Evolution and God

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
No siree! Fairies are among the things i don't belive in. Other things I disbelieve include the bogus deity the redneck god-botherers keep harping on about

I afraid you must believe in the fairy that lit the match to ignite the big bang😉

Originally posted by 667joe
You clearly don't know the definition of theory as used in science. A theory is an idea supported by all known observations and experiments subject to change if new observations and experiments provide contrary information. So far, no verifiable experiments have contradicted the theory of evolution.

I am perfectly aware of what the word 'theory' means. Why are you talking about theories in response to the post of mine that you quoted? I did not once refer to theories in that post.

Originally posted by 667joe
subject to change if new observations and experiments provide contrary information.

That's ToE: "subject to change". You can not disprove it. It is not falsifiable - therefore as a theory it is not good science.

And worse is the underlying religious philosophy - Naturalism - that has be adopted on faith my most of the believers in ToE.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Shame. Back to the ol tac-tick of blabbering insluts if you cannot refute the argument... 😴

Yes, yes...almost as bad as asking open-ended, ambiguous, disingenuous, and very near rhetorical "questions"...and then running off after yet another plungering.

Originally posted by Coletti
That's ToE: "subject to change". You can not disprove it. It is not falsifiable - therefore as a theory it is not good science.

And worse is the underlying religious philosophy - Naturalism - that has be adopted on faith my most of the believers in ToE.

Are you saying that observed speciation is simply faith-based? in homage to dj2

Originally posted by David C
Are you saying that observed speciation is simply faith-based? in homage to dj2

What speciation? What observation? Fruit flies? Real speciation - the kind that ToE asserts - takes tens of thousands of years according to ToE. You think we evolved from monkeys overnight?

If you believe in that kind of large scale MacToE speciation - then you do so on belief - not observation.

Originally posted by Coletti
What speciation? What observation? Fruit flies? Real speciation - the kind that ToE asserts - takes tens of thousands of years according to ToE. You think we evolved from monkeys overnight?

If you believe in that kind of large scale MacToE speciation - then you do so on belief - not observation.

Nobody's saying that we evolved from monkies, Col. You know that by now. This statement betrays that you buy into the same propaganda tracks as Arby Hill, dj2, and Darfius.

Originally posted by telerion
Nobody's saying that we evolved from monkies, Col. You know that by now. This statement betrays that you buy into the same propaganda tracks as Arby Hill, dj2, and Darfius.

That's right. We evolved from fish, or birds, or.... it does not matter. The evolution that is taught in schools to kids is man evolved from something suspiciously like a monkey or gorilla or chimp - WHATEVER. Address my post - your red herring is a flop.

Originally posted by telerion
Nobody's saying that we evolved from monkies, Col. You know that by now. This statement betrays that you buy into the same propaganda tracks as Arby Hill, dj2, and Darfius.

Nobody's saying that we evolved from monkies

Was it then a chemical soup?

You know that by now. This statement betrays that you buy into the same propaganda tracks as Arby Hill, dj2, and Darfius.

What propaganda?

Originally posted by Coletti
That's right. We evolved from fish, or birds, or.... it does not matter. The evolution that is taught in schools to kids is man evolved from something suspiciously like a monkey or gorilla or chimp - WHATEVER. Address my post - your red herring is a flop.

It's not a red herring. It's a correction. Take it graciously Col.

I have no desire to go round and round with you. You always take up an insincere position when faced with empirical evidence, namely that we cannot know anything. Naturally, you do not really believe this, but rather use it solely as a rhetorical tactic. I find such child play dull.

I actually have real intellectual pursuits. What I do here is a hobby.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Nobody's saying that we evolved from monkies

Was it then a chemical soup?

You know that by now. This statement betrays that you buy into the same propaganda tracks as Arby Hill, dj2, and Darfius.

What propaganda?[/b]

Not chemical soup. If you can't accept evolution because it lacks a foundation, then you can't accept any other scientific theory for the same reason. Gravity, germs, atoms, they all fall prey to the same criticism. Now you can deny all these things if you wish. All I can do is pity you. I know what you have, and it is cheap.

Edit: Oh, yes, propaganda. Well, did you look at that beautiful placemat your hero 'Dr.' Hovind created?

Originally posted by telerion
Not chemical soup. If you can't accept evolution because it lacks a foundation, then you can't accept any other scientific theory for the same reason. Gravity, germs, atoms, they all fall prey to the same criticism. Now you can deny all these things if you wish. All I can do is pity you. I know what you have, and it is cheap.

Edit: Oh, yes, propaganda. Well, did you look at that beautiful placemat your hero 'Dr.' Hovind created?

Well at least you agree that your belief in evolution is based on faith. The same type of faith that makes me believe in God. I believe in the beginnig was God and you believe in the beginning was dirt. At least I know that my God is real. Go ahead and worship the dirt.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Well at least you agree that your belief in evolution is based on faith. The same type of faith that makes me believe in God. I believe in the beginnig was God and you believe in the beginning was dirt. At least I know that my God is real. Go ahead and worship the dirt.

That really is stupid. Even you should know enough by now to see that you have grossly misrepresented my position. Don't you ever feel ashamed of your insincerity? If not on a personal intellectual level, at least as xtian?

Originally posted by telerion
That really is stupid. Even you should know enough by now to see that you have grossly misrepresented my position. Don't you ever feel ashamed of your insincerity? If not on a personal intellectual level, at least as xtian?

He has no shame.

Originally posted by Coletti
That's ToE: "subject to change". You can not disprove it. It is not falsifiable - therefore as a theory it is not good science.

And worse is the underlying religious philosophy - Naturalism - that has be adopted on faith my most of the believers in ToE.

All scientific theories are subject to change with new data. You continue to show an appalling ignorance of the scientific method when you say nonsense like "a theory is not good science" if it is subject to change.

Surprisingly enough, most of the natural sciences look for natural explanations for natural data. To you religious nuts, that is Naturalism; to most of us, that is Sanity.