not fact.

Evolutionary theory relies on neither probability nor assumptions. Like other sciences, it relies on empirical evidence backed by confirmed and falsifiable hypothesis.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I don't claim to be anything.

You are the one that claimed the moral high ground, by asserting that your morals are better than the morals of "the progressives". You are delusional, and this claim demonstrates it.

The set of standards that I have chosen to live by are not my standards.

Yes, they are.

They are God's.

No. They are your morals, projected by you, onto a being which you can neither provide evidence of, nor have access to. You project your morals onto this supreme being, so that you can then bolster your claim that the rest of us should live by those morals. It is a pitifully transparent move, and it is childish on your part to think that others cannot see through the ruse.

You live by your own standards because you do not want to be held to a higher standard.

I live by my standards because I reject the hypocrisy and inanity of yours.

Your issue is with God, not me.

I have no issue with God. I highly doubt that He exists, but even if He does, I still have no issue with Him.

My issue is with mortals (such as yourself) that claim to speak for God.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Then and only then will I agree with macroevolution.

You're lying (once again), Danmac. You already have an irrefutable mountain of evidence lying at your feet, and you intentionally misunderstand it so that you can maintain your religious dogma. You have no intention of considering the merits of evolution, regardless of what evidence you are provided.

You claim to have an IQ of 151, but your intellectual dishonesty betrays you. The constant dodging of direct questions is only one symptom of your condition.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I can't argue with that.

You have no grounds for the rest of your "arguments" either, so why not be consistent?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

btw, did you forget that you also said you trust the scientific method?

He knows he said he trusted the scientific method. I wonder why it sounds like he was lying when he said that?

 

[Danmac]

You are the one that claimed the moral high ground, by asserting that your morals are better than the morals of "the progressives". You are delusional, and this claim demonstrates it.

I have adopted God's law as my own. It is His law, not mine. He is the one with the moral high ground.

I have no issue with God. I highly doubt that He exists, but even if He does, I still have no issue with Him.

You don't know, but you spout off as if you do. You may have no issue with God, but He certainly has one with you.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

My issue is with mortals (such as yourself) that claim to speak for God.

But you just said you weren't sure if God exists. How do you know your issue isn't with God?

 

[Danmac]

He knows he said he trusted the scientific method. I wonder why it sounds like he was lying when he said that?

I trust evidence, not untestable theories.

 

[DeitySlayer]

I trust evidence, not untestable theories.

As others have repeatedly said, Danmac, evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population. This is testable. This has been tested. This has been confirmed.

The only way that 'micro' changes cannot build up into 'macro' changes is if we have a Gandalf YOU-SHALL-NOT-PASS genetic barrier, which you have patently failed to show evidence for.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I trust evidence, not untestable theories.

Says the man who can offer no evidence in favor of Intelligent Design, Baraminology, or an Earth as young as 6,000-10,000 years old.

 

[Wotan]

That is so absurd. So science isn't "looking" for a cocktail that will cure Parkinson's disease? Science looks for what does not presently exist. Like life on other planets.


Every individual begins with his or her own presuppositions, and they look for ways to support them.

What we call rational grounds for our beliefs are often extremely irrational attempts to justify our instincts. -Huxley


I can't argue with that.

You quite miss the point. (Why am I not surprosed?) I said "science at its purest." What you are describing is technology, medical technology in your example. But that is NOT pure science. And the fact that you cannot make that distinction is revealing.

Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I have adopted God's law as my own. It is His law, not mine. He is the one with the moral high ground.

You are claiming to speak for God. You are trying to impose your sense of right and wrong (your version of morality) on others, and you are trying to do so by using the vehicle of speaking for God.

You don't know, but you spout off as if you do.

No. I am an agnostic. Learn to use the English language. It can be a real boost during job interviews.

You may have no issue with God, but He certainly has one with you.

If God exists, He may very well have an issue with me. This argument, however, is based on your issue with me, because I don't embrace your version of God. If God decides to speak to me, and tells me that He has an issue with me, then I'll be glad to work things out with Him. On the other hand, I have absolutely no intention of using you as an intermediary during the discussions.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

TVOR 3:12 Doubt not the hypocrisy and arrogance of fools, for whosoever deigns to speak for God is full of BS.

But you just said you weren't sure if God exists. How do you know your issue isn't with God?

I'm not talking to God. I'm talking to you, who thinks he is God's own messenger here on earth. Your delusions are not my problem.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I trust evidence, not untestable theories.

And yet, you attempt to defend crackpot pseudoscience like Creationism ...

 

[Orias]

And yet, you attempt to defend crackpot pseudoscience like Creationism ...

Conclusion!

 

[Autodidact]

I trust evidence, not untestable theories.

O.K. then let's talk about the evidence. I cited evidence to show that your HoK is not tenable. For some reason you declined to comment on that. Can I take it from you silence that we're done rejecting that hypothesis, or would you like some more?

 

[Autodidact]

Danmac: Are you done talking about the evidence regarding speciation, which obliterated your hypothesis, and ready to move on to another category of evidence, or did you want to discuss the evidence regarding speciation some more?

 

[Orias]

It is clear that Danmac has no evidence, as I replied to The Voice of Reason's post, a conclusion on his hipocrisy has been made.

 

[Danmac]

You quite miss the point. (Why am I not surprosed?) I said "science at its purest." What you are describing is technology, medical technology in your example. But that is NOT pure science. And the fact that you cannot make that distinction is revealing.

Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Call it what you will. It's all about discovery

 

[Danmac]

You are claiming to speak for God. You are trying to impose your sense of right and wrong (your version of morality) on others, and you are trying to do so by using the vehicle of speaking for God.

So what is wrong with the golden rule?

No. I am an agnostic. Learn to use the English language. It can be a real boost during job interviews.

I have my own company thanks.

If God exists, He may very well have an issue with me. This argument, however, is based on your issue with me, because I don't embrace your version of God. If God decides to speak to me, and tells me that He has an issue with me, then I'll be glad to work things out with Him. On the other hand, I have absolutely no intention of using you as an intermediary during the discussions.

Lu 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
(KJV)

TVOR 3:12 Doubt not the hypocrisy and arrogance of fools, for whosoever deigns to speak for God is full of BS.

The moon doesn't possess its own light yet it gives light to those who walk in darkness.

I'm not talking to God. I'm talking to you, who thinks he is God's own messenger here on earth. Your delusions are not my problem.

God's word is what God has spoken. I merely repeat what He has already said.

 

[Danmac]

And yet, you attempt to defend crackpot pseudoscience like Creationism ...

That is strange coming from an agnostic. You are unsure if God exists, but you know he didn't create anything. Now that's logic

 

[Danmac]

O.K. then let's talk about the evidence. I cited evidence to show that your HoK is not tenable. For some reason you declined to comment on that. Can I take it from you silence that we're done rejecting that hypothesis, or would you like some more?

You rely on untestable theories as proof of evolution. I'm afraid you haven't sold me or any other creationist on such a weak hypothesis. I offer you faith in a creator. I'm putting on my chips on Jehovah.