Evolution and Religion

[Anonymouse]

Now, now, now, Mr. Loser, let's not lose our cool. It's okay if you believe in evolution. I'm not here to question your belief, I was only saying that the same evidence can apply to creation, why not? It's all a matter of how you approach it. If you approach the givens with the idea that we evolved, of course it's going to fit into the context of having been evolved, and I never denied this.

In fact, I did state that by looking at the fossil record we see progression. That, to me, however, does not constitute as proof of us having "evolved".

[loseyourname]

Way to ignore the question. What evidence would you accept as falsification of the creation hypothesis? What evidence would you accept as falsification of the intelligent intervention hypothesis?

[Anonymouse]

Now that you cleared out the questions...since the human mind is imperfect, and since we will never know the whole truth, only partial truths, we will never know if we were created or evolved ( even if evolved shouldn't something have preceded evolution? ) thus the questions you ask are mostly aimed at people who wish to change their viewpoints. Thus, to resort to name calling, as is often the case ( and you were no exception earlier ), is the hallmark of arrogance. I am not trying to smear you but only highlighting that all too often, we believe in our convictions so deeply, that we will ultimatley resort to name calling, both creationists and evolutionists have engaged in this behavior.

If it can be shown how one species leads to another on a macro level, then I'd be inclined to change my views and adhere to the evolutionist school of thought. However, since humanity cannot ever know that, and hence can never know if the fossil from the Cambrian Age ultimately led to organisms of today, then the only thing left is, given whatever belief system you appeal to, to remain with that, but at the same time, hold an open mind. For example, I find the the evidence of within species variation among organisms simply marvelous and conclusive, however, regarding that on a macro level, I find the evidence all but silent ( this is where evolutionists start making guesses, which there is nothing wrong with, but let's not call it "fact" when it is really a belief, no different than a belief in creation ).

[loseyourname]

Way to again ignore the question. What would you accept as evidence against creation and/or intelligent intervention?

[Anonymouse]

Obviously, I answered the question. Stop dragging it, use your evolved mind to understand that I answered both questions.

[loseyourname]

No, you didn't. You said what you would accept as proof of evolution, not as evidence, nor did you say what you would accept as negative evidence toward your own hypotheses. Now quit being obtuse. If your hypothesis is so strong, tell me what would count against it, and why everything outlined in that skeptical inquirer article does not.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname No, you didn't. You said what you would accept as proof of evolution, not as evidence, nor did you say what you would accept as negative evidence toward your own hypotheses. Now quit being obtuse. If your hypothesis is so strong, tell me what would count against it, and why everything outlined in that skeptical inquirer article does not.

I answered the question and now you resort to name calling. Typical behavior of the Fadixian Loserian Evolutionist School of Dogma.

[loseyourname]

Obtuse is an adjective, not a name. Now quit whining and answer the damn question. What would you accept as negative evidence? If you think you have already answered, then just quote your answer. It isn't that difficult to do.

Heck, you still never gave me a competing theory that doesn't postulate pre-existing complexity.

[Anonymouse]

Loser, name calling is name calling. You just always get frustrated when someone doesn't adhere to evolutionary dogma. I have already answered, I will not quote for you being inept.

[loseyourname]

I don't care what you believe, Mousy. I care that you answer my questions completely, all of them. I have addressed everything you've given me, and you are not paying me the same courtesy. You have either ignored or outright dismissed half of what I've presented. And look at what you've sucked me in to. Somehow you always manage to turn the intellectual discussions into arguments about who is being meaner to who. Do you always whine this much?

You say treat all theories the same, but I will shortly that you are not doing so. The available evidence pretty much completely discredits traditional creationism, and the intervention you suggest from outside intelligence is still evolution, just not by the mechanism of natural selection, which is exactly what Arvy said when he started this thread. Evolution happened. How it happened, and whether or not it was directed, we don't know.

Okay, I'm getting ahead of myself here. I'll be back shortly.