Yes, the creationist has no idea how wonderful it all is, cause he thinks it was all simply magic-ed into place.
Eorl wrote:real life, there are two possibilities being offered here....evolution or magic.
For evolution there are vast amounts of evidence.
For magic there is no evidence, but then none is required, is it?
There are two types of people in this people. Those who base their opinions on logic and reasoning and facts, and those who still believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.
One evening, old Herb suffers a stroke. He's rushed to the hospital, given the best of care, but after heroic effort, the doctors are forced to accept there's no more they can do for poor old Herb.
Steeling himself for the task, the lead neurosurgeon sets his shoulders, walks to the waiting room, and stands somberly before Herb's distraught wife. "I'm so very sorry", says the saddened surgeon, "but we've done all we can, and to be honest with you, though Herb's pulse and respiration are strong, I'm afraid he's brain dead"
"Braindead!?!" exclaims Herb's spouse. "You mean to say he's become a Christian?"
RexRed's belief in living rocks has more substance (pun) than evidence or argument for creationism, because although both are superstitions, rocks actually exist, which is far more than can be said for any evidence or argument for creationism.
Chumly wrote:RexRed's belief in living rocks has more substance (pun) than evidence or argument for creationism, because although both are superstitions, rocks actually exist, which is far more than can be said for any evidence or argument for creationism.
But it's still completely insane.
Chumly,
Yes, but sacrificial cults/sects (e.g. Aztec sun worship) are
The worship of physical personifications as opposed to noncorporeal personifications is not linked to "sacrificial cults/sects". Both types of religious beliefs may have "sacrificial cults/sects" or may not have "sacrificial cults/sects".
It's a common fallacy to claim that religions tied to the worship of physical personifications must equal "sacrificial cults/sects" any more than religions tied to worshiping noncorporeal personifications.
There is no evidence to support this claim, despite pronouncements to the contrary from some religious groups such as some Christians.
Well this section is labelled "debate".
Maybe you should make a thread about which religions are superior to others?
Yes Ma'am Miss Taskmaster Ma'am!
Jeese I'd have hoped that you'd figured out that I am a guy by now.
You can't say much Mr "define everything in the most precise way possible and then give 5 pages of evidence to back up your highly dubious claim"
Can you confirm fossilized Milk-Bones?
real life wrote:rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:Nearly all of the evolutionary support comes from circumstantial evidence, and inference drawn from it.
So what?
The vast array of physical evidence in the Earth is
interpreted by many to mean that evolution is the means by which microbes changed to Man, with a few detours along the way.
The physical evidence can also be interpreted to mean that evolution is
not taking place and did not ever necessarily take place.
In other words, there is
nothing that only an evolutionary interpretation explains. This is self evident.
Then specify any theory which fits the evidence better than evolution and doesn't involve the supernatural.
Or are you simply saying, "*Something* happened, you don't know what it was, but it wasn't evolution and it wasn't supernatural".
tell ya what Im gonna do? Look for the shortest thread ever.
rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:Nearly all of the evolutionary support comes from circumstantial evidence, and inference drawn from it.
So what?
The vast array of physical evidence in the Earth is
interpreted by many to mean that evolution is the means by which microbes changed to Man, with a few detours along the way.
The physical evidence can also be interpreted to mean that evolution is
not taking place and did not ever necessarily take place.
In other words, there is
nothing that only an evolutionary interpretation explains. This is self evident.
Then specify any theory which fits the evidence better than evolution and doesn't involve the supernatural.
Or are you simply saying, "*Something* happened, you don't know what it was, but it wasn't evolution and it wasn't supernatural".
Your assumption of naturalism is a belief.
So you're saying 'my belief (naturalism) is better than your belief (supernaturalism)'.
Is there any naturalistic basis for a belief?
real life wrote:Your assumption of naturalism is a belief.
I know.
real life wrote:So you're saying 'my belief (naturalism) is better than your belief (supernaturalism)'.
Not at all. They are both beliefs, equally unsupportable. Mere assumptions.
Science is based on naturalism. Evolution is based on science. Within the realm of science, evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be a fact.
It's clear from you statements above that you believe in the supernatural and credit magic as the cause of all evidence. That's fine, but it's not science.
You can't poke at evolution with a supernatural stick. That's just stupid.
A significant difference between a "belief" in naturalism and a belief in "supernaturlism" is the highly successful predicitve capacity of naturalism.
Invoking the supernatural is only predictive through the poofish expedient of an argument from silence, to the effect that "god moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform."
The basic thesis, though, which the member "real life" and those of like mind rely upon is that if one cannot "prove" to the satisfaction of the Poofists that a theory of evolution can explain everything in the cosmos (including celestical mechanics and cosmic origins, with which a theory of evolution is not concerned)--then the Poofists get to claim that their case for a deity is proven. It is understandable, as such dichotomous views are at the heart of all theology.
