If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I hope you dont use the dictionary method in the court room....
The process (and in your language theory) of evolution can be observed through evidence (and has been in biology, geology, paleontology, etc)
What "evidence" are you referring to? I hope you actually read sometimes what we say against using anything to pass it off as 'evidence'. A moth changing color is used as 'evidence' of evolution. A finch with a new beak is used as 'evidence' of evolution. Of course that's the problem with the theory - its semantic manipulation. Adaptation is confused as evolution. To date no one has observed species forming into whole new and unpredicted species. Such has never been observed, nor is it reproducible per the criteria of the scientific method. So before you try to separate theory from process you should at least understand that they are tied together.
Originally posted by ArmoBarbi
The process of creation cannot be observed through evidence. It is pure hear say - and we all know how far that goes!
You think evolution has been observed? Creation is a belief. Evolution is a belief. That is what I am saying.
Originally posted by ArmoBarbi
Keep in mind that evolution is the only thing being questioned/attacked in this thread - not creation. If we were putting you and your beliefs under pressure you would crack (this is only my BELIEF of course!) I really dont think youre in position to call out cracks in a belief system
If you want a separate thread to attack creation you are free to make on and we can attack for the sake of fair play.
If I wanted one, I would have made one. I don't need to ask for permission. I am a bit sick of arguing against creation, and have no desire to try to convince you that it's wrong (as I believe).
I hardly need to read your posts to know what counts as "evidence" - au contrair, you did not/do not understand the term.
There is a reason the percentage of Atheist scientist is so much higher than Theist scientists or Atheists outside of scientific fields for that matter. If you do not think that this is due to knowledge of evidence, then offer a better explanation and I will be sure to consider it.
If I wanted one, I would have made one. I don't need to ask for permission. I am a bit sick of arguing against creation, and have no desire to try to convince you that it's wrong (as I believe).
I hardly need to read your posts to know what counts as "evidence" - au contrair, you did not/do not understand the term.
There is a reason the percentage of Atheist scientist is so much higher than Theist scientists or Atheists outside of scientific fields for that matter. If you do not think that this is due to knowledge of evidence, then offer a better explanation and I will be sure to consider it.
The typical response of someone who believes in evolution eventually is reduced to (and loseyourname did the same thing in the Evolution and Religion thread) is "then offer a better explanation" once and for all showing cracks that what they believe is indeed a belief until something better comes along. I am not here to offer better explanations, as I do not know, nor do I claim to know. Evolutionists seem to think they alone know the truth and everyone else is toiling in the fields of misanthropy. I am saying that what you believe is a belief. It is not knowledge, as knowledge according to the scientific method is something that is observed, reproduced, and tested.
Comment