It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
Creationist and Evolutionist use the same evidence. It is interpretation based on world view that determines what one believes. Creationists and Evolutionists use the same fossil record, sun, ocean, animals, plants and anything else scientists come up with to study.
So true. Most people come to these arguments with an unshakable belief, start with the conclusion, and make the evidence fit.
Creationists do. Scientists don't. Darwin's view on evolution developed on the basis of observation and evidence in spite of the prevailing belief in creation during that time in history.
It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
Creationist and Evolutionist use the same evidence. It is interpretation based on world view that determines what one believes. Creationists and Evolutionists use the same fossil record, sun, ocean, animals, plants and anything else scientists come up with to study.
So true. Most people come to these arguments with an unshakable belief, start with the conclusion, and make the evidence fit.
Creationists do. Scientists don't. Darwin's view on evolution developed on the basis of observation and evidence in spite of the prevailing belief in creation during that time in history.
No sh** Sherlock. I'm a scientist, and I am not a creationsit. But I can still see it, plain as day. In fact, I'm guilty of it myself.
Darwin watched bears swimmin in the water catchin bugs, and came up with this theory: ""I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."
It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
Creationist and Evolutionist use the same evidence. It is interpretation based on world view that determines what one believes. Creationists and Evolutionists use the same fossil record, sun, ocean, animals, plants and anything else scientists come up with to study.
So true. Most people come to these arguments with an unshakable belief, start with the conclusion, and make the evidence fit.
Creationists do. Scientists don't. Darwin's view on evolution developed on the basis of observation and evidence in spite of the prevailing belief in creation during that time in history.
No sh** Sherlock. I'm a scientist, and I am not a creationsit. But I can still see it, plain as day. In fact, I'm guilty of it myself.
"Sherlock?" What exactly do you see, and what exactly are you guilty of? You need to be more precise.
How many scientists publish papers on creationism? What scientists happen to contemplate in private is irrelevant to science.
It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition. Pointing out the mathematical difficulties with TENS does not necessarily mean there is a God. It just means that TENS is wrong. And the circular argument of, “Well, we’re here, so evolution, even if unlikely must have worked” isn’t very convincing and isn’t very scientific.
The evidence does not paint a picture of guided evolution, therefore guided evolution is an unfounded speculation, as is the existence of a Creator.
It's the theist who argues: the world appears unlikely, therefore God.
If there is a Creator, it is a hidden Creator, a Creator who plays no part in creation.
Antelope Sniper already shot that video down pretty good.
Yes, he is so much more intelligent than those guys. Lol
The quality of arguments isn't a one to one reflection of comparative IQs. Not to say AS isn't quite smart, indeed. I have no reason to believe his IQ pales much compared any of those folks. But that's not how you determine the quality of arguments.
It pales and his arguments remain circular and unconvincing.
It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition. Pointing out the mathematical difficulties with TENS does not necessarily mean there is a God. It just means that TENS is wrong. And the circular argument of, “Well, we’re here, so evolution, even if unlikely must have worked” isn’t very convincing and isn’t very scientific.
The evidence does not paint a picture of guided evolution, therefore guided evolution is an unfounded speculation, as is the existence of a Creator.
It's the theist who argues: the world appears unlikely, therefore God.
If there is a Creator, it is a hidden Creator, a Creator who plays no part in creation.
Guided evolution - why not? My theory is that God may (or may not) be taking a hand in current events through the guise of chance. Because if He acts within the scope of statistical probability how would you know? That lucky bugger who beat one in a million odds may be blessed. Or not, just lucky.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition. Pointing out the mathematical difficulties with TENS does not necessarily mean there is a God. It just means that TENS is wrong. And the circular argument of, “Well, we’re here, so evolution, even if unlikely must have worked” isn’t very convincing and isn’t very scientific.
The evidence does not paint a picture of guided evolution, therefore guided evolution is an unfounded speculation, as is the existence of a Creator.
It's the theist who argues: the world appears unlikely, therefore God.
If there is a Creator, it is a hidden Creator, a Creator who plays no part in creation.
Who said anything about guided evolution?
I did. It is a belief that some folks hold.
So now you have moved from circular arguments to knocking down your own strawmen?
No sh** Sherlock. I'm a scientist, and I am not a creationsit. But I can still see it, plain as day. In fact, I'm guilty of it myself.
"Sherlock?" What exactly do you see, and what exactly are you guilty of? You need to be more precise.
How many scientists publish papers on creationism? What scientists happen to contemplate in private is irrelevant to science.
Thank you, Galileo. Or do yiou fancy yourself more a Leonardo?
It has nothing to do with me. You are trying to deflect away from the argument and onto the poster, an attempt to make it something personal. A common ploy and a sign of failure.
[quote=DBT][quote=JoeBob][quote=DBT]It's all about evidence. However unlikely that our existence appears to be, mathematically or logically, the evidence supports evolution, not Magic, not an invisible Magician who created a universe.
It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition. Pointing out the mathematical difficulties with TENS does not necessarily mean there is a God. It just means that TENS is wrong. And the circular argument of, “Well, we’re here, so evolution, even if unlikely must have worked” isn’t very convincing and isn’t very scientific.
So now you have moved from circular arguments to knocking down your own strawmen?
That reply has nothing to do with what I said. And your circular argument claim is false.
. A creator of the physical universe must exist outside the physical world (or he'd have to create himself which is nonsense). Since time exists only in the physical universe by definition a creator cannot be subject to time, time does not exist for him, he exists apart from the physical universe. So it is not irrational to say the creator always existed.
1/. Where was this creator before the universe existed? 2/. where is that creator located now?
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
. A creator of the physical universe must exist outside the physical world (or he'd have to create himself which is nonsense). Since time exists only in the physical universe by definition a creator cannot be subject to time, time does not exist for him, he exists apart from the physical universe. So it is not irrational to say the creator always existed.
1/. Where was this creator before the universe existed? 2/. where is that creator located now?
And I can imagine Dragons. That doesn't mean they really exist.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
