|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
Thank you for admitting that your quasi-religious beliefs are based on faith and not on facts.
we do not need to prove anything
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
vimesey writes:
You can't prove that ToE describes the process that produced the changes evident in the fossil record, therefore you can't claim to know how evolution works.
We have tons of evidence - a gnat's whisker would outweigh yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
Prove it. You can't. All you can do it is recite Darwinist folklore and mindlessly claim it's factual.
we have the original land animal the whales evolved from: pakicetus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
I'm not arguing that there is a lack of evidence for evolution - I'm arguing that it's impossible to know what caused it. That's sad for you but science doesn't need what you insist on having to know that the middle ear evolved - we have the fossils to prove it. The article you linked doesn't explain what caused the evolution of the middle-ear ... because no one knows. Your article is just one more example of not knowing how evolution works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
kjsimons writes:
Dr. Bechly doesn't deny that evolution has happened ... he argues that ToE can't account for what is observed.
Not stupid but somewhere along in his life he became a looney! He now basically believes in an intelligent designer for some crazy reason. Many otherwise intelligent people can be total loons about some things and that's what's happened to this doctor. I feel sorry for him but nothing he says has any effect on the reality of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Prove that he's wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
nwr writes:
You don't seem to understand my argument. I'm not arguing that ToE is inadequate and I'm not trying to persuade anyone that it is. What's the point of arguing about this? If you doubt that ToE fully explains evolution, you are entitled to those doubts. But just repeating your doubts doesn't do anything. You won't persuade anybody that way. My argument is that no one can prove that ToE (or any other theory) describes the process that shaped the fossil record, therefore no one can claim to know how evolution works. Even if ToE is an accurate description of the process that shaped the history of life on earth, no one will ever know, because no one can prove that it is. Darwinists (like those on this site, for example) claim to know how evolution works, but they can't prove it, so it seems to me that they're seriously delusional or seriously brain-washed ... or worse.
Bechly isn't persuading the biologists, just as Behe isn't persuading the biologists.
No kidding? Bechly and Behe are not going to persuade all those rusted-on atheist biologists out there. On the contrary, all those rusted-on atheist biologists out there will be hostile to any suggestion of intelligent design in nature. "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” (Psalms 14:1)Edited by Dredge, . Edited by Dredge, . Edited by Dredge, . Edited by Dredge, . Edited by Dredge, . Edited by Dredge, . Edited by Dredge, . Edited by Dredge, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
vimesey writes:
Fine. If science can't prove that ToE describes the process responsible for producing the fossil record, then science can't claim to know how evolution works.
Once again Dredge, proof is not a concept that exists in science - only falsifiable hypotheses backed by evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
nwr writes:
If science can't prove that ToE describes the process responsible for producing the fossil record, then science can't claim to know how evolution works.
Science isn't about proof. Neither you nor Bechly nor Behe has a better explanation.
Irrelevant to my argument.
There are also many Christian biologists out there. "Atheist" has nothing to do with the issue.
"Nearly 95% of the biologists in the National Academy of Sciences describe themselves as atheists or agnostics, a far higher percentage than in any other scientific discipline." (Larry Witham,
Where Darwin Meets the Bible (2002), pp. 271-273) I'm not hostile to the idea that there is intelligent design in nature. But I am hostile to the stream of lies and bullshit coming from the intelligent design movement.
Translation: "the idea that there is intelligent design in nature" = "the stream of lies and bullshit coming from the intelligent design movement"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
Please stop repeating this stupid falsehood. You're making a fool of yourself. It's embarrassing to watch. We already know the evolutionary mechanisms that wrote the fossil record.Edited by Dredge, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
In that case, if science can't prove that ToE describes the process responsible for producing the fossil record, then science can't claim to know how evolution works.
Science is based on evidence and not on "proof".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
That is a grossly unfair and offensive comment. I said I have an IQ of 9 and that therefore I qualify as an idiot ... an idiot is not "mindless".
You have already admitted that you are unintelligent - i.e. that you are mindless.Why would you be the one who can distinguish fact from folklore?
That is an excellent question and I thank you for it. I will answer it by saying that sometimes even an idiot gets it right. As a matter of fact, all of my opinions and insights expressed on this site have been right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
What? I was referring to Bechly's argument, not mine.
That's not what you've been saying. Your claim is that we "can't know", not that we can't account for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
Firstly, too late ... it's pretty safe to assume that someone with an IQ of 9 is already stupid. As long as you keep talking about proof, you're just making yourself look stupid. Secondly, you don't want to talk about proof because you know full well that you can't prove that ToE describes the process that shaped the history of life on earth. Your mind doesn't want to venture outside it's safe and warm little bubble of Darwinist belief.Edited by Dredge, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
All you can know from fossils is that "evolution" happened. The fossils don't let you know HOW "evolution" happened. Grow up.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024