The Gap

Theists deny evolution because of (in their minds) gaps in the fossil record. What about the one very large gap that there is no tangible proof whatever that god exists?

Originally posted by 667joe
Theists deny evolution because of (in their minds) gaps in the fossil record. What about the one very large gap that there is no tangible proof whatever that god exists?

It wouldn't matter in the slightest if Homo Habilis walked into the room when a time machine was invented, they would still deny evolution.

That big god gap is another story. Cognitive dissonance guarantees most of those who believe in theism would rather have body parts removed rather than give up their illusions.

the gap is their biggest argument, constantly filling god into every gap. the trouble with this is that their god is constantly shrinking.

Originally posted by 667joe
Theists deny evolution because of (in their minds) gaps in the fossil record. What about the one very large gap that there is no tangible proof whatever that god exists?

Its not about gaps.............there is no evidence only similarities.

Because of similarities they fabricate the story of evolution.

They have no idea how the first living cells came to be.

They have no idea how the universe came to be.

And with this cluelessness they fabricate the story of evolution.

They do this because they are dishonest and do not perform honest science but biased science.

Biased science already has an agenda to fill before they even perform the experiments.

The book.....Forbidden Archaeology....... explains all this.

But it is a book for honest persons only.

But, however much evidence there is or is not for evolution, there is much less evidence for god.

Originally posted by 667joe
But, however much evidence there is or is not for evolution, there is much less evidence for god.

If the miracle called life and the immense cosmos with its complex physical properties is not evidence of God then you are lost to foolishness.

[b]Its not about gaps.............there is no evidence only similarities.

Because of similarities they fabricate the story of evolution.

They have no idea how the first living cells came to be.

They have no idea how the universe came to be.

they don't make the claim of knowing. they do however postulate possibilities based on logic and physics and mathematics.

And with this cluelessness they fabricate the story of evolution.

wrong. evolution theory is based on observable phenomenon. if you can come up with a better explanation that fits all the criteria, be sure to have your thesis published.

They do this because they are dishonest and do not perform honest science but biased science.

this is absurd. dishonest would have been if they falsely claimed absolute knowledge of something without evidence like... you do.

The book.....Forbidden Archaeology....... explains all this.

talk about having an agenda... you reject science books unless they're written by hindu creationists of vedic traditions.

to think, an archeologist telling biologists whats what in their field. their book is interesting fiction anyways. if you like reading page after page of useless datum and keeping in mind that the author doesn't know much about biology and is not qualified to discuss evolution in any way.

Originally posted by Dasa
If the miracle called life and the immense cosmos with its complex physical properties is not evidence of God then you are lost to foolishness.

why would life, an immense cosmos and complex physical properties be evidence of god?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
why would life, an immense cosmos and complex physical properties be evidence of god?

If you have to ask that question then you are not qualified to ask that question.

To become qualified you must reach down into your very being and muster up all the honesty you can find...............then if you are successful in doing that you are know qualified.

Not before.

Originally posted by 667joe
Theists deny evolution because of (in their minds) gaps in the fossil record.

Not true at all. Some theists (a minority) deny evolution because they believe it contradicts their religion. They then find any excuse they can to deny evolution because they do not think that "it contradicts my faith" is good enough. It is not just you they are trying to convince but themselves. Whatever criticisms of evolution they pick, if you explain it to them, they will either stubbornly refuse to understand you, or just pick another criticism.
What I find interesting, is that although they will almost invariably admit that their main reason for not accepting it is that it contradicts their faith, I have never met a theist who is willing to say "yes it is a valid possibility and it could have happened that way given the evidence, but it didn't (because of my faith)". They invariably cling to the claim that there is some logical or scientific reason for rejecting it as being possible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not true at all. Some theists (a minority) deny evolution because they believe it contradicts their religion. They then find any excuse they can to deny evolution because they do not think that "it contradicts my faith" is good enough. It is not just you they are trying to convince but themselves. Whatever criticisms of evolution they pick, if you explain e claim that there is some logical or scientific reason for rejecting it as being possible.

There is no evidence.............. and any thing that resembles evidence are just simply similarities.

Similarities are not evidence.

Science cannot have no clue of how life began and then tell us how it continued.

The Vedas which are the authority do not support evolution.

You cannot whimsically go against the authority.

If you go against the authority then that is dishonest and not science at all.

The principles of flight for a bird is impossible to come about by random chance through evolution and to say it does is dishonest.

The only way to have evolution seem possible is to present dishonest assumptions.

Originally posted by Dasa
If the miracle called life and the immense cosmos with its complex physical properties is not evidence of God then you are lost to foolishness.

If the concept of circular reasoning eludes you, then you are not qualified to speak on the subject, or to criticise others.

Originally posted by Dasa
If you have to ask that question then you are not qualified to ask that question.

To become qualified you must reach down into your very being and muster up all the honesty you can find...............then if you are successful in doing that you are know qualified.

Not before.

what a cop-out. i will have to conclude that you are making baseless assertions until you can demonstrate without reasonable doubt that life, an immense cosmos and complex properties are indicative of a god.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
what a cop-out. i will have to conclude that you are making baseless assertions until you can demonstrate without reasonable doubt that life, an immense cosmos and complex properties are indicative of a god.

They certainly don't come about by and explosion.

Do this scientific experiment please.

Go into your laboratory and set of an explosion and see what happens.

If you don't get conscious life appearing and everything else then do the experiment again.

If you like perform the experiment one million times.

When you have anything at all coming form your explosions........let me know.

This is my proof.

Originally posted by Dasa
If you have to ask that question then you are not qualified to ask that question

This is a convenient fall-back position you employ too often; usually of course when you have no idea how to answer the question.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me the name of your God; apparently I am "unqualified" to ask such a question also!