subjective science

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Give me one example of evidence for evolution that is not made by means of inference and then we can move along with the discussion.

Here is one example not based on inference:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/5577724/Moth-turns-from-black-to-white-as-Britains-polluted-skies-change-colour.html

But of course you will pull the micro V macro card, which is the usual creationist drool.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Would you say you are a 'creationist Christian' based solely on blind faith without a drop of 'evidence'?

Bump for Dive.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Here is one example not based on inference:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/5577724/Moth-turns-from-black-to-white-as-Britains-polluted-skies-change-colour.html

But of course you will pull the micro V macro card, which is the usual creationist drool.

Started off as a moth ended as a moth. There is ample evidence for variations within a kind and this doesn't contradict creation.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Would you say you are a 'creationist Christian' based solely on blind faith without a drop of 'evidence'?

Yes.

I'm not a "hard" creationist though. I accept it because it's part of the faith. I see evidence contradicting a young earth. I really don't know how it was done, how long it took or whatever, so I don't argue over it.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Yes.

I'm not a "hard" creationist though. I accept it because it's part of the faith. I see evidence contradicting a young earth. I really don't know how it was done, how long it took or whatever, so I don't argue over it.

Tell me honestly if you look at 'creation' do you see no evidence of design? Consider your body, why would it be absurd to see your body as evidence of design? Especially if you already claim to believe in creation.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Tell me honestly if you look at 'creation' do you see no evidence of design? Consider your body, why would it be absurd to see your body as evidence of design? Especially if you already claim to believe in creation.

You still haven't defined what you mean by "evidence". This is the whole problem with this thread and frankly your approach in these forums; you are totally convinced that your own opinion constitutes evidence, when if course it doesn't.

Originally posted by @divegeester
You still haven't defined what you mean by "evidence". This is the whole problem with this thread and frankly your approach in these forums; you are totally convinced that your own opinion constitutes evidence, when if course it doesn't.

By evidence I mean 'ground for belief'. What may constitute evidence for me might not constitute evidence for you, but it is something that provides grounds for our belief. If you believe in creation it means there must be some 'evidence' that grounds your belief in creation, else you have no grounds for believing in creation.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you believe in creation it means there must be some 'evidence' that grounds your belief in creation, else you have no grounds for believing in creation.

I've already answered thIs point. Are you reading my posts?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What may constitute evidence for me might not constitute evidence for you, but it is something that provides grounds for our belief.

Correct.

Especially as we only know that to you, evidence is something that gives 'you' a ground for your personal belief. Not "our" belief.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Tell me honestly if you look at 'creation' do you see no evidence of design? Consider your body, why would it be absurd to see your body as evidence of design? .

If
the body were evidence of design.
It would be evidence for a flawed and incompetent designer.

The human body is excellent evidence for evolution - not design.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Is it true that no scientist who is an atheist will stumble upon evidence for creation and neither will a scientist that believes in creation stumble upon evidence for evolution? The reason being you will only 'find' what you are looking for. So where is the objectivity? A scientist that presupposes evolution will look at the same evidence as a scientist that presupposes creation and they will reach different conclusions.

Theories are good when they predict.

I wanna say scientists are people, much like theists really. Totally stupid, unless they stick with a proven method. Do you have a guess about the method?

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
[b]If
the body were evidence of design.
It would be evidence for a flawed and incompetent designer.

The human body is excellent evidence for evolution - not design.[/b]

It would be evidence for a flawed and incompetent designer.

Isn't [edited] a non-optimal design still a design ?

Is a design upon which you think you can improve, not a design for that reason ?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Tell me honestly if you look at 'creation' do you see no evidence of design? Consider your body, why would it be absurd to see your body as evidence of design? Especially if you already claim to believe in creation.

Yes design seems obvious. I'm not stupid for noticing this, and you aren't either.

Tell me please, who designed the designer.

Originally posted by @apathist
Yes design seems obvious. I'm not stupid for noticing this, and you aren't either.

Tell me please, who designed the designer.

Tell me please, who designed the designer.

I believe that the cosmic buck ( so to speak) does stop somewhere.
You want to say there must be an infinite regress so that the designer of the designer of the designer of the designer ... ad infinitum, must be.

Other than a trick to try to avoid acknowledging a Supreme Being I don't know what this does for anyone.

Bill Craig on Who Designed the Designer?: a response to Richard Dawkins

YouTube