Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[PostmodernProph]

Partisan religious belief is not on equal footing with science and knowledge.

perhaps....but my knowledge of science trumps your lack of it.....

 

[Hollie]

I believe he was an adult.....how old was the first human that evolved?.....

A 6,000 year old planet pretty much rules out human evolution.

I guess we're left with conspiracy theories about how proponents of biology, chemistry, the physical sciences, astronomy, archeology, etc., are sneaking out under cover of darkness with spades and shovels planting the fossil evidence.

 

[Hollie]

perhaps....but my knowledge of science trumps your lack of it.....

Your comments prove otherwise.

 

[NYcarbineer]

yes....that point at which a single celled organism first evolved into a multicelled organism


great.....now, is it a fact that single celled organisms can evolve into multicelled organisms and can you provide proof its ever happened?.....


that is a faith choice.....I have chosen to believe that.....I have not made the claim that science proves me right.....if you are willing to make the same claim and give up the pretense that science has proven it, then everything is good between us.....two blokes on equal footing.....

Evolution is a scientific theory based on a mountain of evidence.

The supernatural generation of fully formed creatures out of thin air is a superstition with no evidence to support it.
No, they are not on equal footing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I believe he was an adult.....how old was the first human that evolved?.....

So you believe the wholly implausible idea that humans appeared on earth in a magic moment, as fully formed adults.

That is not a competing theory.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No. To do that I would have to ignore all of the evidence. In terms of the existence of God, there is no evidence at all. Not to support either side of the question. However, there is considerable evidence regarding belief and I see nothing which supports the claim that Atheists believe any less than Theists. Quite the opposite.

The evidence of belief is not the evidence of evidence. You've supported my point actually.

As I once muttered somewhere long ago,

The amount of evidence needed to believe something is true is inversely proportionate to the amount of desire one has for it to be true.

 

[PratchettFan]

The evidence of belief is not the evidence of evidence. You've supported my point actually.

As I once muttered somewhere long ago,

The amount of evidence needed to believe something is true is inversely proportionate to the amount of desire one has for it to be true.

No. I merely did not exclude you from what you just said.

 

[konradv]

Yes, to make an assertion like that. The data proves the Bible if you think for yourself.

There's fossils in the Bible?

 

[konradv]

or we are saying you have made an incorrect inference.....

The story is clear, IMO. I'll stand by my inference. I'd need to see compelling evidence to change my mind, but you don't seem to offer any.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Evolution is a scientific theory based on a mountain of evidence.

The supernatural generation of fully formed creatures out of thin air is a superstition with no evidence to support it.
No, they are not on equal footing.

Only the mountain is very small. In fact, the mountain doesn't even exist.

The only argument you have is to say "I am right and you are wrong". But you don't even believe in right and wrong so you fail at that too.

 

[THE LIGHT]

There's fossils in the Bible?

No, there are words in the Bible. The fossils are in the ground. The words in the Bible describe the creation of the planet we call earth and our universe among other things.

 

[BillyP]

lol.....no shroud....I'm pretty sure that despite your dancing you know my beliefs are quite clear here....

No I don't or I wouldn't ask. You mentioned in an adjacent post that you THINK that the first human was an adult. So you believe that humans just popped into existence. Which makes you a complete imbecile for constantly asking for proof of evolution, when you have no proof yourself of your popped-into-being-like-in-a-cartoon theory.

 

[PostmodernProph]

A 6,000 year old planet pretty much rules out human evolution.

another dishonest post....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Evolution is a scientific theory based on a mountain of evidence.

and to the extent it is proven by science I believe in it......the problem arises when you take it beyond what science has proven, by the assumption that if you give it enough time, it could have accomplished anything.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

So you believe the wholly implausible idea that humans appeared on earth in a magic moment, as fully formed adults.

That is not a competing theory.

nothing magical about it......and again, its not proposed as a theory.....its a faith choice.....and its on equal footing with your faith choice.....sorry.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

The evidence of belief is not the evidence of evidence. You've supported my point actually.

As I once muttered somewhere long ago,

The amount of evidence needed to believe something is true is inversely proportionate to the amount of desire one has for it to be true.

probably true....it would certainly explain those who believe in abiogenesis and the claim that single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms....

 

[PostmodernProph]

IMO

well, if you finally acknowledge that, we may be making progress.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

No I don't or I wouldn't ask. You mentioned in an adjacent post that you THINK that the first human was an adult. So you believe that humans just popped into existence. Which makes you a complete imbecile for constantly asking for proof of evolution, when you have no proof yourself of your popped-into-being-like-in-a-cartoon theory.

this is so tiring.....which one of us in an imbecile, when I have stated at least five times in this thread alone that I am not proposing my faith statement as a scientific theory......one does not submit "proofs" of faith statements, you submit proofs of scientific theories....that is a requirement of the scientific method.......there is no corresponding "faith method" which requires the same......if you want equal treatment, stop pretending what you have is science instead of faith.....as long as you claim its science I will be asking you for proof that meets the scientific method.....

 

[PratchettFan]

this is so tiring.....which one of us in an imbecile, when I have stated at least five times in this thread alone that I am not proposing my faith statement as a scientific theory......one does not submit "proofs" of faith statements, you submit proofs of scientific theories....that is a requirement of the scientific method.......there is no corresponding "faith method" which requires the same......if you want equal treatment, stop pretending what you have is science instead of faith.....as long as you claim its science I will be asking you for proof that meets the scientific method.....

"Proof" has meaning in math, it has no meaning at all in science. There is no such thing as a scientific "proof", so it isn't a requirement of the scientific method.

 

[BillyP]

this is so tiring.....which one of us in an imbecile, when I have stated at least five times in this thread alone that I am not proposing my faith statement as a scientific theory......one does not submit "proofs" of faith statements, you submit proofs of scientific theories....that is a requirement of the scientific method.......there is no corresponding "faith method" which requires the same......if you want equal treatment, stop pretending what you have is science instead of faith.....as long as you claim its science I will be asking you for proof that meets the scientific method.....

Ok, you're one of those lunatics who thinks humans just popped into existence and that science is crap. Got it.