Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire So, which of the 6 theories of Evolution do you unbelievers believe in?

Have you watched the video? Or, do you prefer to attack the believers it represents?

I no more “disparaged” faith in science than you did in your previous post. Did you disparage faith in science?

And extol? LOL. You seem to exaggerate what I’ve clearly pointed out (several times), which is, simply, faith is a core requirement of being a christian. Do you dispute this?

Remember, you’re speaking with an 8th grade, backwoods educated feller. Try to use smaller words. They tend to create less confusion for us simple folk.

Ah hah! You cheater. You missed out on the complete series of indoctrination exercises.

Yes, it does. For starters, presupposing one's own identity, indeed one's own rationality is an act of faith.

Only if you are equivocating with the word 'faith' - which is a fallacy.

We have different words, trust, confidence, etc, because there are distinctions to be made between trust and faith, confidence and trust.

Trust can be built or destroyed through direct experience with someone or something, which is evidence.... while to have faith just means that you believe. You believe what is written, what you are told or hope for without verification, without the support of evidence.

I seem to remember you making remarks along the lines of 'science is based on faith' which implies that science has an unsound foundation.

Then why are so many high-level intellects abandoning it? Why do scientists like Michael Denton call it a "theory in crisis"? Given that the odds of protein folding are impossible how can fully naturalistic processes account for this essential step in neo-Darwinian evolution?

A theory in crisis? I'm not aware of that. A very small percentage may be making that claim for their own reasons, but that's not a crisis.

And when experience shows faith invested in countless prayers go unanswered?

Does stronger faith/belief make prayers more
effective?

Some claim they have evidence that prayers
do work... some even claim to have conclusive
proof.

The desired result may have happened regardless of prayer. Some may pray for a result that doesn't eventuate, the worst happens. Those who pray but do not have their prayers answered feel that what they hoped for ''was not Gods Will.'' We tend to remember the good and forget the bad.

So when folks heard about the Titanic sinking,
they prayed that people they know onboard
were OK, when in fact they were already well
and truly stone cold dead in the North Atlantic.

Some probably got in early and prayed for a safe
passage when boarding the ship, which didn't
work out for many... were the survivors the ones
favored by God, or just the lucky ones?

The theory is indeed in crisis if the arguments of its critics cannot be met.

Have they really not been met...or is it just being claimed that they have not been met?

Is there an example that puts the reality of evolution into question?

Since you claim my God is fictitious, it is every bit as incumbent on you to present sufficient evidence for his non-existence, which goes back to what I have been saying from the beginning: There is never going to be sufficient evidence (i.e. proof) one way or another. My statement reflected my belief that He is God of all humanity. I freely admit that I can't prove my belief, but you in your intellectual arrogance cannot admit that you can't prove anything you believe either. But you sure as heck can demand that other folks prove stuff to you.

Secondly, I did not portray God as a trickster, that is merely how you characterized him. I only offered an alternative interpretation of the evidence that you see in only one way. It is the only way I can see to reconcile the evidence that science has produced with the documentary evidence in the Bible as a whole. If there is another way to reconcile the two, I'm all ears.

Third, I did not claim God did anything for the sole purpose of tricking people so he can send them to Hell. This is a blatant lie.

It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who constantly misrepresents what the other person says. I knew this going in, don't know why I bothered to try (again) with you.

I do appreciate your response on the thread about pocket handgun carry, however.

I had to call up the final posts in this thread just to see where 33 pages of "discussion" had gone. And it went exactly as expected.

Yep.

My father's day gift.

May I suggest you revisit my posts about which you write and reread it/them?

My position has always been: The consensus among christians and evolutionists is that science is not based on faith. Despite this widespread acceptance, human evolutionists depart from this in their final conclusion. That’s not to say science isn’t involved. They just choose to abandon the purist form of the scientific method and surreptitiously insert subjective results. By doing so, they depart the practice of true science and enter the realm of philosophy and/or religion. The irony being: True science is based on being proven and denounces faith-based jumps to conclusion, regardless of size.

Subjectivity may be required in certain aspects of science, but using it to draw a final conclusion disputed inside its own secular practice not science. It’s as if the largely-touted open mind of science is traded for that of a religious zealot. A true scientific mind would say human evolution is probable, but not definite.

From that point, it turns into the quagmire of slander and subjectivity akin to a Jerry Springer show. Instead of being able to prove the point in the purist scientific form, deflection, entrapment and the “cherry-picking” of evidence are used to discredit anyone or anything not in full agreement.

Evolution-is-a-Done-Deal

BBC: The idea that species gradually change over many generations is the cornerstone of biology. This is how we know it's true
By Chris Baraniuk 30 July 2015
“Evolution is one of the greatest theories in all of science. It sets out to explain life: specifically, how the first simple life gave rise to all the huge diversity we see today, from bacteria to oak trees to blue whales.
For scientists, evolution is a fact. We know that life evolved with the same certainty that we know the Earth is roughly spherical, that gravity keeps us on it, and that wasps at a picnic are annoying.
Not that you would know that from the media in some countries, where evolution is ferociously argued about – put down as "just a theory" or dismissed as a flat-out lie.
Why are biologists so certain about this? What is the evidence? The short answer is that there is so much it's hard to know where to start. But here is a very cursory summary of the evidence that life has, indeed, evolved.”
***
“Fossils are the remains of long-dead organisms, preserved in rock. Because rocks are laid down in layers, one on top of the other, the fossil record is generally set out in date order: the oldest fossils are at the bottom.
Running through the fossil record makes it clear that life has changed over time.
The oldest fossils of all are the remains of single-celled organisms like bacteria, with more complicated things like animals and plants only appearing much later. Among the animal fossils, fish appear much earlier than amphibians, birds or mammals. Our closest relatives the apes are only found in the shallowest – youngest – rocks.”
"I always think that the most convincing case for evolution is in the fossil record," says Jones. "It's noticeable that one page in every six in the Origin of Species is to do with the fossil record. [Darwin] knew that that was an irrefutable case that evolution had taken place."
***
"Richard Lenski of Michigan State University is in charge of the world's longest-running evolution experiment.
Since 1988, Lenski has been tracking 12 populations of Escherichia coli bacteria in his lab. The bacteria are left to their own devices in storage containers, with nutrients to feed on, and Lenski's team regularly freezes small samples.
The E. coli are no longer the same as they were in 1988. "In all 12 populations, the bacteria have evolved to grow much faster than did their ancestor," says Lenski. They have adapted to the specific mix of chemicals he gives them.
"It's a very direct demonstration of Darwin's idea of adaptation by natural selection. Now, 20-some years into the experiment, the typical lineage grows about 80% faster than did the ancestor."

AS sees no evidence. His mantra. The extent of his masters battle. The trap satan sets for fools who fall therein. And in their misery and loneliness, call for others to come in and join them.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.