Evolution? How?

Chumly wrote:

Hi Real Life,

Why is belief in the supernatural more convincing to you than evolution?

Hi Chumly,

To go back and help you 'catch up' in this long thread is tough, but let's see if I can recap my view:

There is no evidence that ONLY evolution will explain. (Neither creation nor evolution has been observed, so nearly all evidence that is interpreted as supporting one or the other will be largely circumstantial.)

There are a number of problems that evolution does not explain. (Many of these have been discussed in detail, lots of good pro and con views expressed by folks on both sides).

There is nothing to preclude the supernatural. (As one might expect, arguing that 'there is no empirical evidence of a non-corporeal Being' is little more than an absurdity.)

In my own experience, there is a lot to support it including answered prayer on many occasions (regarding things over which I had no control or influence).

0 Replies

real life wrote:
"...Neither creation nor evolution has been observed, ..."

This guy is really dense. Why people even bother to 'entertain' this ignoramous is the real question.

0 Replies

I feel so apathetic right now.

Perhaps this was the original plan of Creationists and IDers all along. Create so many dang debates on the subject, but refuse to acknowledge the evidence the other side gives.

This annoys the other side so much, they become apathetic and unwilling to debate.

With no opposition, they push their agenda through.

Fantastic. I'm leaving this topic. It's so damned circular and we get nowhere fast.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Hi Real Life,

Why is belief in the supernatural more convincing to you than evolution?
Hi Chumly,

To go back and help you 'catch up' in this long thread is tough, but let's see if I can recap my view:

There is no evidence that ONLY evolution will explain. (Neither creation nor evolution has been observed, so nearly all evidence that is interpreted as supporting one or the other will be largely circumstantial.)

There are a number of problems that evolution does not explain. (Many of these have been discussed in detail, lots of good pro and con views expressed by folks on both sides).

There is nothing to preclude the supernatural. (As one might expect, arguing that 'there is no empirical evidence of a non-corporeal Being' is little more than an absurdity.)

In my own experience, there is a lot to support it including answered prayer on many occasions (regarding things over which I had no control or influence).

Thanks, and yup it's way too long for me so I'll ask:

1) If "There is no evidence that ONLY evolution will explain" would you please list what else the evidence explains.

2) If "there is nothing to preclude the supernatural", on what basis do you include the supernatural?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why people even bother........

Because Real Life is representative of a consequential force in the world today, like it or not Idea

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

There is no evidence that ONLY evolution will explain. (Neither creation nor evolution has been observed, so nearly all evidence that is interpreted as supporting one or the other will be largely circumstantial.)

poppycock. Evidence is non supportive of Creation (This is why creationists try to find fault with the evidence). Creqtion cannot explain morphological similarities within the many divergent groups. Creation cannot explain the various vestigial features and the "many mistakes" in structural elements of organisms. No evidence supports the claims of how life appeared in clearly derivative clades.

Life follows the environments presented and no evidence supports ultra adaptation and extinction The only reasonable and objective conclusion from all the fossils and genetics regarding finely adapted organisms is evolution. Also Creation cannot explain extinction with any degree of sense. RL tries but is always left in a heap of qualifiers and myhthological occurences which , also, have left NO EVIDENCE. He posts an argument that is similar to the

"If we had bacon, we could have bacon and eggs, if we had eggs".

QUITE a circle of very weak and non-objective reasoning for Creationists to follow, so they are left with
1 Claiming that evidence is available to their side also
and then
2 They need to try to discredit the evidence because its so very strong in support of evolution

Think about it folks, when rl has to stoop to a level that says that a bunch of (admitted)Evangelical scientists "believe" in Creation or ID, and thats all hes got, I call that a deep pot of very wishful thinking.

0 Replies

This person is chasing his tail -- he might eventually turn into butter.

0 Replies

Nah, butter has substance.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

There is no evidence that ONLY evolution will explain.

Nonsense. Only evolution is supported by the entire body of evidence at hand. Certainly, there remain unanswered questions, but there exist no contraindications.

Quote:

(Neither creation nor evolution has been observed, so nearly all evidence that is interpreted as supporting one or the other will be largely circumstantial.)

A half-truth at best: evolution is unambiguously observed through the fossil record and current morphology, as well as in the laboratory. ID-iots deny this, posing the specious and wholly absurd objection that there is any functional difference between what they disingenuously, if not consciously, deviously, dishonestly term "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" - a weasle/waffle they came up with when it became impossible for them to deny evolution is observable and is being observed. Of course, the true part of rl's statement is that Creation never has been observed. That this is so, along with the reason it be so, is self evident.

Quote:

There are a number of problems that evolution does not explain. (Many of these have been discussed in detail, lots of good pro and con views expressed by folks on both sides).

More dishonesty - not even meriting the kinder designation of disingenuousness. There is no "problem" with evolution; once again, while not all answers are in, all answers so far derived serve only to confirm evolution, while nothing known contraindicates it.

Quote:

There is nothing to preclude the supernatural.

Granted, nothing precludes such. However, nothing indicates it, and much contraindicates it.

Quote:

(As one might expect, arguing that 'there is no empirical evidence of a non-corporeal Being' is little more than an absurdity.)

It may strike you as an absurdity, and in a way it may be considered one - semantically. However, it is fact - observable, confirmable fact, without contraindication.

Quote:

In my own experience, there is a lot to support it including answered prayer on many occasions (regarding things over which I had no control or influence).

Anecdotal ramblings are not evidence. Apart from that, any number of studies dispell the notion prayer has any statistically significant effect beyond that attributable to placebo.

I submit yet again that it cannot be demonstrated in objective, forensically valid manner that religious faith may be differentiated from superstition.

