Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

What ignorant hokum. All knowledge is ultimately dependent on some degree of faith. But in the case of materialists in particular, the whole theory is self-refuting since materialism denies even the possibility of ascertaining scientific truth since it denies the possibility of the metaphysical freedom of the mind. But if human thought is not free from material causes then the very idea of scientific (or any kind of truth) is rendered non-sensical.

materialism vs Darwinism. Now we are conflating philosophy/politics/morals with physical science/biology.

once again: one has no relevance to the other.

Except that isn't much good at all. Just another fringe wannabe who uses his material to comfort theists but is ignored by the vast majority who work in the field, or anyone who has actually taken the trouble to study evolution or knows how science works.

The little boy is his son. That's their pet emu.





Here's its useless arm, which just hangs, not being connected to functional muscles. See the claw?? A claw on its wing.

You are still equivocating. Faith is defined as a belief held without the support of evidence. If verifiable evidence exist and a belief is based on verifiable evidence, it is not - by definition - a faith based belief.

Who? Hovind?

One thing you can be certain of is Christians switching faith for proven science when it counts.

nobody on the campfire would pick up a Bible before a Glock, when they find an intruder in the house.

A lot has happened since Darwin began developing his ideas on evolution based on observation. You use the language of creationist organizations. It is not a view held by the vast majority of researchers who work in the field.

For example;


''There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time. Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. ... These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses.




Transitional forms

Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.

Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.

A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.

Of course, he is the young earth creationist.

1. Confidence or trust in a person or thing:
Faith in another's ability.

2. Belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. Belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. Belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. A system of religious belief:
the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6. The obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:
Failure to appear would be breaking faith.


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith

That's an amazing thing, if not a bit ironic.

Land mammals evolving to live in the water. Their long distant predecessors evolved to get out of the water.

Materialism dictates that a naturalistic theory is the only acceptable one. Given a materialist premise (starting point) something akin to Darwinism must be true virtually as a matter of logic.

It doesn't 'dictate' anything. It's the available evidence that determines the explanatory narrative/theory.

Here you go...

https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/why_fossils_can/

A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you.

And one of the authors;

''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity".

Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set

Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).

Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). ''

Dictionaries tend to reflect common usage, where words are used as blanket terms or a wide range of references. Trust may be built or destroyed on direct experience with someone or something, which is evidence based. On the other hand, someone may be convinced that Brahman is the creator of the universe, so we are clearly not talking about the same thing regardless of whether you use the same word, faith, in both examples. If you do, you are either being sloppy or equivocating.

Prove that it is pseudoscience instead of being an echo chamber for someone who, like yourself who is afraid to confront the actual arguments. If its pseudoscience you should have no trouble responding to the merits of the article! That is how science and logic work. The fact that all you can't---that all you can do is call names and regurgitate someone elses's concession of impotence is tantamount to an admission of surrender. You're embarrassing yourself.

I not the one quoting from biased creationist material, written by authors who are not qualified, who are dismissed as cranks by the vast majority of scientists who actually do the research.

The evidence for evolution is readily available, I have posted links and quotes that outline the case for evolution. But that is all ignored.

Once again, it is not my evidence or my argument, but the situation as it actually stands. Only a small minority of academics question the evidence and most of those are not qualified, they are first and foremost, creationists.

Whether there's a "problem" depends entirely on what the faith-based belief is.