rosborne979 wrote:So, there are religionists with strong arguments?neologist wrote:Vociferous defenders of this hypothesis seem very much akin to the typical religionist.
Only "religionists" with weak arguments say that.
I've never known a religionist to have a strong argument which disputes the theory of evolution. You're just playing idiotic word games now.
neologist wrote:Nice dodge.rosborne979 wrote:So, there are religionists with strong arguments?neologist wrote:Only "religionists" with weak arguments say that.Vociferous defenders of this hypothesis seem very much akin to the typical religionist.
It's not an hypothesis, despite your preferences. It's a theory, and you're playing another word game. Theory has a specific meaning in science, and you're attempting a dodge, as Roswell points out.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.
Macro Evolution- more difficult to grasp and impossible to replicate.
. . . I assure you that science and scientists are indifferent to your disagreement.
Still, there are many who aver evolution to be fully established fact.
. . . 1 That The earth is very old--Every time they try to shoot this one, they shoot themselves in the foot. Their arguments now rely upon a total arbitrariness in the lengthof a second or the speed of light. Thus giving them an out for a young earth.
2 That Species arent evolutionarily related-genetics shows quite the contrary and also shows how closely genomes reside among species and how minimal genetic changes affetc phenotypes of organisms.
. . . A biblical account of the history of the earth and a Creation event is, after all evidence free. Supporting such a worldview based on a total lack of evidence is bad science
Certainly not, especially as their opinions are based on sound, abundant evidence, and your opinion is based on wishing and hoping.
What I know is few people have even the slightest idea of what the Bible actually says.
I agree that we're dealing with invincible ignorance. However, it is worth pointing out. You sure gotta give that flood joker credit for persistence . . . i guess . . .