0 Replies

Thank you, Timber, I could not have stated it better myself. I just have an aversion to answering such ignorance -- logic and reason elude them.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

rl
Quote:
There is no evidence that ONLY evolution will explain. (Neither creation nor evolution has been observed, so nearly all evidence that is interpreted as supporting one or the other will be largely circumstantial.)

poppycock. Evidence is non supportive of Creation (This is why creationists try to find fault with the evidence).

The evidence is what it is, I think you have said. I agree.

It is not evidence that I find fault with. I differ with you on the inferences[/i] that may be drawn from that evidence.

The evidence , i.e. fossils, rocks, genetic characteristics of living organisms, etc does not 'belong' to either side.

Both creationists and evolutionists infer from the circumstantial evidence at hand. They interpret[/u] evidence to try to 'tell a story' what they think may have happened.

Wolf is somewhat correct when he stated that we do cover this ground often. But it seems necessary, so I don't mind repeating.

As often as I see 'creationists reject scientific evidence' , I would like to politely point out that it's not the evidence, folks. It's the conclusions that are inferred from it.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:

There is no evidence that ONLY evolution will explain.

Nonsense. Only evolution is supported by the entire body of evidence at hand.

Evidence can be interpreted many ways. In fact, evidence MUST be interpreted. Fossils, for instance, don't come with labels telling us when the critter lived, what it ate and how it reproduced.

See my post to Farmerman if you don't get it.

timberlandko wrote:

Certainly, there remain unanswered questions, but there exist no contraindications.

Name one thing that we see that an all powerful God could not have created. No contraindications here either.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Evidence can be interpreted many ways. In fact, evidence MUST be interpreted.

The exact same argument can be applied to chemistry and geology and physics and biology yet you make the claim that the "evidence" of chemistry and geology and physics and biology is science, but the "evidence" of evolution is not. You're very illogical here.

real life wrote:

Fossils, for instance, don't come with labels telling us when the critter lived, what it ate and how it reproduced.

Fossils actually do come with labels telling us when the critter lived, what it ate and how it reproduced! Chemistry and geology and physics and biology are the labels.

real life wrote:

Name one thing that we see that an all powerful God could not have created.

Just as illogical a challenge would be to say: "name me one thing that we see that an all powerful German Shepherd could not have created".

0 Replies

If this person ever had any kind of a science class, let along anthropology or cosmology, I'm wondering how his teachers treated him. I'd smack him up the side of the head and sit him in the corner with a dunce cap.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

If this person ever had any kind of a science class, let along anthropology or cosmology, I'm wondering how his teachers treated him. I'd smack him up the side of the head and sit him in the corner with a dunce cap.

That's why (hopefully) you'll never be a teacher.

How dare any student have the audacity to disagree with his teacher in your utopian school!

Actually there are places where that approach to education is favored. This just isn't one of them.

Students here are generally encouraged to think critically and make their own judgements.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
Evidence can be interpreted many ways. In fact, evidence MUST be interpreted.
The exact same argument can be applied to chemistry and geology and physics and biology yet you make the claim that the "evidence" of chemistry and geology and physics and biology is science, but the "evidence" of evolution is not. You're very illogical here.

It's very illogical for you to keep referring to evolution as if it were a branch of science.

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
Fossils, for instance, don't come with labels telling us when the critter lived, what it ate and how it reproduced.
Fossils actually do come with labels telling us when the critter lived, what it ate and how it reproduced! Chemistry and geology and physics and biology are the labels.

Again, a branch of science is not the 'evidence'. If you found a fossil, you would see evidence i.e. the condition the remains were in when found, the location, etc and you would use the principles of these various disciplines to draw conclusions as to what the critter ate, etc. The principles of these branches of science are the tools to help you understand the evidence. They are not the 'evidence' itself.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Think about it folks, when rl has to stoop to a level that says that a bunch of (admitted)Evangelical scientists "believe" in Creation or ID, and thats all hes got, I call that a deep pot of very wishful thinking.

I don't think that the scientists surveyed by the journal Nature[/i] or by the American Men and Women of Science were necessarily 'Evangelicals'. There is no indication what faith they may or may not have practiced. They could be Evangelical, Roman Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc

What makes you think they were 'admitted Evangelicals' ?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

It's very illogical for you to keep referring to evolution as if it were a branch of science.

Prove evolution is not science.

real life wrote:

Again, a branch of science is not the 'evidence'.

This makes no sense semantically, or logically.

real life wrote:

If you found a fossil, you would see evidence i.e. the condition the remains were in when found, the location, etc and you would use the principles of these various disciplines to draw conclusions as to what the critter ate, etc. The principles of these branches of science are the tools to help you understand the evidence. They are not the 'evidence' itself.

If what you say had a glimmer of logic, then DNA testing and forensic science would not be allowed as evidence in a court room.

Name me one thing that we see that an all powerful German Shepherd could not have created.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Also Creation cannot explain extinction with any degree of sense. RL tries but is always left in a heap of qualifiers and myhthological occurences which , also, have left NO EVIDENCE.

I am not sure what you can possibly referring to here. You have postulated far more extinction due to catastrophic events than I ever have.

farmerman wrote:

ros. Weve had 5 major calamities and maybe 10 or more (according to Wylie Poag ofthe USGS) minor ones where weve lost anywhere from 10 up to 90 % of the species that were around at the time.

farmerman wrote:

Raups book on "Extinction" makes one glad that one had properly chosen ones ancestoral species. In the grand cardgame 99.9999% of all animals that EVER lived are extinct species. Feelin lucky enough to play the powerball?

I can't hold a candle to your position on catastrophe and extinction.

0 Replies

Hi Real Life,

How do you suppose evidence is obtained if not scientifically? By magic perhaps?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know