Evidence for Evolution

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I didn't say you specifically claimed that. But some people do.

Yes, they do.
What do you think of what I wrote about the "perfect" thing?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

"The spiritual apprehension of divine truths, or of realities beyond the reach of sensible experience or logical proof."

Interesting - in what sense do they mean "sensible"? In the sense of discernable by our senses?

[Count Comfect]

Yes. Not "common sense," but the 5 senses.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Rohirrim, what is your definition of faith? The theological definition, which should be applied to a question of whether evolution is a religion, from the OED includes
"The spiritual apprehension of divine truths, or of realities beyond the reach of sensible experience or logical proof."
Which evolution directly rejects. The reach of sensible experience or logical proof is the very basis of science, and of evolutionary theory.

I agreen that observation, logic, and sensible experience are the basis of science, BUT they are obviously not the basis of evolution, or creation for that matter. Both creation and evolution mean believing in something that has never been observed by anyone, and cannot be tested and retested for confirmation.

[Count Comfect]

You're missing "logic," which is the key part of the evolutionary theory missing from other theories. That, and the many examples that have been called on as early as Darwin of human selection of farm animals causing 'unnatural' selection (plus observation of fossils) which serve as "sensible experience."

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

I agreen that observation, logic, and sensible experience are the basis of science, BUT they are obviously not the basis of evolution, or creation for that matter. Both creation and evolution mean believing in something that has never been observed by anyone, and cannot be tested and retested for confirmation.

So how come there are shed loads of papers in the scientific literature based on evolution and none on creationism?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

Both creation and evolution mean believing in something that has never been observed by anyone, and cannot be tested and retested for confirmation.

Why is it you continually insist on ignoring all the citiations made here showing clear evidence? Showing observation? Showing a myriad of real time examples of evolution? Do you think ignoring them makes them go away?

[Spock]

**Opinions are individual and cannot be changed unless the holder of same wishes it so***

Keep this civil.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

you have to possess the same degree of faith to believe in the idea of evolution. Really evolution and creation both belong in a religion thread, because when it comes down to it they both depend on faith.

what i'm trying to explain has nothing to do with what you choose to "believe"

i'm trying to illustrate that the practice we call "science" attempts to explain the world in terms of the observable

to put it another way, one can certainly believe god created the big bang, or created life on earth... science says, "okay, but could it have happened without god?" and proceeds to theorize

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

what i'm trying to explain has nothing to do with what you choose to "believe"

i'm trying to illustrate that the practice we call "science" attempts to explain the world in terms of the observable

Thats what iv'e been trying to say as well. Since there is no way to observe our origins science cannot help us, erego evolution and creation are based on faith.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

to put it another way, one can certainly believe god created the big bang, or created life on earth... science says, "okay, but could it have happened without god?" and proceeds to theorize

that isn't science theorizing that is humans trying to figure out how to get God out of the picture, so that they can do whatever they want and not feel guilty or be condemmed for anything because "they are only evolved animals".

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

So how come there are shed loads of papers in the scientific literature based on evolution and none on creationism?

would you like some links to creation reasearch and evidences? because i can put many up here for you but i doubt you would read them

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Why is it you continually insist on ignoring all the citiations made here showing clear evidence? Showing observation? Showing a myriad of real time examples of evolution? Do you think ignoring them makes them go away?

what clear evidence? the moth thing?? I haven't ignored anything, in fact i've been very open minded i just don't happen to find that any of your evidence is conclusive or even accurate.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

Thats what iv'e been trying to say as well. Since there is no way to observe our origins science cannot help us, erego evolution and creation are based on faith.

it's not about observing origins... it's about identifying processes and projecting them into the past... evoultion is observable on a small scale, creation is not

faith is the acceptance that something is true... science is about developing ideas that might be true... there is a huge difference between the two

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

that isn't science theorizing that is humans trying to figure out how to get God out of the picture, so that they can do whatever they want and not feel guilty or be condemmed for anything because "they are only evolved animals".

i really don't think that kind of "conspiracy theory" is going on... and as discussed in other threads... agnostics can still be perfectly moral people... we feel guilty because we have to live with the consequences... not because of what might happen when we die

[rohirrim TR]

i'm not saying all agnostics are bad, I know for a fact that many are good people by human standards,, But the origin of evolution is based in humanism and its main goal is to rationalize God away until he no longer effects anyone or anything.

BTW this is my 500th post!!! i'll have to get my custom title soon

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

i'm not saying all agnostics are bad, I know for a fact that many are good people by human standards

"Many are good people by human standards?" Gee, that's awfully generous of you! I'm agnostic - do you think I am a good person by human standards; that is, what you know of me by all our entmoot interactions? Wait - I don't need to be in this thread; what am I DOING here?! Carry on, gentlemen. I just coudn't resist a response to your statement there, rohirrim TR. Having a kinda cynical day.

[rohirrim TR]

well by human standards you can be a great person, but God's standard is perfect as in no sin, not even a thought of a sin. and no person i know is perfect no matter how great a person they are, they cannot reach God's perfect standard and because of that, the humanist agenda would like to deny the existence of God and evolution has become on of their tools.

[Lotesse]

You and Lief oughtta get together and go bowling.

[rohirrim TR]

what?? i don't get it

[Lotesse]

It's just that sometimes you remind me a lot of another fellow mooter, named Lief. It's all good!
Here, check it out you guys:

[rohirrim TR]

i have been trying to point for a long time now that both creation and evolution are unscientific i'm not sayin that creation is science if you read back in this thread i say exactly the opposite, i've been tryin to point out that evolutionist making fun of creationist on the grounds of creation being religion and evolution science is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black, and for the last time neither are scientific, geez!. i need a root beer and i'm out now i think i'll go vent.